Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 27

Qur'an and science
A bad article, mainly OR, at least one dodgy source, criticism removed today. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard Milton (author)
Article on WP:FRINGE-advocating journalist, sourced almost entirely to his own work. May or may not be notable (Richard Dawkins reviews one of his books, but refers to him as an "unknown journalist"). If notable, needs a lot of work, if not, then I'll AfD it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be too little information available about him to justify and article and it should be deleted. TFD (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please also delete:


 * J. Francis Hitching
 * Gordon Rattray Taylor
 * Michael Pitman

No sources for any of them. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is NOT the "unsourced" board, or the Requests for Deletion board. Please follow proper deletion procedure, Liveintheforests. Do not spam this board with WP:POINT violating posts. Remember that if you push this far enough, you may be blocked for disruption. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As you can see, he's done that. After referencing at least one of those and then removing the references ending up with a reason for the AfD being lack of references. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles are not going to be deleted. I have added references for all of them. Let's hope Hrafn doesn't continue his vandalism. Liveintheforests (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Liveintheforests, you've been told this before and I'll give you another chance to absorb it. It is long past time for you to STOP accusing other editors of vandalism simply for disagreeing with you. Since you haven't understood what the word means on Wikipedia yet, I'll direct you to WP:VAN so you can read up on it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Avro Manhattan
Anti-Vatican polemicist whose article could use some balance: it reads "reasonable critic" where from what I can tell he maps out more to "fevered anti-Papist". Considering how difficult it is turning out to be to find third-party references outside the anti-Catholic world, there may also be notability problems here. I could use help researching this. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New AFDs from Liveintheforests - taken to ANI as possibly pointy
See WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He ended up blocked for a week. His edits may need reviewing. He described a review of a book by Richard Milton as a positive review. Luckily I was able to find it on the web, and it says Milton needs to read up on his geology and biology, see (he also takes the reviewer's mention of 2 other books and calls the 3 a series on that basis, but that's not as heinous). I'd appreciate it if someone would check to see if my rewrite is fair to the source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Finnic mythologies&Finnic peoples
states among other things

The source is used in the article about Finnic mythologies and (also Finnic peoples), yet, there's an editor at Talk:Finnic_mythologies who insists the whole subject is WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. Please comment. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The questions have been already addressed @ WP:RSN.--Termer (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW The leading Hungarian publisher Akadémiai Kiadó has a series of scholarly books on "Uralic mythologies." --Folantin (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Dendera light -- and Reddi
This has had a section on the fringe interpretation of these stone reliefs (which is that they show electricity) with the section heading 'PseudoEgyptology' which Reddi has changed to 'Interpretation'. I think this might be confusing, as the Egyptologists' interpretation is of course something quite different. Maybe I'm just being picky, but I think the section header should make it clearer that it's a fringe interpretation. Of course, the title itself is a fringe name for ordinary reliefs. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes the title of the article is already about the fringe interpretation, which is really the only thing that makes the relief notable. I've laid out the interpretation in the lede. Perhaps the conventional interpretation could be expanded more. Paul B (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know if I can do that, I'll ask. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camarillo_State_Mental_Hospital
There are many problems with the page on the Camarillo Mental Hospital. It appears that it has been written by a blogger who created a website on the psychiatric hospital that spreads false tumors and unaccurate truths. The hospital has been under scrutinity since its opening in 1936 and media coverage focused mainly on the Grand Jury trials which investigated suspicious deaths at Camarillo hospital. Since its transformation into Channel Island University, what was left of the hospital is pictured on websites that claim that the former hospital was a place of suffering and that therefore the place where it used to stand is now haunted.

Please remove / do not edit any pages on the Camarillo Mental Hospital that do not quote articles published in books published by experts in the field. Kirsten Anderberg's website quoted on the wiki page about Camarillo is not a reliable source of information written on the hospital. Everyone writing on Camarillo Mental Hospital knows that her self-published book (Kindle) is a series of loosely documented portraits of women that she believed were patients there. Most of them were dangerous criminals who were committed to prevent them from murdering more poeple. This article is historically inaccurate because it has been written by someone well-known from real historians, a disturbed women who believes she must avenge the many victims she identifies with. For a more balanced and precise timeline, refer to the http://www.library.csuci.edu/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.140.241 (talk • contribs)


 * This is a difficult situation, and I am unsure what is the best course of action here. On the one hand, the old version of the article appears to be sourced mainly to a self-published source, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It does, however, contain references to LA Times articles, which would likely be reliable sources if they back up the information in the text. On the other hand, the text which you have copied and pasted into the articles, 82.123, is directly from the document "A Brief History" on the CSUCI page, which says, right there on the page "THE MATERIALS LOCATED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE COPYRIGHTED. THEY ARE INTENDED FOR CI EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ANY USER WHO REPRODUCES THEM IN ANY WAY, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES WILL BE SUBJECT TO LAWFUL PROSECUTION." I really fail to see what about that statement is unclear. In addition to the university's prohibition, Wikipedia cannot accept material copyrighted to others without appropriate permission from the copyright owner. I would be inclined to revert to an older version of the article without either of these additions. -- Kateshortforbob talk  14:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've reverted to a version prior to both these problematic additions. Eyes would be welcome to see if this was the correct move. -- Kateshortforbob talk  14:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Texe Marrs
Poorly sourced, appallingly formatted, out-on-the-edge-WP:FRINGE, and the 'John Hagee' section almost certainly has severe WP:BLP issues -- I'm fairly sure that you need a better source than 'Power of Prophecy Radio program' for saying that somebody "may be possessed by Satan". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reichian therapy and associated articles
Just came across a whole heap of associated articles of questionable scientific basis: It was the laast article that drew my attention to them. Whilst I have the impression that Reichian therapy is considered WP:FRINGE, there is little in these (and probably other, related) articles to indicate this. However, this is outside my area of expertise, so I can offer no more than the odd tag on the subject. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fritz Springmeier
Article's a mess, from formatting to content. Someone's added a pov notice today to it. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Raised at WP:BLPN as it's a real mess and we need to sort out any BLP issues in it. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tritype
Tritype seems to be a subcategory of the fringe theory Enneagram of Personality. One SPA editor is pushing "Katherine Chernick Fauvre's" explanation of the Enneagram with a standalone article, removing a PROD at one point, and later an Orphan tag. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor with a bone to pick
Please revert this pseudophysicist promoter on sight:



140.252.83.232 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is his second account:



140.252.83.232 (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Levels of consciousness
I just came upon this article. I believe it has a substantial amount of useful content but needs a different title, and would appreciate if others would comment; see Talk:Levels of consciousness. Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak
People are adding all kinds of Original Research to 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak. Some of the how-to advice is dangerous to the public health. Please watchlist it! Speciate (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Alchemy
Is the above section in the Alchemy article appropriate/appropriately sourced? There have been some issues with content in the past. Active Banana    (bananaphone  05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly no. I've been arguing for reliability of sources for a while. Same type of thing (fringe theory, bad sources) is being adding all over alchemy related articles, especially also in the intro paragraph. There is now 1 proper academic peer-reviewed source to support 1 statement in that section, but since the page that is referenced is not shown on Google Books, I am unable to check whether the source supports the statement. I feel the spiritual interpretation (which is academically argued against) is receiving too much weight across all alchemy articles.
 * Is is possible to introduce a special policy on all Alchemy categorized articles so that only academic, peer-reviewed sources, or primary sources with no interpretation of any kind, are allowed? And all statements, no matter how much the editor believes them to be true, must have an academic peer-reviewed source? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the quality of the sources, I think there is no reasonable doubt among historians of chemistry that it started with alchemy, and that alchemy had protoscientific aspects. What I consider more problematic is that we have separate articles alchemy and history of alchemy. That's always as if alchemy were also a modern practice, but it isn't, or at least to the extent that it is it is very much fringe even in the context of the narrow topic of alchemy. Hans Adler 10:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is certain that chemistry started with alchemy. The original chemists of the scientific revolution were also alchemists and their own writings show and speak directly concerning the transition from alchemy to chemistry (specifically The Skeptical Chymist.) The name change was chosen so as to demonstrate a change in scientific method but the principles were only migrated, except with an exclusion of the unprovable aspects (the existence of the theoretical Philosopher's Stone.) The modern practice is spiritual and according to academic peer-reviewed sources (see History of Alchemy) arose in the 19th century from the occult revival, being totally unrelated to alchemy historically. Numerous alchemical texts were adulterated during this time to make them sound more spiritual.
 * Currently, the History section of the Alchemy is a copy of a few paragraphs from History of Alchemy. I support merging History of Alchemy into Alchemy. I support minimizing the "spiritual" interpretation, or restricting it to a separate article. Problem is that I get attacked every time I try to minimize it. There is one particular user who frequently edits who is dedicated to getting the spiritual interpretation on equal standing with the historical and academic view. Any attempt of mine to downplay the spiritual aspect, or mark it as only a fringe interpretation instead of fact, is reverted. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also support the merger. But I must note that Will Timony is himself trying to push an agenda. Of course it is possible to push an agenda purely based on citing academic peer-reviewed sources. This is known as cherry-picking. And it is the only way to push an agenda that is even worthy of comment on Wikipedia, all others are just a reason to rollback.
 * So, one editor pushing the "proto-scientific" angle of alchemy and another pushing its "spiritual" (occult, magical) side, both basing their opinions on WP:RS, would be the ideal scenario for improvement of our coverage. If, for some reason, only one side is able to cite proper references and the other side is either neglected completely, or represented only by sub-standard contributions, the article will end up biased. Of course alchemy is a proto-science, and of course it has "spiritual" or occult aspects. Exactly the same is true of astrology. It is also true that there have been 19th century revivals of alchemy in occultism. Highly dubious, otoh, is the claim that this "modern alchemy" is "totally unrelated to alchemy historically". But this is not only dubious, it is also irrelevant. What should be discussed is not the "spiritual aspects" of  "modern alchemy" at all, but rather the occult or mythological aspects of historical alchemy.
 * Will Timony complains that "any attempt of mine to downplay the spiritual aspect is reverted". That's as it should be. You aren't to "downplay" things, you are to present them in proper topical arrangement. A section on the proto-scientific aspects of alchemy can stand alongside a section on its spiritual qualities, no problem. These aren't two things that need to be balanced against each other, they are basically orthogonal. If you remove a false or unreferenced statement, you are not "downplaying" anything. But if you cherry-pick your references to distract from the central importance of magical thinking or mythology in historical alchemy, you are in fact damaging the article.
 * It is a well-known trope that Isaac Newton was both the first scientist and the last magician. Of course he was neither. But the truth expressed in this trope is that he was sitting exactly on the fence between Renaissance magic and modern science. Anyone before Newton could not have divided their work in magic vs. science because the distinction between the two wasn't even known, or meaningful. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats on insulting me without understanding what I was saying. I was at no point trying to downplay the historically recorded spiritual aspects of alchemy. I neither said that nor have I been editing in that manner. I said the spiritual interpretation. I am arguing against statements that are being made on the alchemy articles that "alchemy is a spiritual discipline" exclusively. My agenda is to improve this article so that it actually has verifiable historical and academically valid information, and is not just another new age web page, as there are plenty of already.
 * Alchemy is both a protoscience and a mystical philosophy connected to religion and spirituality, especially gnosticism. There are plenty of academic peer-reviewed sources that support this, so I am not therefore cherry-picking. What the academic peer-reviewed sources don't support is that alchemy is primarily a spiritual discipline and the substances and processes are metaphors for spiritual enlightenment... which is what I'm battling against from other editors. I have no problem if academic peer-reviewed sources can be found for the spiritual interpretation.
 * My point is: can non-academic sources from alternative publishers be used to forward a view (even in the intro paragraphs) which flatly contradicts the research in multiple, peer-reviewed publications by various academic publishers? That is exactly what is happening. I posted 6 quotes from such sources on Talk:Alchemy, which write that the spiritual interpretation postdates the early modern period (it came from the 19th century occult revival.) These sources do not write against the concept that alchemy contains spiritual symbolism, but they write against the concept that alchemy is primarily non-material. It is not bias or cherry-picking to minimize something that has no reliable sources, and the reliable sources that do exist actually speak against. Or am I wrong with this thought? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm sorry this has become an issue for the larger community.  The contributions of Will Timony came to my attention when plugs for the recently posted online Book of Aquarius (summary: the philosophers stone is real and you can make it with your own urine - fringe) were being inserted into articles like the Philosopher's Stone.  Since this didn't fly, it appears that a new effort is being made to cherry pick deletions and re-write alchemy related articles in ways that suspiciously support this book - and spin doctor a variety of reasons for doing so.   For the record, I'm not pushing any agenda apart from an equal representation of the physical and spiritual aspects of this topic as outlined above, pre-existed, and is standard.  My edits have largely been to restore recent deletions with more NPV and references, or to offer referenced counterpoints.  Admitedly the references on some of the text inserted over time on these articles has been shabby, but this has been too liberally used as an excuse to delete and change tone, disrespecting WP:Preserve.  Will Timony is making cases for all sentences to be cited including leads. The embarrassingly long expose of all this can be seen on the talk pages.Car Henkel (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Car, it has become public because you're so aggressive about it. Thank you for again bringing up your unfounded accusations. Your edits are not even in line with what you're saying. I had to revert another statement of yours recently, let me find it, "The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss.". That was in the Philosopher's Stone intro paragraph without any citation whatsoever, and after our long discussion about sources. If I weren't around the whole thing would be about the spiritual interpretation in outright factual statements. I recommend before anyone jumps to conclusions they actually read the entire of Talk:Alchemy. Am I the only person following policy? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me be very direct. I at no point ever tried to remove or minimize any part of the article which actually had citation. The only statements removed, which Car complains about, were sourced by absolutely non-reliable sources (such as non-existent sources and random web pages) and previously had citation needed marks, since no one bothered to fix it, and I knew of no source, I eventually removed the statements (according to policy.) Car objects, if you read Talk:Alchemy to me changing his comments that state that alchemy is spiritual only to statements that say "proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe". His accusation about Book of Aquarius is only because in my first couple of posts (weeks ago) when I was a new contributor I mentioned this source, not at the time understanding the policy of Wikipedia regarding these sources, this was reverted and I did not complain, because I also agree with the policy, so there is no need to try to use this against me. I intend to expand the history of alchemy with many references to philosophical, religious and spiritual aspects. Car is pushing an entirely alternative historical view, which contradicts everything else in the article. I am not against spiritual, I am against exclusively spiritual interpretation and I am only against it because there are no academic peer-reviewed sources I have seen which support it, and I did actually look for them. I am against nothing that has evidence to support it. I have no agenda other than to make this article accurate according to Wikipedia policy. I'm even accused of cherry-picking because I would like non-reliable sources to not be used which contradict academic peer-reviewed sources! I am upset that people are hostile to me for following policy. Someone please explain to me why I am wrong. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This agrees with me WP:FRINGE. Please update yourselves by reading this policy before attacking me. It even says "However, if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review", which is exactly what I have been saying. Though it is not what I have been doing, I have been only changing the fringe views to say "proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe". So if anything I was being too easy on it, and letting Car bully me down with his constant pushing that his ideas must be presented equally to peer-reviewed sources. Not to say there are no peer-reviewed sources supporting his view, perhaps there are, and I'm happy to have these as sources, when they are found. But not unreliable sources. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is everyone ignoring this because they agree or because they disagree? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Will Timony, Ph.D: you should probably make less of an issue about being "insulted", or "attacked", or "being the only one following policy". You should take a breath and then try to see the merit in what others try to tell you, even if they don't attach academic degrees to their wiki usernames. I am glad that you agree that "Alchemy is both a protoscience and a mystical philosophy connected to religion and spirituality". But then you go on to object to perfectly straightforward statements like "The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss". I find this a completely unremarkable description of the concept. Of course it can be tweaked or rephrased, but you do not make clear how you think it is objectionable to begin with. What else, do you suppose, was the philosopher's stone? You also admit to doing things like "I have been only changing the fringe views to say 'proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe'". How does this agree with your statement that you accept that the spiritual interpretation is valid? It is unacceptable to label discussion of spiritual aspects of alchemy as "the fringe view", because it is not a fringe view, and you have failed to show that it is. In fact you have agreed that it is not earlier in your post, right before you went back to calling it "the fringe view". It is one thing to remove poor content or sub-standard references or bad editing due to people over-enthusiastic about discussing these spiritual aspects. It is quite another thing to imply, as you just did, that this discussion per se falls under WP:FRINGE.

For the sake of argument, let's say you accept that I have a good overall grasp of the topic, and have made valid contributions in the past, and also that I am very well aware of policy and willing to defend it. I also commend you for removing "non-existent sources and random web pages". It still isn't clear to me what you try to argue is the core of the problem here. You say the only thing you object to is "that alchemy is primarily a spiritual discipline", while you accept that it has both spiritual and proto-scientific aspects. Consequently, what you need to object to are attempts to present alchemy as a primarily spiritual discipline, while you should be unperturbed by discussion of alchemy as a spiritual discipline just as long as nobody denies it also had proto-scientific aspects. Which aspect people will find more interesting, and consequently worth researching and covering, is an entirely subjective judgement. I can assure you that there are very quotable authors, first and foremost Carl Jung, who were indeed of the opinion that alchemy was primarily spiritual. But I would never claim that this is the only view on the subject, it is just one notable and quotable view. --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have stated again and again that I am merely arguing against the spiritual interpretation being stated as a fact, which is exactly what has been happening. This statement: "The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss" is the type of thing I have been changing to "Proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe..." For this I am being attacked, for changing something according to WP:NPV. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, or put words into my mouth. The core problem is that undue weight and non-neutral point of view is given to the interpretations which have the greater number of editors who support them. Concerning why spiritual interpretation is fringe: Jung is almost 100 years ago and has been spoken against by modern scholars. So in this sense, although his views should certainly be included, they should not be given undue weight. Following are academic, peer-reviewed sources, showing the modern academic opinion (I have yet to see a peer-reviewed source supporting the spiritual interpretation):


 * Alchemy Tried in the Fire by William R. Newman, Lawrence M Principe, p37
 * "The key result of its prevalence is that the spiritual interpretation has served - sometimes almost unconsciously - to set "alchemy" radically apart from "chemistry" in the modern sense. Yet as we have elsewhere shown, the foundations of this interpretation of alchemy - whether spiritual or overtly Jungian - are strikingly weak, as they are based ultimately upon Victorian occultist views with very little reference to the historical reality of the subject."


 * Secrets of Nature, Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe by William R. Newman, Anthony Grafton, p397
 * "The chief problem with the esoteric view is that even laying aside the more extreme positions, the historical record (as Waite, for whatever reason finally concluded in 1926) simply does not countenance it. Although the works of many alchemical writers contain (often extensive) expressions of the period piety, imprecations of God, exhortations to morality, and even the occasional appearance of an angelic or spiritual messenger, we find no indication that the vast majority of alchemists were working on anything other than material substances towards material goals. The distinctions in tone and attitude towards spirituality that quite admittedly exist between many "alchemical" texts and more modern "chemical" texts can be explicated without recourse to the spiritual interpretation's disjuction between "alchemy" and "chemistry" and its labeling of them as esoteric and exoteric traditions, respectively. First, it must be remembered that transmutatory alchemy fell out of widespread popularity at around the time of the widespread secularization of intellectual culture that occurred in the eighteenth century. Most alchemical texts originated in a culture of greater religious sensibility than our own and thus naturally exhibit more spiritual and religious expressions than do later works of "chemistry." Second, the secrecy and "initiatic style" ubiquitous in works on transmutation led quite naturally to a tone of mystery absent from later, more "open" writings of eighteen-century chemistry. This emphasis on secrecy led originally to the fairly common contemporaneous invocation of morality or divine agency as "gatekeepers" to secret knowledge, but in the nineteenth century to a linkage of the arcana of alchemy to the secrets of "the occult" as whole. These culturally based differences of expression and tone do not countenance the spiritual interpretation, which fails to recognize the cultural context of the alchemical texts."


 * Newton and Newtonianism  by James E. Force, Sarah Hutton, p211
 * "Atwood's treatise touched off a huge resurgence of interest in alchemy, but almost entirely within the context of Victorian occultism. Hundreds of books, including adulterated "translations" of alchemical classics, appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century, all but a few very embracing this new "spiritual interpretation" of alchemy. According to this interpretation, alchemy had little to do with chemistry, and was aimed instead at the internal purification, spiritual exaltation and perfection of the would-be adept."


 * On the Edge of the Future by Jeffrey John Kripal, Glenn W. Shuck, p27
 * "The spiritual interpretation of alchemy that was made famous by Jung in fact reflects religious convictions typical of nineteenth-century occultism and is not supported by the antique and medieval alchemical sources."


 * Man, Myth & Magic by Richard Cavendish, Brian Innes, p752
 * "A purely spiritual alchemy would never explain the existence of alchemical laboratories in which physicians honestly and fanatically sought for occult medicines."


 * New Age Religion and Western Culture by Wouter J. Hanegraaf, p512
 * "Although the history of spiritual and psychological interpretations of alchemy prior to Jung is in urgent need of further investigation, what is known at present confirms by previous conclusions. Jung's view of spiritual alchemy, like his view of gnosticism, was rooted in 19th-century esoteric/Romantic and occultist worldviews."


 * If policy is still ignored I'm leaving Wikipedia. I don't want to be part of an organization which encourages bullying in order to manipulate information. Very disappointed. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient nails
I think this article needs a little balance, and I do not know where to begin... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend searching on Google Books for related terms, to see if there are any academic opinions or theories on the subhect. Some of the sources used are not very reliable, but perhaps the web sites themselves quote a more reliable source? (Follow the trail to find where the info came from.) Some possible explanations would add some balance to the article. Also try to find an explanation (preferably from an academic source) detailing what is to special about these nails. This statement may not be true: "The mainstream scientific community do not accept the discoveries as genuine." It would be worth finding a source to either support that, or an academic reference to the finding being genuine, or both if possible. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it may be simpler to rephrase that as ""The mainstream scientific community have not accepted the discoveries as genuine". This puts the onus on anyone disagreeing with the statement to provide evidence of acceptance. The article reads like something from the Fortean Times, and doesn't so much lack balance as focus - for a start, only two of the 'anomalous' objects discussed in any detail are supposedly 'nails'. Essentially, the article is nothing more than a collection of dubiously-sourced trivia - and as such, probably falls under WP:SYNTH. At best, any of the objects discussed should be included in the Out-of-place artifact article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was thinking of nominating it for an AFD on those grounds, but I wanted to get more opinions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I support merge into Out-of-place artifact, at least those parts with reliable source. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How does one nominate something for a merge? I have not done that before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow the steps here: Help:Merging. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See below. It was virtually all copyvio, so I've dealt with that and turned it into a redirct to Out-of-place artifact, Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Strauss-Howe generational theory
The article Strauss-Howe generational theory seems to be based almost entirely on the writings of its proponents. It looks to me like pseudo-something-or-other. If, as claimed, Al Gore likes it, maybe it is actually 'notable', but this doesn't justify the long-winded waffle IMO. I'm tempted to suggest an AfD, but perhaps others can take a look, with an eye to reducing it to the facts, such as they are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a mess. The bio article needs to be merged with it and then it needs cleaning up. It shouldn't have huge amounts of description based on the books themselves and only a slight amount of criticism. might help. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Metal objects (Out-of-place artifacts) (created by block evader)
This looks like a pov fork from Out-of-place artifact with sentences such as " There is of course no explanation as to what it was or how it got inside the block of coal millions of years ago." It was created by the block evading editor when he was evading his block by using the account. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To add insult to injury it was virtually all copyvio, which I've deleted and turned the article into a redirect to our Out-of-place artifact article. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)
Needs some attention. There's some edit-warring going on there with one editor trying to say that some scientists like this nonsense, and refusing to accept sources from non-mathematicians. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A Researcher at Tired Light
Note that at Tired light a number of IP addresses which geolocate to Tampa and Clearwater (from where the researcher comes) are spamming in his essentially unnoticed idea about tired light disproving the Big Bang. He has been promoting this idea on Wikipedia hoping to get better exposure for a few months now, and this really needs to stop. I've been observing this from afar and have noticed this campaign. Tired light is a well-known historical concept in astrophysics that was falsified early on in the history of cosmology. A few itinerant physicists none of whom are noticed in the community (including the researcher) continue to fight for their opposition to the Big Bang, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place that they do it. Please put this article on your watchlist and explain to the Tampa/Clearwater IPs that they should try to get their ideas noticed by ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A rather than spamming across the internet. Note that this behavior was also reported to WP:COIN.

198.202.202.22 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue was brought up over at WP:COIN and we are referring this back over to FTN for further discussion on this matter. There is a concern about WP:Outing and WP:Civil regarding this reporter. However, all the same, he does bring up an issue which will likely need to be addressed by someone more skilled in addressing FT. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Licorne was banned from Wikipedia for Holocaust Denial promotion, anti-semeticism, and pseudophysics promotions (which he is still doing). It isn't right that you all are letting him post his ongoing anti-reality propaganda at tired light under all these different IP addresses which all are being used by the same person. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I got fed-up and rewrote the tired light article to try to prevent this nonsense, but this banned user is still pushing pretty hard on the talkpage, promoting the cosmologystatement.org nonsense that has been a standard issue by such pseudophysics promoters. I'm not sure what if anything can be done to deter him in his quest to get his article and those other absurd ideas he's a fan of listed at Wikipedia, but now at least the article seems to function as a reasonable object lesson in the history of astrophysics. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, and since the dispute is still ongoing, I have requested that this page be temporarily protected due to the edit warring taking place amongst editors. Please work to resolve things in the talk page, and reach consensus instead of simply editing the page with disputed material. Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor clamoring for his work to be included doesn't seem to be listening to the arguments. He thinks that Physics Essays is a reliable source when it publishes trash. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This problem is still going on. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the factual and supported version
According to the consensus of astronomers at Columbia University, the preferred version of the article at tired light is this one:. Please support well-cited science scholarship and prevent the self-promotion of certain individuals who are not behaving with scholarly integrity.

128.59.171.194 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you show any evidence that such a consensus exists? Looie496 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than getting my colleagues to sign a statement, I just made the argument as clear as I can for you here: RSN. Please note that Dean Mamas is actively trying to get his Physics Essay paper included at Wikipedia. (He tried earlier at Non-standard cosmologies and failed, now he's trying at tired light.) 128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Aliens
can someone have a look at recent edits and my talk page and that of good faith newbie being called a vandal. dead battery or i would be home instead of in a field on my iPad. wqa i think when i can. no tildes in wikiedit so sinebot do your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
 * Sinebot doesn't seem to have done its work, so I placed an "unsigned" template. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Dougweller. You already noticed that I went over there and helped in a couple of ways. I think the problem has more eyes on it now, and is in the process of settling down into normal editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

White Gods
A new Liveintheforests article. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * , yet more dross to wade through... – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Reactionless drive
Extra eyes would be appreciated at Reactionless drive. I removed what appeared to be undue emphasis on a proposed reactionless drive which cited a Facebook photo album. It was a long text starting starting with:
 * "While the general consensus in dogmatic science insists that inertial propulsion is "impossible", one adherant to the concept (David E. Cowlishaw) operated an open internet forum on the subject from 1996 through 2003, and reported numerous proofs of physical testing, and gathered reports from over 20 others also claiming successful physical experiments in the field...".

A little while later, added the content back in. Reverts followed; I'm now on the threshold of 3RR so I shall step back from the article. All comments & suggestions welcome... bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After a rather rambling talk-page discussion, I think that has got the message about sourcing, though frankly, the article is a mess. It starts off in the lede by saying such things can't exist, and then goes on to discuss how they might work... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks AndyTheGrump! You ignored the now archived material on two European websites, spanning over a decade, detailing the input from over 20 other material researchers contributing to the concept, and went for the still incomplete facebook "retail" efforts of late.  I will agree, my messaging IS a mess!

I am not a corporation with unlimited recources. Please do a search on "David E. Cowlishaw" (search term enclosed in quotes), and you will find me all over the map, still longing for reality, rather than "belief". Last update on that dedicated subject (a now defunct server, efforts are now archived in Europe) = http://archive.go-here.nl/open.org/davidc/update34.htm CowlishawDavid (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not up to us to go searching for your stuff on the Web. The article is still poor, with no indication of how notable these notions are. The priority is to find reliable sources, i.e. in mainstream physics. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also a clear conflict of interest regarding Cowlishaw's own work that he has re-added to the article. He has a horse in the race, and is promoting it. Binksternet (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster is a class of machines that has a unique operating theory, that has been duplicated and tested, though NOT via standard publication, due to the irrational prejudice. The archived (now static) website is a source of information on mechanical descriptions, theory, and history. I have not, and will not seek outside financing due to the history of these types of devices, though I have accepted a small (unsolicited) financial assistance from a former forum contributor when I ran it, who had met me in person during a theme gathering I held at my residence. He will own the first prototype once testing is performed, and I have a duplicate built (my way to repay him, also not solicited by him). If the facebook link detailing the latest in a long line of variants is deemed offensive, I will be happy to remove it, if it will stop the unrelenting attempts to totally erase 15 years of research and world wide collaboration. Clearly I have a "dog in the fight" but as the inventor of an entirely new class of machines (that are now public domain), and webmaster for a multi-year public forum and research sharing site, who better to explore and explain it? CowlishawDavid (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't a forum for promoting fringe theories. Explain it elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And further to this, if another editor can sort out the mess at Talk:Reactionless drive (see history) - now also reported at WP:ANI - I'd be most appreciative. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This guy Cowlisha is at it again, putting crackpot theories into the article, unsupported by sources or cites. He also adds self-promotion and soap-box ranting. We could use more eyes on the article or on him. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Discovery of Rockall
Early Discovery of Rockall - clearly COI issues here, and it looks to me like an AfD on OR grounds, but perhaps someone more familiar with fringe topics could take a look at this. Ben  Mac  Dui  18:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just going to take this here. The user has made a series of articles based on their own theories besides the one linked above (partly self-published sources, and all of the sources authored by the editor who created them):


 * Early Discovery of the Faroe Islands
 * Early Discovery of Cape Verde Islands
 * Early Discovery of Canary Islands
 * Early Discovery of the Azores
 * Early Discovery of Greenland
 * Early Discovery of Madeira


 * Pre-history is not my field, but I am pretty sure that at least regarding Greenland and the Faroe Islands, there are no mainstream academic support for the theories proposed here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They all very clearly violate the rule that fringe theories should never be presented as "fact." --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the article names are in violation of WP:FRINGE, since they do not make it clear that this is just a theory. So assuming that they do survive an AFD and an improvement process, then they should at the very least be renamed to something like "Theory of early discovery of the Azores" etc. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that all these articles appear to have been written by Jonge, on the basis of material written by Jonge & Wakefield, and all published by the same not-heard-of-in-any-other-context publishing company, I would suggest deletion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the sources is Ancient American Magazine, very fringe and sometimes racist. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And all of them are pov forks quite clearly, any acceptable material belongs in the appropriate geographical article. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone have time for a group AfD nomination? Or just redirect, but that leaves titles which I don't think should exist even as redirects. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A group AfD makes a great deal of sense. I can't see much prospect of any individual article being better than the others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * all nominated at Articles for deletion/Early discovery of the Faroe Islands. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: de Jonge has since created Early Discovery, and I've added it, as an explicit 'late addition', to the group AfD. If you've !voted 'delete all', you may wish to update your !vote to express an explicit opinion on this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The re-titled articles (Early discovery of the Faroe Islands etc.) have now gone through AfD and been deleted. Perhaps some admin could tidy up by deleting the redirects at Early Discovery of the Faroe Islands etc. ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They've been speedied, and the links from the articles on the islands removed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact
Anyone interested in this subject, please put the article on your watch list. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See the talk page - and his latest edit, where after a recent report on research not confirming Balabanova's cocaine finds, he puts a much older comment on nicotine with the word 'however'. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Walam Olum
And this one, an old IP who no longer edits under their account and ignored WP:NOR, claims someone who teaches American Indians in the movies is an expert on this subject, that a book written in 1994 was actually written in 2005, etc. And who would have a 3RR warning if a mysterious IP hadn't shown up to reinstate his edit. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy (again)
The British homeopaths have decided to declare this "homeopathy awareness week" (presumably because they are unworldly so felt left out by "world homeopathy awareness week"). The Wikipedia article is being widely cited as a source of balanced information, with predictable results (see ). This is one of our better articles on pseudoscience so please help me watch it and push back against chipping away by agenda accounts. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So far, editor has made only one edit to the article, though is quite tendentious in Talk:Homeopathy. The conversation has moved from the number of "shakes" to make the potion work, to that it works period.  And are you serious?  There's a Homeopathy Awareness Week?  I'll drink a liter of water respectfully then.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I'm doing my bit to spread awareness of homeopathy by posting links to the Wikipedia article. After all, we wouldn't want people to make a choice without being fully informed would we? Guy (Help!) 10:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In honour of Homeopathy Awareness Week, may I also recommend viewing "Homeopathy A&E" (2.5 minutes) from That Mitchell and Webb Look. While that link probably doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS, I believe that it concisely and accessibly summarizes one important perspective on these woefully underused alternative therapeutic approaches. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ten. Have a lager on me (as featured). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you were wondering how homeopathy works, this site explains it in detail: http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ Guy (Help!) 20:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience


Editors have suggested this source is not usable for the pseudoscience page or is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Any article in the British Journal of Psychology can be used as a top-level reliable source for relevant topics. The article you cite is absolutely relevant to pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." (my emphasis)

I am one of the editors who finds this source inappropriate for the claims that QuackGuru wishes to make in the Pseudoscience article. This paper is about the psychology of pseudoscience and cognitive distortion and would be a very good source for that. However, the authors make general and unsupported claims about the public health risks of pseudoscience that are a) tangential to the research or even to psychology in general and b) apply only to quackery and not the whole field of pseudoscience. No other good sources have been located to support these extremely broad claims. While this source is reliable within it's domain and is welcome for use in the section on the psychology of pseudoscience, it is unsuited as the sole basis for claims about the public health risks of pseudoscience except in the more narrow case of quackery (for which many superior references exist).

You can see the full text on the authors' web site. (This paper was not published in the intended issue (11/2010) of the BJP but exists as a preprint. There is no explanation for its exclusion from the intended issue and there are no published plans to include it in a future issue.) Joja  lozzo  02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking through the related discussions on the talk page is simply exhausting. One does get the idea, however, that QuackGuru is exhibiting pretty high levels of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT by not letting this particular issue go over the course of months and after a whole lot of editors have explained to him exactly what Jojalozzo has written above.  The journal is eminently reliable in the field of psychology, but not for the claim QG wishes to use it for in this instance.  Beyond contextual reliability it isn't clear even, if the source can accurately be said to verify the information in the article that QG wants to source in the first place.  The real problem here seems to be of the behavioral variety and not a content issue.  I suggest a change of venue if QG persists.Griswaldo (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not realize that the article linked was never actually published in BJP. I do not support its use at all on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was published in the online version of BJP which probably means it passed peer review, although that could be checked. My take is that the broad statement about pseudoscience in general isn't part of the article's main argument but is there to establish the relevance of the topic. The article could be relevant to the psychology of pseudoscience, but would have to be used more carefully than this. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence the article was not published in BJP. The link was a preprint. There is absolutely no reason not to use the article at pseudoscience. The source is not withdrawn. Why are editors trying to exclude arguably the most reliable source on pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not "arguably the most reliable source on pseudoscience" carte blanche. It is a reliable source on one aspect of pseudoscience and not the aspect you were trying to use it for.  You've been answered several times already.  Why do you persist asking the same questions and refusing to listen to the answers?Griswaldo (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't ask for evidence that something doesn't exist. Instead please tell us the paper's page numbers. I do not see it in the table of contents but maybe I missed it. Joja  lozzo  02:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * QG, please stop misrepresenting the issue. No one is saying "not to use the article at pseudoscience", what is being is said is that the article should not be used to reference the claim you want to make. The article itself may be useful in other ways to the pseudoscience article, but they do not feel it is not useful for referencing that particular claim. DigitalC (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it is published, it has a doi and is online on the journal/publisher website at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712610X532210/abstract. Papers don't need to appear on dead trees to be valid sources - how last millennium. That's by-the-by of whether this is a good source to use to show that pseudoscience can be a threat to public health. Probably it can't, as it's a psychology study. Why not use Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy by Seth Kalichman, for instance, or “Living proof” and the pseudo-science of alternative cancer treatments which says that "a highly publicized book gives the impression that alternative cancer treatments are supported by scientific research ... This is highly misleading and may lead to cancer patients rejecting effective treatments." I'm sure there are umpteen other good sources out there for pseudoscience being a health risk. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only version I have seen is a preprint even on the Wiley site. By my understanding no final version has been published. However, I agree that this issue is not critical to the value of the source for the purpose proposed.
 * In my view the problem is the common (mis)use of the term "pseudoscience" as shorthand for "pseudoscience-medicine" or "quackery". This shorthand can be seen in F&w's proposed Seth Kalichman alternative. I think Wikipedia should be more precise. Joja  lozzo  04:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that the problem is your belief that you know better than the sources. If Kalichman argues that pseudoscience among Aids denialists is a problem for public health then we use what he says, not argue that's he's wrong because of x, y, or z. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that analysis. I believe that the authors (and readers who understand what pseudoscience is) would acknowledge the use of shorthand, that they do not intend to include all of pseudoscience in their claims about health risks. It is an error to quote or literally paraphrase statements in a way that does not convey the authors' intended meaning. Joja  lozzo  12:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you're wrong about the publication status of that article. "Preprint" and "Online publication ahead of print" are totally different things. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case we agree that this issue is not critical to the discussion. Joja  lozzo  12:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rovas Script Family
, . No comment necessary (I hope). --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this is already taken care of. It's more of a trolling / disruption case than a serious WP:FRINGE issue. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this is already taken care of. It's more of a trolling / disruption case than a serious WP:FRINGE issue. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Minimalist (Copenhagen) School of biblical archaeology
So should these guys be considered fringe? I know that in the field itself they are considered as such, but what about on Wiki? From what I can see, some of the articles related to them present a viewpoint skewed in their behaviour (there was one in particular, for Davies I think, that said that the Tel Dan Stele challenged his hypotheses and it made it sound like only a few fringe people believe it is real, whereas (in reality) only a baby handful of people actually believe that it is fake or misinterpreted). I will admit right now that I am a centrist, and like most people in this field, I rather dislike these fellows. Given proper sourcing though, I feel I can edit neutrally. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 10:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at WP:FRINGE/PS? What would you think they fall into? Questionable science? Alternative theoretical formulation? I can see some affiliations to universities, so I think perhaps the latter. What article(s) is this in relation to? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Mostly 4 with a bit of 3. The proponents are all biblical scholars as opposed to archaeologists (something often pointed out and that would be considered an ad hominem remark, though it is so relevant.) Hmmm, any associted with them really, the main article and the ones about the dudes themselves I would say. I know Niels Peter Lemche (as User: NP Lemche or something) editted Davies' at the very least. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 14:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell its "tendency in biblical exegesis which stresses the primacy of archaeology in establishing a history of Ancient Israel and Judah" is the opposite of the now-discredited Biblical archaeology school of William F. Albright which stressed the primacy of the Bible. As such (and whilst it is possible for it to be taken too far, a non-extremist version of) the position would appear to be the current archaeological consensus. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is taken a wee bit too far, I wouldn't call the maximalists discredited really... They are kind of in the majority, still, even if they are likely incorrect. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 14:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, now that I actually think about it, they are usually regarded as the mainstream, it's only with new centrists like Israel Finkelstein that people have really started to cut away at a few of the long-held beliefs put in place by maximalists, but to a great extent the trend has been that many times the maximalists are close to the mark if not right on for cases that correspond to later stories in the Bible. (as you approach the reign of Josiah or Jehoash, the stories get more accurate with the archaeological and historical (extrabiblical sources) evidence we have and after his reign, are almost fully accurate I'd say. So not discreditted by a long-shot. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article [on the viewpoint] in question is . HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not seeing any indication of fringe, within any definition, at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is an article, not the article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 14:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell us about some more articles too, then. What I think may be the issue here is one we have had before: disciplinary, and in this case perhaps also geographical, boundaries. Archaeologists see things differently from, e.g., biblical scholars. Archaeologists in one country differently from those in another country. In that case, it is an argument within scholarship that won't work itself out for a while. Both views should be described in WP, indicating how and where they are expressed, and leaving the reader to make up their own mind which to prefer. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fringe goes way beyond "minority POV," which is probably a better description here, at least within the context of Biblical archaeology or Biblical studies. These are very well respected scholars, and their shared approach to Biblical archaeology does not seem controversial to me in the study of religion more generally.  Perhaps Christian theologians, and various Jewish religious scholars don't like it, and maybe it is a tad controversial within Biblical studies, but I have a hard time imagining any controversy surrounding this approach in archaeology more generally, or the study of religion (whether literary, social scientific, historical, etc.).Griswaldo (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo is absolutely correct. Definitely not fringe, and there is sometimes confusion about who is minimalist, eg I've seen Finkelstein described (wrongly) as minimalist. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is mostly by Finkelstein's detractors, because let's face it, he does tell some people what they don't want to hear (and other times he does insist that he is right (even when evidence says otherwise) which just pisses certain people off :p (ie. the gentleman currently digging the copper mines in Jordan)). Finkelstein considers himself a centrist and is actually very offended when his Jewish faith is called into question (he wrote passionately about it in an article a while back). I am not sure (within the bounds of WP:BLP) that the main adherents to this school are really very well-respected in the archaeological community. The way I have seen them approached by many other archaeologists (maximalist and centrist) is as something of a joke tbph. I am talking about the self-identified minimalists who are referred to as the Copenhagen (as well as Sheffield for the English branch) School. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 16:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When you say "in the archaeological community," do you mean specifically Biblical archaeology or Archaeology in general, because while I'm not an archaeologist myself I know quite well that there is a meaningful difference. I'm only conjecturing here, but bare with me for a second.  John Van Seters is identified on our page as a minimalist.  Van Seters had a named professorship at University of North Carolina in Biblical literature, and received Guggenheim, NEH, and ACLS fellowships for his research.  He's clearly very well respected.  Are you saying he's not well respected specifically "by archaeologists?"  I note that the minimalist school is not a school of archaeology but of Biblical exegesis which emphasizes archaeological evidence over textual evidence.  Certainly archaeologists are not disrespecting Van Seters as something he's not, an archaeologist.  I also find it hard to believe that he would be disrespected by archaeologists for favoring the type of evidence that they produce in their digs over textual evidence.  But like I said, I'm just speculating.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure I even understand quite what the question is here. There is a broad "school" of scholarship which stresses that archaelogical evidence should take precedence over biblical narratives. That really a particular view on historical methodology - a somewhat debatable one, for sure, but hardly fringe. As far as I am aware there is no unified opinion about particulars among these scholars. However, of course, any individual may have a view about a particular issue which may qualify as fringe. We don't have to label a whole school of thought 'fringe' in order to say that 'x's opinion on this matter is a fringe view'. We'd have to judge it case by case. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Errr no, the minimalist school idea is that the Bible contains minimal to no information of historical value (which is why it is called the minimalist school), and its main proponents are the guys mentioned in the article. It is solely in the context of archaeology that I am talking about. Though maximalists have been accused of (sometimes correctly) using the Bible to interpret the findings rather than looking at the findings, drawing the best interpretation from other sites and extrabiblical sources (when we are lucky enough to have them) and then seeing how well the Bible matches up (that is usually what you publish anyway, people want to read that stuff in BAR :p). Most people in archaeology dislike them because some of them have been known to write with what is felt to be a clear political agenda (ie. The Myth of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History) and in the case of things like the Tel Dan Stele either gave poor hypothesis (such as the idea that it does not say BT DWD in the sense of house of David, but House of the Uncle, Beloved, or Tea Kettle) or actually accused Avirham Biran of having fabricated the stele. It is not historical methodology as much as (remembering that archaeology and history are two different things entirely (except when you find a nice stele or tablets). I agree that it should be case by case, even though they are sort of banded together (hence Copenhagen School), it's not like the publish together. :p (afaik) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 16:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not historical methodology as much as a school of interpretation of archaeological findings (remembering that archaeology and history are two different things entirely). Actually what you describe is a difference in historical methodology.  To generalize, one camp takes much more stock in a certain type of historical data (from the Biblical text) while the other takes more stock in another (the evidence produced by archaeologists0.  Paul was not mixing history and archaeology up at all.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't really understand what in my statement you are disagreeing with. You say that "the minimalist school idea is that the Bible contains minimal to no information of historical value (which is why it is called the minimalist school), and its main proponents are the guys mentioned in the article." Well, gee, thanks for telling me that. What exactly in my statement implies that I somehow need to be informed of this? "Most people in archaeology dislike them because some of them have been known to write with what is felt to be a clear political agenda". Well, I'm glad that you know what "most people in archaeology" think, but I wouldn't trust "most people" who object to "them" because some of "them" may have political views they don't like. I think what you are referring to is the fact that some of these writers initially questioned the Tel Dan Stele with arguments that have not been widely accepted. It's perfectly common for scholars do defend their published views when new evidence seems to emerge that challenges those views. Sometimes they are forced to use rather feeble arguments. Einstein famously refused to accept Quantum theory. There are many other examples. It does not make them fringe theorists per WP:FRINGE, but of course the consensus view must be properly labelled as such. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience infobox on Maharishi Effect
Back in January 2010, a now-vanished user added a pseudoscience infobox to the Maharishi Effect section of the TM-Sidhi program article. There was no discussion of the infobox at the time, though there have been occasional threads on the talk page touching on pseudoscience and the article is within WP: WikiProject Rational Skepticism. An editor has now objected to the infobox. Talk:TM-Sidhi program Any thoughts? Are these boxes commonly used?  Will Beback   talk    23:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I recall at one time, infoboxes were being widely employed as a workaround to NPOV by fringe proponents. Supposed "creatures" and "phenomenon" were lent an air of academic credibility through the use of scientific-sounding classifications within the boxes ("primary data", "first sighting", "habitat", "status", "sub-grouping", etc.) I believe that one science-minded editor, now vanished, began adding "pseudoscience infoboxes" to fringe articles as a sort of retaliation. In my opinion, neither kind of infoboxes are useful or appropriate since they skirt requirements for attribution, quality of sources, NPOV, undue weight, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI There's another of these at the top of Remote Viewing. I agree with LuckyLouie...such an eye-catching "all you need to know" format should either play it straight or go.  Untaggably burning a payload word like "pseudoscientific" into a high visibility template caption is basically poisoning the well, which isn't ideal practice for an encyclopedia. K2709 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. In consideration of these remarks I'll delete the infobox.   Will Beback    talk    00:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These info boxes are useful IMO as they give context to the subject matter. They are used on many pseudoscientific topics. We need more of them IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on this discussion, I also deleted the pseudoscience infobox in the article Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health. Doc James reverted. I agree with LuckyLouie and K2709 that these infoboxes aren't compliant with Wikipedia policy, NPOV in particular, and feel that the deletion is appropriate. TimidGuy (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the History and saw that Doc James is the editor who originally added this infobox to the MVAH article. Given that he's an involved editor and that the consensus among uninvolved editors is that this infobox shouldn't be used, I'm going to delete again. TimidGuy (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere, I'm against use of the infoboxes. However if you have a topic for which extraordinary WP:REDFLAG claims are made and you have reliable sources that criticize it as pseudoscience, then that critique should be prominently summarized in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A wider discussion is needed before a decision to remove these boxes from all pages is made. Yes many topics are considered pseudoscience. These boxes make this perfectly clear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My take on the wider discussion....do away with info boxes. especially ones that use loaded terms, or misleading descriptions.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We have reliable source that support the use of the term for example "YOGIC FLIGHT Yogic flight is an ability claimed by those who study the philosophy of transcendental meditation (TM) and its offshoot TM Sidhi." from  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now Doc James has edit warred the pseudoscience infobox back into the TM-Sidhi article, has put it back into the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health article, and has canvassed for support on the Rational Skeptic talk page. TimidGuy (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maharishi claims people can fly using Quantum electrodynamics? You're making me wonder if that pseudoscience infobox was badly needed at these articles.LuckyLouie - 11:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several issues that have to be delineated:


 * The program is itself a meditation technique not a science, so calling it science or pseudoscience would be a misnomer.


 * However there has been research on the purported effects of the technique. That would obviously qualify as science.The papers on the technique number 40-50 most peer reviewed, again, most in reputable journals, most listed by the ISI. While the claims seem outside the norm of everyday thinking, the peer review and ISI listing indicate this is real science. The way to deal with the fact that this area falls outside of the norm is not to slap an info box on an article whose topic matter is not science at all but to provide the pro and rebuttals of the research itself in the article section devoted to the research on the technique. As is happening here.


 * If however the NB here had indicated most editors thought an info box was the right way to go, I would have been happy to go with that judgement. However, edit warring a topic against the NB is not appropriate. If agreement changes as to whether to use the info boxes, then sure, put the boxes back in place. Ignoring both talk page agreement and or NB comments in favour of one's opinion as Doc James has done undoes the community standards for dispute resolution and is a concern.(olive (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC))


 * @olive Without commenting on the appropriateness of the infobox, or behavior of any editors here in retaining/deleting it, I have to disagree with your assessment. That the program deals with meditation doesn't make it "not pseudoscience" if it makes scientific claims. It apparently does makes scientific claims. Some of those claims have been categorized as pseudoscience in reliable sources, and we have other reliable sources which show rejection of the claims by members of the scientific community. That the papers were published in journals only gives weight to the program "making scientific claims", not to it being an accepted science, unless we can establish the notability and reliability of those journal cites. If the claims being made are that "meditating can cause one to levitate, control the emotions of others remotely, and perform other miraculous feats", then I have to remain extremely dubious that any of those journal cites (or supposed peer review processes) are either reliable or notable. Again, this isn't to comment on the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of the infobox; I'm not sure I hold a position either way on the matter. But your assessment of the article isn't convincing that the infobox wouldn't be appropriate for this topic, due solely to the pseudoscience label.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that we have a small group of editors who practice the technique who are trying to promote it as a science / meditation technique. The scientific community agrees that it is a meditation technique but also considers it a pseudoscience / religion / alt med. This group of editors is trying to remove how the rest of society views it and promote exclusively how it views itself as a science. Timids edits speaks for it self []. The rest of society deserves prominence over how the organization views / wishes promote itself per WP:DUE and WP:RS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * @James: If you have concerns per the COI of my editing please take it to the COI NB, and do not poison the well here with your opinions.(olive (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC))
 * @Mann Jessi: The program/topic is is about Mediation rather than deals with it. The science/ research aspect is called the Maharishi Effect, and that is what this discussion should be about not the Meditation technique itself. Basically what you're saying is that the peer review process of 40-50 papers, the journals and the ISI listing, are not reliable but the opinions of a few editors here are. If ISI is not an indication of the quality of the research then what is? Science is a process and Pseudoscience indicates the process was faulty, No one has to buy that someone 'flies' or whatever the claim is. The concern is the quality of the research in terms of its processes per Wikipedia. However, Thanks for your honest and fair minded input.(olive (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC))
 * One does not need to believe the opinions of a few editors here all one need to do is look at the conclusions of the high quality literature out there "Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.[12][68][69] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation practices in healthcare as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor.[12][70][71] Part of this difficulty is because studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization, and enrollment of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM.[72][73]" From our very own page on Transcendental Meditation Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Doc you're citing two TM technique reviews. This is research on the Maharishi effect. The are about 350 peer reviewed studies on the TM technique and about 40-50 on the ME. Wow. Why are citing the wrong studies and why are you presenting it as fact.(olive (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC))
 * The ME research is even worse and less respected by the scientific community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The scientific community is publishing the TM technique research, James. It is also listing the ME effect research in the ISI. How do you explain that? Are all of those researchers, universities, grants being controlled by the few, so called TM researchers? Rhetorical questions. (olive (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC))


 * I have a suspicion that if one were to put citation needed tags on these templates, it would be seen as disruptive. Yet, we cannot always be sure that they are properly sourced.  If there is no good way of making sure they are fully verified, then they should not be used at all.  Also Per LuckyLouie and K2709.  I also cannot see, per olive, how we are giving unjustified legitimacy to such subjects by calling them pseudoscience.  Pseudoscience means there is something scientific being claimed, and considering how many times we have heard of a pseudoscience -like some herbs or ...um.... what is it when they stick needles in someone?- that later get verified as having some validity, the people reading this might think it's got validity if called a pseudoscience.  If there is some science or pseudoscience done on them, then it should be discussed fully rather than incompletely summarized in a single word like "pseudoscience."  I make no judgments on the subjects mentioned above.  BE——Critical __Talk 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with tagging this templates and requesting references. I have provided references. Also we do not require references in the lead on fully fleshed out articles as the refs in the body are assumed to support the lead. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The references are not the issue, as you know. You reverted the info boxes against editors who commented on a NB. whose issues where not with referencing the info box. If consensus changes that's another story.(olive (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

J. Philippe Rushton
A WP:SPA on this topic is claiming that Rushton's racial claims have academic credibility and that criticism of him is just "an opinion based on the a priori assumption that it is incorrect". I've just had it brought to my attention that I've already overstepped WP:3RR on this article (by 47 minutes) -- so am disallowed to participate further, except on talk. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The SPA seems to know quite a lot about Wiki ways.... The material s/he wants to remove is well sourced. The underlying problem is that views that were mainstream in the 1950s aren't quite so mainstream in the 2010s, so we have difficulties evaluating how to use sources from different periods. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked as User:Mikemikev sock. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a double whammy this time: reports at WP:AN3 and WP:SPI by yours truly got him blocked twice. He has also openly advertised for aid in editing from like-minded folk on Stormfront (website).  Mathsci (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Both Article and Talk page Semi'd per my request at RFPP. Hopefully get a break for the holidays at least. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot help but marvel at the logic that would suggest that posting on a site as notoriously and rabidly racist as Stormfront would help convince people that the object of their support is not racist. Counter-productive much? And may I assume from the language expressed there (ad nauseum) that I'm now an honorary Jew? :) I am the Kansas Jewish-Creationist Cabel -- hear us ROAR! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what you are is an idiot, editing your idiocy into an encyclopedia. Thanks. comment added by, previously blocked IPsock of banned user Mikemikev
 * OK, the underlying problem is nothing to do with what I said above. It is targetting of WP by a group of extremists. Glad this occurence was knocked on the head quickly. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Essiac
I'm a bit concerned about the talk page for the Essiac entry. Essiac is an herbal tea that is promoted as a cure for cancer and other illnesses. The article itself accurately reflects the fact that no evidence supports these claims and no medical organizations endorse it, but on the talk page, people have posted recipes for how to make your own at home. Obviously it's not normally acceptable to delete other users' comments from talk, but I was wondering if it would be OK in this situation, given that they have nothing to do with improving the article and they might be seen as accepting or promoting Essiac.

It's entirely possible that I am over-reacting and nothing needs to be deleted, but I thought it worth bringing some attention to it here in case there are others who share my opinion. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If the recipes cannot be used in the article (and they cannot), they have no business being on the talk page, per WP:NOT - I'd delete them, and leave a note explaining why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there does seem to be some genuine debate about what the "correct" ingredients of this magic mix actually are, so it may be better not to be too drastic. It is a legitimate topic of talk page debate. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There really was just one recipe that was problematic, and I just removed it. The ingredients are a legitimate talk page topic, but this was HOWTO material, which does not belong. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Water ionizer
Would appreciate some eyes on this page. One editor appears to be trying to prove a WP:POINT by removing any mention of the fringe theory about water ionizers' affects on health because the primary studies they want add has been rejected. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * left user a note, after your note about editwarring. I'm gonna guess they are not interested in what we suggest they do for the article, but want 'truth' to rule.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Leuren Moret
Bringing here for wider attention an issue I have just seen at WP:NORN. The article subject seems to be a promoter of pseudoscience ideas; certainly the idea that earthquakes are being deliberately caused is pretty odd. Article has been through 4 AfDs. It just might be notable conspiracy theory, but it doesn't look all that notable or well sourced to me. Physicists around? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not a physicist, but I did want to speak up here to agree with you. I think notability is a real concern - I know it survived 3 out of the 4 AFDs - but if you really dig into the Google news hits, none of the articles are about her, they merely mention her in passing. It's also worth noting that the sources are almost all obscure internet-only sites.
 * I was combing through the gnews hits was to see if I could find any reliable sources that were questioning her theories or calling her a crackpot, and I found none. I think she's basically beneath notice of reliable science stories. Does anyone have any more sources about Moret? Her claims really smack of fringe conspiracy pseudoscience theories; it would be nice to be able to say so in the article. I'm tempted to bring it to AFD again with a thorough explanation of why I don't think the coverage of Moret amounts to substantial, independent and reliable, but it survived an AFD so recently that I won't be doing that any time soon. Anyhow, this could probably use some attention from someone more experienced than me, so I'll stop blathering. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at this, and I'm really not convinced that this individual is notable in any real sense. In the article's current state, the main claim seems to be that she is "educating citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other officials" but I, for one, would need some fairly substantial sources to back up such a exceptional (yet vague) claim. I have checked journal archives with no success, but have found results in a news archive. LM has commented extensively on the Japan nuclear crisis and a number of other nuclear events. She is described variously as


 * Independent Scientist/DU Radiation Expert (Atlantic Free Press, Leuren Moret and Alfred Webre call for International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal, claiming "9/11 was a False Flag Operation by an international War Crimes Racketeering Organization, to provide a pretext to engage in Genocidal & Ecocidal Depleted Uranium (DU) bombing of Central Asia (Afghanistan and Iraq) [...] and to implement the final stages of a world Depopulation policy")
 * world renowned geoscientist and authority on depleted uranium (Mehr News Agency, "The genetic future of the Iraqi people for the most part, is destroyed [...] The long- term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence. Iraq is a toxic wasteland. Anyone who is there stands a good chance of coming down with cancer and leukemia. [...] "the (Iraq) environment now is completely radioactive.")
 * nuclear authority (Pacific Free Press, Nuke Ammo Fired in Mid-East Could Kill More than Fat Man and Little Boy"
 * "An independent radiation specialist, who has worked in 46 countries as a professional geo-scientist. An expert witness on Depleted Uranium weaponry at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in Tokyo, she was also appointed as an expert witness on DU for the Canadian Parliament and has published on HAARP, weather-modification, tectonic warfare, mind-control, 4th generation nuclear weapons, and scientific issues related to 9/11." (Atlantic Free Press, The Science and the Politics of 9/11 Conference To Be Held in Madison, Wisconsin, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth will be holding its first conference, "The Science and the Politics of 9/ What's Controversial, What's Not", at the Radisson Madison from August 3-5 in Madison, Wisconsin.")


 * Of 28 total results, these are the best; the oldest results I can see are from 2002, but those mention LM as being on Berkeley's environmental commission (in local press/newswires). In 2003, she was advocating that ""Nanoscience will be used to implement the Pentagon's global plan, which is to take out 50 percent of the world's population", but the geophysicist/nuclear expert business didn't appear until an article she wrote for the Japan Times in 2004 ("Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette") where the article blurb describes her as " a geoscientist who worked at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory on the Yucca Mountain Project, and became a whistle-blower in 1991 by reporting science fraud on the project and at Livermore. She is an independent and international radiation specialist, and the Environmental Commissioner in the city of Berkeley, Calif. She has visited Japan four times to work with Japanese citizens, scientists and elected officials on radiation and peace issues."


 * I have 2 concerns: first, that these are not particularly reliable sources (aside from the Japan Times, although I don't know how they check their author bios). They appear to be similar to published newswire or press releases, and I suspect they have not done much background work to verify whether the subject's claims are true. "World-renowned" "nuclear authority" are very serious claims, and I have seen absolutely nothing which backs them up in any way, nor have I found anything which confirms any of the other claims made about the subject. This is my other concern: LM presumably says she is a nuclear authority, sources with little or no fact-checking (or no interest in reducing puffery or hyperbole) back it up, and it proliferates throughout the Internet. That is the impression I am getting here.


 * Likewise, the coverage in GBooks, GScholar and GNews all seems to originate from extremely fringe sources, but I don't feel she is a notable fringe (speaker? scientist?). I have found not one source which comments on her, or is a critique or review of her work.


 * There does seem to be a profile of her in a book called Warrior Mothers - Stories to Awaken the Flames of the Heart by Thais Mazur (Rising Star Press), which is a series of profiles about female activists. It's out of print, and seems to be available in 10 US libraries, so may be difficult to obtain.


 * I also came across a letter published in the East Bay Express on 27 December 2006. Obviously I can't guarantee it came from the subject (although it is signed by someone of that name):

President Bush's vicious nationwide attack on whistleblowers comes to Berkeley via an all-too-obliging city council mayor, and police department

''Since becoming a Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab whistleblower in 1991 I have worked diligently and effectively for the past six years as an independent scientist, to educate the global community on radiation issues both locally and internationally. The dark legacy of Dr. Strangelove, former Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab Director Edward Teller, is the fact that the University of California will forever be known as "the University that poisoned the world." The University of California has turned Planet Earth into a Death Star.

The problems with my cars and the Berkeley Police Department started after I did a presentation on radiation and depleted uranium on September 11, 2005 for Physicians for Social Responsibility.

When I left the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab in 1991 I was told, "You're in a police net for the rest of your life," and to a reasonable person it seems I have been. I have been subjected to car theft, damage to personal property, the University of California/Homeland Security Special - "gangstalking," and very frequently experienced documents missing from my home. My daughter was kidnapped when she was 13 facilitated by the University of California and Livermore Lab, and I did not see her for 5 years.

On three occasions in the past several years my cars have been towed by Berkeley Police Department using selective enforcement the timing of which coincided with major radiation disclosures I have made. Some would think they were related since the Berkeley Police Department "Red Squad" was actively killing the Free Speech Movement in the '60s and I have observed them covertly spying on demonstrations recently.

Leuren Moret Berkeley''


 * I honestly do not think it would be wise to make any assertions about the subject without absolutely cast-iron sources (by which I mean top-rank newspapers and journals, which we can guarantee have not taken information about LM from random Internet sites, less reliable news articles or Wikipedia, without thoroughly fact-checking them before publication.) -- Kateshortforbob talk  13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Apologies for the lengthy post; I must learn brevity!


 * I think you are correct. I did a lexis-nexis academic search on "Leuren Moret" limiting the search to major world publications, and got only 4 hits. Three were in articles about the documentary "Blowin' in the wind". In all news publications, there are 29 hits. I've checked about 1/3 of those, and I do not see what I would say is significant coverage in reliables sources about her--there are numerous passing mentions and quotes by her, and some of the standard blurbs "about the author" for things she has written. No hits in ISI Web of Science in author or topic, nor in Health Source. Google scholar does not find any article written by her in academic journals. So it appears to me that she is a pundit, with a sensationalist slant, who's been been quoted in a number of reliable sources. I'm not sure there would be any problem bringing it up at AFD again, the last round did not involve many editors, and the discussion was a bit limited. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a reference to a book which has its own Wikipedia article: Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, maybe this is the "cast-iron" source Kateshortforbob is looking for. Please do not bring up the article on AfD again as Mrs Moret clearly passes WP:GNG.
 * I have furthermore rewritten this stub, and I believe that for now every single assertion is backed by the references. I do contest the view that only "major world publications" are eligible as sources for WP articles: Tehran Times is perfectly suitable for issues concerning Iran. What I did not find yet are reliable sources saying that Moret's views are fringe. I'll be working on it later today. --Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see exactly three mentions of Moret's name in the book you refer to looks like a trivial mention to me. Also, the article on the book doesn't establish its notability as far as I can see, just a couple of reviews in very minor publications. Oh, and the title of the article in the Tehran Times is "Globalists attempting to depopulate the world". So much for WP:RS. Why, exactly do you think she meets WP:GNG? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because multiple, independent, reliable sources have printed in-depth coverage about her views. Whether or not you agree with the Tehran Times is entirely inconsequential, but even if we don't want to accept sources from the Axis of Evil there is still the Sydney Herald, the Daily News, and the book. --Pgallert (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The mention in the book is brief and trivial; it does not help establish notability. The story in the Sydney Herald uses her as a source for opinion; it's not a profile or a story about her; this does not establish notability. The Wikipedia article on the Tehran Times says that it calls itself "the voice of the Islamic Revolution". This doesn't sound reliable or neutral to me; it sounds fringe. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And one more, somewhat technical comment: As her biography is certainly not fringe, and her (admittedly odd) views are not covered in the article due to unavailability of reliable sources, I believe this is the wrong forum to discuss her BLP stub. --Pgallert (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What forum would you recommend? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My recommendation would be some discussion about sources on the article's talk page, just to see if we can reach consensus, and ask for some more opinions, but my inclination is to bring it back up at AFD. No rush, but I'm not seeing sources that establish notability in the general sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's not really a discussion developing on that talk page; the questions have been there since March. Maybe someone from this forum could offer an opinion there? --Pgallert (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would recommend the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard because the argument all seems to be about it. I'm not a regular here at FRINGE but I would assume that as long as a biography only states an individual's fringe opinion and does not make the transition to postulate that fringe as fact, then the biography itself is not fringe. Feel free to trout slap me if I'm wrong. --Pgallert (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As it offers an opportunity to also ask the general question of how impartial a reliable source must be, I have posted two questions on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. --Pgallert (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not feel'n the notability for an article, which is too bad as I think a bio on her would go a long way towards manageing some of the puffery in her author bios. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, someone has removed the notability tag I put on the article. I really think non-notable, and the WP bio is being used to promote this pseudoscience and conspiracy. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Three issues: notability, "fringiness", and reliability of sources
My own thought is that we have three different issues with this article, which should be addressed separately.

(1) Is Leuren Moret notable enough for an article? I think not; if someone who agrees wants to nominate the article for deletion and point me there, I'll show up.

(2) If she is notable (or in the interim while the deletion discussion goes on), is the fringe nature of her stances reflected reasonably in the article? Here, I think the article is in good shape. All facts seem correct, and are cited to sources. Puffery has been removed. The article refers to Moret's "crusade"; her specific fringe beliefs about the 2011 Japanese earthquake are stated, but clearly as opinion rather than fact. Do others agree?

(3) Are reliable sources used in establishing her notability, her opinions, her background? On this issue I'm not clear. Sure, the minutes from the Berkeley CEAC are unimpeachable. But the Tehran Times and a conspiracy-laden personal website are used to source some of Moret's quotations and public stances. I guess I'm okay with propaganda machines and fringe websites for sourcing what are clearly fringe claims; it's sort of like quoting a homeopathist about what a homeopathic remedy is supposed to do. But I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia's general tolerance for such sources, and I'd definitely appreciate some others' thoughts here.

I know this noticeboard is only technically concerned with (2), but as Pgallert notes, talk page discussion has not progressed. Thoughts? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Satoshi Kanazawa
There is currently controversy in the University of London surrounding this individual's publications. In these circumstances, when serious ethical questions have been raised and his scholarship placed in doubt, is it permissible to cite his work as a reliable source on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Evolutionary Psychology overreach. Most EPs don't don't take such extreme positions but Kanazawa is one those in the extreme camp. As far as his camp of EP is concerned every Western Bourgeoisie bias can be explained by evolution. I can't speak for all his work but this latest article is definitly not reliable. The article was essentially a WP:SPS on his blog hosted on Psychology Today website. This did not go through any peer review process nor did an editor approve it before it was posted there. This why WP:SPS even when written by an expert in their field can be dubious for a source. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Flavio Gioia
In researching my paternal blood line I came upon your article about a Flavio Gioia Italian mariner and navigator reputed to have perfected the magnetic compass. While I am unsure of this mans contributions in maritime navigational instruments; there is no doubt in my mind the man Flavio Gioia existed. It would be a difficult pill for anyone to swallow when being told by some neophyte that ones ancestor is simply a figment of their familial imaginations! Flavio Gioia's decendants come from a long line of the Gioia family; which includes Di Gaetano and Bologna blood. My paternal grandmother Concetta Bologna ni Di Gaetano was a Gioia on her mothers side and consistently spoke about Flavio as a distant maternal relative. Certainly; the Gioia name is a prominant Italian Amercican surename of whom many I have met. Therefore; it seems obvious that such a man going by the name of Flavio Gioia existed. As to whether or not he actually had anything to do with perfecting the magnetic compass I am unsure of; and so seems the case with historians as well because they obviously cannot make up their minds as to whether or not such a man existed. Perhaps they should speak with contemporary Gioia family members to put this matter to rest once and for all?


 * Sincerely Yours
 * James J. Bologna part Di Gaetano; part Gioia; part Kelly; part Baer!


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles need to be based on published reliable sources, rather than the testimony of descendants. I suggest that you would be best advised to direct your attempts to get your ancestor's role recognised elsewhere - Wikipedia doesn't do research, we report that done by others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Objections to evolution
Just putting the board on notice that on Objections to evolution User:Stephfo has been WP:POINTY and has probably crossed 3RR at this point (I would do the report myself but I really hate putting together 3RR cases) as both his username and User:88.88.83.52. He appears to be a creationist attempting to push his POV and if you check out the talk page I think you'll see immediately why I'm bringing it here for attention. I'm also not quite willing to make the accusation, but his writing style is reminding me of someone else, I'll wait and see if anyone else picks up on that before I mention any names. N o f o rmation Talk  01:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is actually directly tied to the to the postings two topics above this. It should probably be combined.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ages in Chaos
I got involved in this article a couple of years back, but had forgotten it until it came up on my watchlist. The article is mostly a recap of the author's, Immanuel Velikovsky's, claims with only a tiny section on the end, mentioning the complete evisceration of these claims. Also, as another editor pointed out, most of this section is criticism of Velikovsky's claims generally, rather than specific criticism of this book. I am therefore going to nominate the article for merger into the author's article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ley line and Earth mysteries
I have proposed merger of the two above articles which have so much overlap there is little point in keeping them separate. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Gus W. Weiss
New article on a possibly-notable individual suffers from a lack of proper sourcing. The citations currently in use include rense.com, Alex Constantine's 911review.org and SciForums.com...beyond that it's a paid NYT obit and a primary source from the CIA. Fringey stuff, and it needs a good look.

I'm headed out the door, so I can't perform due diligence. Hopefully some of you will be willing to check in on this article. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't know why it was written using fringe sourcing, there seems to be a number of legit news mentions for a bio. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rense.com should never be used as a source except in a very limited way at Rense.com. Not so long ago I deleted all such links from Wikipedia. I'll happily do the same at this article. Should we consider putting it on the blacklist? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have deleted all the sources save one from the article because they were all clearly worthless sources. The one source I left is an article of some sort by Weiss hosted on the CIA's website, but there is no indication of where the article was originally published or why it's on the CIA's site. The whole thing needs careful verification and may be a candidate for deletion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work, everyone...the article is much improved! &mdash; Scientizzle 15:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

UFO Phil
Would someone be able to take a look at the UFO Phil article? Practically everything that has been written about this guy (from his own website to newspaper articles) is tongue-in-cheek, but the article presents too many of his claims as facts. I highly doubt that he was actually born in Roswell, for example. I'm not even sure if Phil Hill is his real name.

This is probably more of an "in-universe" issue than a fringe theories issue, but I figured this would be the best place to ask for assistance. Zagal e jo^^^ 02:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think saying he was "reportedly" born in Roswell is appropriate, especially if there are only one or two "news of the weird" references to support that statement. Other than that, the article suffers from WP:CITEKILL, e.g. 14 citations for a single sentence (he plans to build a pyramid). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy seems to be a tongue-in-cheek self-promoting UFO enthusiast who has made enough noise and acted weird in public enough to get some equally tongue-in-cheek local coverage that was picked up by other papers and stations for their weekly "news of the weird" feature. I honestly question whether there's notability here. It looks to me like he's trying to logroll that coverage into a Wikipedia article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard L. Thompson
Big rewrite by an IP, latest version has removed all sources and all mention of his book Forbidden Archeology. Hopefully this will be replaced as without it it clearly fails NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't time to look at it carefully but it looks as though Forbidden Archeology is back. 2 editors, one an IP spa. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, even the old version seems to be problematical -- I'm seeing little in the way of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- most of it seems to be unsourced, sourced to affiliated websites, or to material on Michael Cremo, rather than Thompson. But I'm not seeing any evidence to date that the new version is any improvement. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science
Back in 1981 Thompson wrote a book titled Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science (available online here. One of Thompson's followers is attempting to foist the following quote on us as a description of the book: "attractive quality of this book is that Thompson writes as a scientist about science with a clarity, accuracy, and objectivity that should engender respect both from scientists and from those whose religious persuasions are other than his own. . . . Scientists reading the book need not feel betrayed by Thompson, for he shows throughout both a respect and love for good science. Because he loves science, he is pained by its contradictions and seeks its intelligibility in a larger context... On balance, I think this book is a very valuable addition to the current literature in science and religion. Thompson's choice of examples from science that seem to upset contemporary scientific paradigms is superb. They are all relevant. They are carefully explained and in one book. Many come from quite recent developments (including punctuated equilibrium model of evolution by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould) which I have not outlined in this review. These examples form test cases that must be applied to any philosophy of religion that claims adequacy to represent science. The process theologian or Thomist, for example, can examine how process philosophy or Thomism can handle the puzzles and anomalies arising in science that seem to discredit current scientific explanation, as well as compare the success of such philosophies with one derived from the Bhagavad-gita."



I don't have access to the full review, and I have concerns -- both as to whether the above, heavily-ellipsised, passage is an accurate reflection of the review as a whole, and also whether the author is competent to evaluate the scientific (as opposed to philosophical or mathematical -- he's listed as "a Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College") merits of the work. Certainly citing discussion of "punctuated equilibrium model of evolution by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould" as a positive seems somewhat naive (at least in hindsight), given the pervasive creationist misrepresentation of their work. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Another editor has AfDed this article. Discussion can be found at Articles for deletion/Richard L. Thompson. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology
There seem to be renewed problems on this page and the associated article Criticism of evolutionary psychology. This relatively new subject is not universally accepted and there have been a series of critiques of certain aspects of the theory. Some of these for example were summarised in an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Stephen Downes here. Since the topic area is controversial, I am posting here, because of a loose relation of some aspects of the subject with fringe science. It would be good if more eyes could look at what appear to be attempts to rewrite the article so that readers get the impression that all criticisms might have been invalidated. My own feeling is that it is inappropriate for wikipedia editors to use primary sources to make arguments for or against the different facets of this subject: the area is far from being black and white. Some aspects of the theory are not controversial, whereas others are. At present there seems to be a mismatch between the two wikipedia articles and the Stanford article: that seems to be a problem. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A subject with thousands of peer-reviewed articles, including in major psychology journals, if of course not fringe.Miradre (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote that—as described for example in the survey article by Downes—there is "a loose relation of some aspects of the subject with fringe science." That makes this the most appropriate noticeboard for a general discussion. (Miradre is by the way one of the editors involved in the latest round of revisions to the articles.) Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps we could usefully discuss how to categorise it. It isn't "obvious pseudoscience", that much is clear. It might, like psychoanalysis, come into the category of "questionable science". Or perhaps it is an "alternative theoretical formulation", or perhaps just mainstream science.


 * Personally, I think I can distinguish a weak EP, which anyone who accepts Darwinian evolution would agree with, and a strong EP, which seems to put barriers round itself. If I suddenly feel very hungry at 7 o'clock this evening, and start to eat, that's because I'm an ape that has evolved to eat at certain times of day. (Weak EP claim.) If I eat fish and chips, and refuse to eat snails, that's cultural. (A "snail-eating gene" would be a strong EP claim.) But I don't know if that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a good illustration of why the words "certain aspects of EP" are used and why there are no black and white arguments. Since that can be read in independent surveys, e.g. the one above, that should be reflected in the articles. Mathsci (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC) As a Brit living in France, I couldn't possibly comment on the food aspects... although I occasionally have the uneasy feeling that after a decade in France I have undergone a slight mutation — I ate tripes provencales in December.
 * I've actually eaten snails often enough to know that the only nice thing about them is the garlic and parsley butter. I draw the line at tripe, even a la mode de Caen. I think the French find the concept of fish and chips fundamentally flawed - two fried foods together, and they have a point. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that there are no criticisms. We have a whole article on the subject. Does not mean it is "fringe". I quote a 2010 review in American Psychologist: "Evolutionary psychology has emerged over the past 15 years as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science."DOI: 10.1037/a0018413 Miradre (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion here is not about whether this subject is fringe or not. The discussion is about the problem of the articles being rewritten so that a reader of wikipedia might go away with the impression that all criticisms have been dismissed. Mathsci (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Miradre seems to have a particular view that he/she is wanting to push. Deleting the lead on the criticism page boarders on vandalism and in the past 48hrs major revisions have been made to make an EP biased article even more so. Some additional help on that page would be appreciated.


 * I will also note that I respectfully disagree about distinguishing between 'weak' and 'strong' EP when the textbooks on evolutionary psychology do not make that distinction. The textbooks on EP come with all sorts of assumptions about how the mind works - that's where the critics take issue. 'Weak EP', in my mind, is nothing more than psychologists applying evolutionary thinking to psychology. In that way, it is no different from the work of Freud, Bowlby, or even Skinner. Evolutionary psychology means something different and I think we are doing the reader a huge disservice by confusing the potential meaning of EP. By doing so, we are potentially setting up a situation where the criticisms become impotent, since EP is no longer described as being committed to any core set of theoretical assumptions. This is not how evolutionary psychology is seen by proponents within that field. The textbooks in evolutionary psychology are very clear about how their field defines the mind: as innately pre-specified, domain-specific information-processing mechanisms, that originated in the Pleistocene due to their having served a specific adaptive function. This is the evolutionary psychology that critics attack. The EP textbooks do not make other distinctions - why should we? Logic prevails (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I agree that in mainspace it is imperative to follow the definitions used in the scholarly debate. I only offered the distinction as a possible guide to our discussion. Psychology that recognises evolution, one kettle of fish; Evolutionary Psychology in caps, another kettle of snails. We are only talking about the latter. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems that the regular anti-EP who hang out at the article are commenting. However, this is clearly not the correct forum. EP, as a major research area in psychology with thousands of peer-reviewed articles, including in major psychology journals, and a steadly increasing influence, see above for source, is clearly not a "fringe theory".Miradre (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like you want to label people pro and anti EP. Of course it is OK to raise the question here of how we should categorise EP. Anyway, let's hope we get some uninvolved comments now. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre - Phrenology had just as much enthusiasm and peer-reviewed support in its day. We all know how that turned out. Logic prevails (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Phrenlology of course never had thousands of peer-reviewed articles published. Including in major psychological journals. I again quote a 2010 review in American Psychologist: "Evolutionary psychology has emerged over the past 15 years as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science." Miradre (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only because Phrenology predates the proliferation of academic journals in the way that we have today. What they did have was overwhelming peer-reviewed support. It was very much held in high regard in its day. Also keep in mind what the word 'peer' really means here - other evolutionary psychologists. Logic prevails (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a general dispute regarding peer-review in science, then this is the wrong forum and your task looks difficult indeed. Phrenology would of course never have been able to make correct predictions confirmed by empirical experiments unlike evolutionary psychology. Again, evolutionary psychology has thousands of peer-reviewed articles. Including in major, general psychology journals.Miradre (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There seem to be some misunderstandings about phrenology here. It was an important part of the development of psychiatry and neuroscience, most of its basic premises have been vindicated, but some aspects were rightly disputed and ridiculed. It also became embroiled in crankery and pseudoscience. Evolutionary psychology may have similar success in the long run, in the meantime we have to show significant viewpoints including disputes or criticisms. . dave souza, talk 20:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Leonora Piper again
SPA IP at seeking to add fringe POV giving credibility to communication with the dead. IP has since created an SPA user account: for the express purpose of furthering this aim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Engaging the SPA, but could use a hand... Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Iranian nationalist disruption at Ancient History
User:Xythianos is an aggressive Iranian nationalist who insists on pushing a Persian-nationalist POV over at Ancient history. For example, he insists on replacing the mention of the Battle of Salamis and the Battle of Plataea from the timeline, and replacing them with Battle of Thermopylae, for no other reason than the latter is a Persian victory. Thermopylae was indeed significant (not so much because it was a Persian victory but rather due to its effect on Greek morale), but it is eclipsed by Salamis and Plataea, which were the strategically decisive engagements that ended once and for all the Persian attempts to conquer Greece. He also inflates the contributions of ancient Persia to science and technology using empty peacock generalizations and extravagant claims based on outright source falsification (the source clearly credits the Babylonians, not the Persians). Now, I'm not opposed to some mention of Persian technology in the article, but not like this, not with this user's attitude and not with this type of source falsification. I've tried to discuss things with him, the results can be seen in the first diff. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Creationist views on the Second Law of Thermodynamics
A new editor is inserting some rather strange claims from a reasonably prominent British creationist. The articles involved are: The claim is: "McIntosh declares that decrease in entropy is generally possible, however there are nanomachines necessary to achieve for that effect, and he even tries to demonstrate it with examples that the chemical bonds between nucleotides require an extra free energy to take part in the process, an this extra energy can be provided in his view only by means of these molecular machines. He argues that if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to happen. Further on he points out that after living organism dies and these machines cease working, the DNA starts falling apart even while still being exposed to extra energy. Thus, he believes natural selection has no power to create new functional structures."
 * (the creationist in question)
 * (the creationist in question)

Discussion of McIntosh & the claim can be found at Talk:Objections to evolution. I'm concerned about adding such a claim without some sort of evaluation from mainstream science as to what the claim actually means, and whether it is credible (and/or merely making the commonplace seem miraculous). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you could go either way with this. The argument is spectacularly thin (once pulled apart DNA doesn't naturally put itself together again, therefore there's no evolution (eh? run that past me again), nanomachines just dropped in as a red herring). But maybe it is a typical statement of the creationist entropy-based argument and thus worth using in order to set out that argument (as far as you can call it an argument, but that's the case all the way through). There is already a crystal-clear statement linked to, showing that entropy is reversed in natural processes all the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The text appears to fail WP:UNDUE: Wikipedia does not attempt to expound every odd idea ever proposed. I wonder what "declares that decrease in entropy is generally possible" means: the laws of thermodynamics do not require anyone to make a declaration. If the interpretations of science presented in the quoted piece had any scientific standing there would be reliable sources with peer-reviewed discussions of the matter. Given that study of biology and medicine is based on evolutionary principles, WP:REDFLAG would require multiple and highly reliable sources to support a claim invented by a small number of people. If the claim is a well known "objection to evolution", a greatly reduced summary of the idea might be worth mentioning, but it is not Wikipedia's role to present such text (which is dressed and presented as if it were science), unless there are suitable scientific sources. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is worthless. WIT Press is a vanity press that charges authors 50 Euro a page to publish their work []. I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry. It's basically just a slapdash rehash of irreducible complexity and complex information tripe interspersed with some irrelevant claptrap about the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, it's poorly sourced, and clearly not peer reviewed. As such, it violates WP:SELFPUB. Clearly not a source that meets WP guidelines in any way, shape or form, and not notable as well.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be please possible to enlist the three major fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry you have managed to find in that text? Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's kind of weird that people who have nothing to do with termodynamics are providing "peer-review" for position of professor of thermodynamics. --Stephfo (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to fail to present the whole story with WIT press []. If you have never found any article presenting data that would be later corrected in the "mainstream scientific per-reviewed" journals, pls. let me know, I'm sure I will be able to point you in the right direction.--Stephfo (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this request is incomprehensible gibberish. What is it you are asking for? If you're disputing the statement that WIT Press is unreliable, you might want to take it up at WP:RSN. I believe the denizens of that noticeboard are aware of which publishers produce legitimate scientific journals and which do not. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To summarize my position:

My problem is that evolutionists who posted the aledged objection to evolution on the second law of thermodynamics completely altered the argument and when I made already two versions of modification   they are erasing it within minute and do not allow even for NPOV discussion to be raised. I'm convinced that the objection is manipulated to something else than what it really is and thus it is misleading the Wikipedia reader. It is very tricky case: group A, evolutionists, with opinion X, declares that their opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be still ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection.--Stephfo (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Vobisdu is clearly correct that this goes nowhere near meeting requirements for sourcing of factual information. The only quibble here is that this isn't an article about science (I think), but an article about "objections to evolution". About a non-scientific set of arguments. In the mid 19th century there were some scientific objections to evolution and even after that there were many unsettled questions, and some debates. Now, however, there are no longer any scientific objections to evolution. If the topic is encyclopedic at all, and I'm not 100% sure it is, then we have to use some of the non-scientific texts that object to evolution. A text like this, on the other hand, is arguably primary for this article. Can the whole article be written up entirely from non-involved sources. Is an argument only notable if it has hit the New York Times? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source for an argument put out by one specific young earth creationist. If it's significant to the topic it should be possible to find discussion of it by reliable secondary sources which show it in the mainstream context required by weight policy. Without such sources, putting it in the article without context would give "equal validity" to a non-notable and essentially insignificant fringe view. The editor promoting inclusion is apparently concerned that linking it from the Andrew McIntosh article is wrong as it doesn't give a specific rebuttal to McIntosh's tosh. Probably the best option is to remove all mention of this insignificant argument from both articles, unless a secondary source is found examining these specific claims from a majority viewpoint. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Add. "apparently ..." Not really:    I'm disputing this article section because it clearly violates this WP policy (“Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”)- the article misrepresents the position of proponents of this argument and replaces it with a strawman. In the article devoted to A.McIntosh (Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds) there had been a hyperlink to this section (that I removed but it was already several times put back) thus creating false impression that this section should be expression of his position as creationist. That's why I propose to present the real position of proponents of this argument as stated above, properly sourced in their papers (the first refused version was sourced from BBC Radio Ulster) and not just its stripped version. If anybody feels that argument is wrong, it is possible to state it below that text with all the reasoning without the need to remove the text explaining creationist’s position (the section declares: “Creationists argue that” but it fails to present the full version of heir position).
 * The article "objections to evolution" obviously attempts to state that it is enlisting and possibly refuting objections raised against evolution. If one of the objection (namely “Violation of the second law of thermodynamics”) is regarded as not allowed to be presented as it is declared, then I believe the whole section should disappear because it is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Wikipedia reader, creating false notion about argument raised and even possibly unethically damaging the reputation of a person by twisting his position (WP:V“Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people”). I do not care whether creationists are right or wrong, or if someone is able to refute their claims or not, but if someone atributes some opinion to them, then this opinion should be of theirs, and not replaced by something else.--Stephfo (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Drnhawkins
Those interested in fringe articles and editors may be interested in this RfC/U. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I spent some time looking into this editor's history.
 * Wow . . . just, wow. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Vakkalagadda
This topic has many contradictory statements. This doesn't have any citation to prove that. Those statements were removed multiple times, but someone is adding those purposefully to damage the reputation of the other political party over there, thus providing some false information in Wikipedia(which is not acceptable). Wherever the citation needed is asked, please provide the appropriate citation, or else please remove those statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppinnam (talk • contribs) 01:46, 1 July 2011

Richard L. Thompson again


Acolytes of Thompson are attempting to mitigate the evisceration of his notable Vedic creationism work, by adding lengthy sections on his all-but-ignored work, cited to the very few 'science & religion' sources that actually paid any attention to them (and generally gave them a more favourable review than the scientists gave his more notable work). Some extra scrutiny may be needed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

...And are now citing Theta: The Journal of the Psychical Research Foundation for information on one of them. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, perhaps they are attempting to make him appear more notable for the Afd by cramming the article? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wedge strategy
, having been thoroughly disruptive on Intelligent design, is now turning their attention to, mainly pushing the claim that (numerous prominent sourcing to the contrary), ID isn't religious. More scrutiny would be valuable. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lloyd Pye
The guy is fringe "science theorist" but the article currently consists of a lot of content WP:SYNthesized by wikipedia editors to disprove the claims and relying on Pyes posted criticism of his Wikipedia article in some bad WP:CIRCULAR claims - in otherwords a mess.

Can someone come clean it up? (also cross posting on BLP notice board). Active Banana    (bananaphone  —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 20 May 2011.


 * I just noticed this and agree it is a train wreck. Pye's claims haven't gotten much of any notice in reliable sources, so there was no need to even mention them, much less exhaustively debunk them with original research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have since removed all the OR and primary sourced junk. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Signature in the Cell


We have an WP:SPA on this article edit-warring to have the uncited (and most probably POV-WP:Synthesis) claim that "This criticism, however, overlooks the fact that Meyer spends many pages explaining that complexity alone does not imply intentional design." I'm WP:3RRed out -- so if somebody else can take a look (the SPA seems completely uninterested in discussing the issue). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Determined little fella, ain't he. Now he's got me 3rr'ed out, too. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a little hard to see how he can have you both up against 3rr without violating it himself. In any case I dropped a 3rr warning on his page and will make a report at WP:3RRN. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 3 days as an ip joined in following the 3rr warning. Vsmith (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, another ridiculous Wikipedia article that discusses the critical reception of a book at wearying length but never deigns to give the reader the slightest idea of what the book actually says. Looie496 (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Scientific investigation of telepathy
Simply awful! For example, it acts as if there weren't severe methodological, statistical, and other flaws in Rhine's work (the original Zener cards were partially transparent; the statistics were done as if the zener cards were randomised completely, when they weren't shuffled between cards, etc. 86.179.72.113 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply awful is a total understatement. May I suggest ghastly, appalling, atrocious and frickin' unbelievable. Clearly a candidate for wholesale deletion, as it's basically a POV fork of Parapsychology. I'd try to edit it if there were hope, but this is the sort of thing God created crappers for. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks more like a long-forgotten POV fork of Telepathy to me. Suggest a merge or redirect to that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's more of a fork of Telepathy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merged to Telepathy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Crohn's disease
Isn't this a bait-and-switch? Most of the supposed "alternative" treatments are, in fact, conventional or experimental conventional treatments. 86.179.72.113 (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Management_of_schizophrenia reads like an advert. 86.179.72.113 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth Wapnick
Completely unsourced bio unabashedly heroicizing the subject and promoting the profound nature of A Course In Miracles. Contains flowery musings such as, "...the thoroughness and accuracy of the concordance produced by Wapnick was fully on a par with some of the more thorough concordances already used for the Christian Bible." It also reports a copyright lawsuit over ACIM as centered around "the disputed claim that Jesus Christ is the author of the material" rather than all too human squabbling between authors and publishers. Wrap it up with a book list that goes on for miles, and you can see it's an article in dire need of help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to clean up the article a bit. Re-add text I've removed as you feel relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that the article could be merged into A Course In Miracles since it's really just about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merged to A Course In Miracles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian Settipani as a reliable source
Over the last month I've been working in a determined way to improve a number of articles on 5th & 6th century European history topics, & have been surprised to see a number of these articles use the works of Settipani as a source. I never heard of this guy before, & finally took the time to look into him & his ideas about Descent from antiquity. To say I'm underwhelmed at what I found is to put it mildly: he's just another computer geek & amateur historian, like me & countless contributors to Wikipedia. In many of these articles, his works are cited in the same breath with standard references such as Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire or Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft -- or as the only source for the article -- for example, Ecdicius & Felix (consul 511), & as a rather egregious example, Ennodius. To make matters worse, a preliminary investigation suggests these citations are all due to the efforts of a currently banned user.

While I can see the point of mentioning his theories in the articles about people who form these genealogical chains into antiquity -- some of which are clearly more speculative than others -- I don't see how it helps Wikipedia's reliability for articles to cite his works so frequently (a search on his name turns up 317 mentions), so I'd like to remove him from various articles as I encounter them, & have accumulated more reliable sources -- similar to what I've done with Odoacer, & several of the Visigothic kings of the 6th century. Thoughts? Arguments that Settipani is not a fringe author/source? -- llywrch (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh for heaven's sake, look at the difference in Settipani's article between the pre Cupertino version and his edits: "Passionate about genealogy, he has specialised in the ancestry of earlyMiddle Ages people and earlier. His work is much quoted by genealogists, being widely accepted by them, searching for the elusive Descent from antiquity (DFA), in which area of expertise he is one of the current major authorities, having inspired other researchers." A Google books search does not back this up in any way. I know how hard work this can be, but please carry on removing material sources to Settipani unless you can find a reliable source for it. Good work. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Doug, are you saying "For heaven's sake" to me, or to Cupertino? I'm just being cautious, since while I know a bit about the subject I know I don't know everything. -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonard R. Brand


An AfD on this relatively minor creationist has just closed as "no consensus, but let's do this again!" Given the large amount of, in my opinion questionable, material that has been added to this article to keep it from being deleted, I have raised an RFC on the topic at Talk:Leonard R. Brand. You may wish to express an opinion. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand's main promoter is now trying to get the following two quotes from Brand into the article:

(The second one, in spite of the fact that he's clinging to a widely falsified hypothesis) I have suggested that these claims fall well foul of the 'unduly self-serving' clause of WP:ABOUTSELF. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Differentiation in Ito calculus
There's an ongoing edit war in the article on Ito calculus. There's a section on differentiation in Ito calculus, which is not found in the standard textbooks on the subject. It seems as though some single-purpose accounts are using wikipedia to promote this point of view. The author of the original paper even links to the wikipedia page from his website.

The paper on which this result is based has 0 citations on MathSciNet, a major resource for mathematics research. Google scholar lists 5 citations, though I can verify that the author of the original paper was involved in at least three of these. The other two are duplicates of a paper in a language I cannot read. SimonL (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This material was added over four years ago by an account created for that sole purpose. When removed, it has been reinserted by other accounts created solely for the purpose of restoring that section. These include, , ,  and currently . The arguments on notability on the talk page are completely unconvincing (in particular the references to two recent Fields medalists). Forgetting about the mathematics for the moment, my guess would be that all these accounts are operated by the same person promoting the work of Alloub. To stop the revert wars that happened each time the material was readded, one of the regular contributors/watchers of the page came to some kind of compromise (see the discussion on the talk page). I do not think that compromise was really warranted by the content, even if it did solve a purely user-related problem. Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to go to the trouble of opening an SPI then. Though maybe those accounts are now stale William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Since I'm here... Pierre Teilhard de Chardin has had trash added recently, which I've removed a few times, by the now-blocked User:Chronocrator. But the same junk has been added by. Metric expansion of space also applies, but is currently at peace William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonard R. Brand again
The conflict level on has gotten to a sufficient level that I've decided that the best thing for me to do is to take a self-imposed (and thus purely voluntary) topic-ban on the article. I am therefore requesting that any WP:FTN regulars who have the time (and particularly any with expertise in Creationism, or who have better grace under fire than I do) to take an interest. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Exoconsciousness and Terri Donovan Mansfield
Both created by the same editor. I have been working on Exoconsciousness removing copyvio, stuff sourced to a self-published book by a Ruth Hardcastle, and material that is only about Hardcastle. When I finished I ended up with three sentences, the only reliably sourced one having just a brief mention of the subject, and a lot of links which I suspect are about Hardcastle and not the subject. I'd like a sanity check on what I've done and any comments as to whether it should go to AfD. Terri Donovan Mansfield is a BLP article starting with "Terri Donovan Mansfield is a recognized Ambassador of Peace". Virtually all the sources seem to be to material by her. My initial thoughts were that she might be notable, but I don't see any real news coverage for her or anything else, but maybe someone can find some. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought "While thousands marched for immigration reform in cities throughout Arizona, very few were talking civilly to others across the aisle with different points of view." was pretty good too. Concur on Exoconsciousness article - merge the remnants into Mansfield?  The Mansfield article isn't much better.  A quick Google search didn't turn up anything that isn't self-published, which surprised me a bit.  Hmmmm. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Mansfield article was virtually all copyvio, not surprising as it was by the same editor. I've gutted it but she does seem to have had some very minor (judging by the word count) coverage in the Arizona Republic. I'm still not sure it would survive an AfD. I might take the Exoconsciousness one to AfD today or tomorrow. 16:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Dougweller (talk)


 * Exoconsciousness has a good source or two, just enough to support a paragraph in a larger article such as UFO conspiracy theory, although some feel that article has become a dumping ground for marginally notable alien/ufo stuff. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so let's put it into a larger article if we can find one and turn Exoconsciousness into a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would redirect both Exoconsciousness and Mansfeild back to Exopolitics Institute or The Disclosure Project where they seem to have escaped from. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleve Backster
Telepathic plants, anyone? As used by a former "Interrogation Specialist with the CIA" (no citation provided, naturally) for lie detection, at the 'Backster School of Lie Detection' - the "longest running polygraph school in the world" (nope, no citation for that either). Prime grade bullshit. As a BLP, I could probably delete half of it as a policy violation anyway. Anyone see any reason why an AfD isn't the obvious course of action though? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any chance of an AfD succeeding, he is discussed in reliable sources, he was the focus of an episode of Mythbusters (citation needed but easy to find, ), etc. The CIA etc stuff all needs sourcing of course. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Advise copyediting the article to include only what reliable and independent sources like some of these cover. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthroposophical medicine
This article seems very rose tinted in its description (a proponent currently edits the article mostly), is there anyone with an interest in fringe medicine to have a look at it? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The challenge with anthroposophical articles is that what reliable sources there are on them (and there are a fair bit) tend to also be a bit rosy in the treatment. It has been very difficult to find material critical of things derived from Rudolf Steiner's work that is not full of errors as to be unreliable.  The particular editor who has done most of the work there, actually does a fairly good job of staying within NPOV policy, you might just drop him a note to ask if maybe some of the rosy tone could be moderated.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Faculty of Homeopathy, Peter Fisher (physician), and British Homeopathic Association
Puff pieces. I've done a bit to improve these, but there's still some promotional language, like "The Faculty promotes the academic and scientific development (What does that mean? Science has come down firmly against it.) of homeopathy and ensures standards (Puffery!) in the education and training in homeopathy of dentists, doctors, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, podiatrists, veterinary surgeons (But don't tell DEFRA: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/12/17/pet-remedies/ ) and other statutorily-registered healthcare professionals."

Also, none of the masses of criticism they've received appears. I've at least added in a little context about homeopathy, but these were a whitewash, and will probably become so again if not watched.

Peter Fisher will need major rewrites to satisfy WP:FRINGE. 86.183.39.212 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Rick Perry
A single-purpose account account has besieged the talk page for nearly a week attempting to overturn overwhelming consensus against including a mention that Gov. Perry attended a Bilderberg conference in 2007. The clear consensus is that the event is neither notable nor are their significant RS linking Perry to any issues relating to his attendance. Another concern is that even a passing mention of the conference in the article will give a foothold to let theorists expand it into something more.

The SPA alleges that several blogs are enough notability and alleges Wikipedia censorship, etc. for not permitting "the truth" to be published The fact that the meeting was closed to the press is a major issue for the editor and the editor repeatedly calls it a secret meeting in Turkey. He also alleges that Perry violated the Logan Act by attending a meeting with other foreign notables and that Perry is involved in some sort of Manchurian candidate conspiracy with CNN and other unnamed actors.

I request that editors who are familiar with fringe theories and cabals take a look at the four lengthy discussion sections and suggest how we can put this to rest or find a reasonable compromise.

Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been involved in this discussion. For most BLP articles, Bilderberg participation shouldn't be mentioned as it's almost always cherrypicked as a way of indirectly attacking the subject. People at this level attend all sorts of meetings. For some, eg the founders of Bilderberg, committee memebers or whatever the equivalent is, it's relevant. The issues raised by the SPA are clearly meant to defame and we should never, anywhere, accuse anyone of violating a law (and least of all a law that hasn't been used for over two centuries). That the meeting is confidential is irrelevant also. I've warned the SPA that he needs to stop this. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doug, you're involvement in the situation was a major help. Veriss (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
The article on this conspiracy theory advocacy group spends all its time on explaining their theories and nothing on criticism of what is a quite controversial group. Mangoe (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is because the major editors of that page are either affiliated or in agreement with what that group is advocating.--MONGO 21:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

EHF – therapy
My bullshit sensor went off about 1/3rd of the way through the lede on this one. According to the article this EHF therapy is an amazing panacea. I'm not sure what to do with it, since the proponent of it seems to be notable, but the article is so severely biased that it's almost un-salvageable. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, bullshit - and 'our' article is being used as a reference to hawk dubious 'medical' equipment: . I think WP:MEDRS is the relevent policy here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ...Or maybe not. According to our article Extremely high frequency, this therapy seems to have had some recognition in the former Soviet Union etc. I'm not in any position to comment on the sources cited in that article though - probably one for WikiProject Medicine to figure out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article sources a lot of its claims to dissertations submitted by Russian academics. Someone familar with WP:MEDRS could help, but there is a more conservative Western view of EHF - also known as "millimeter wave therapy" found here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ophthalmology in Ayurveda
You too can copy advertising material from a fringe medical practitioner and get it on Wikipedia! 86.174.101.101 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, a straightforward copyright violation - tagged for speedy deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, not quite, or this would be simpler. Check the bottom of the article. Another example of some fringe theory promoter releasing material in an attempt to promote themselves. 86.174.101.101 (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

P. K. Santhakumari
Impressively, every single source fails to back its claims. How do you even manage to do that? 86.174.101.101 (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer turns out to be copyvio of an unmentioned source, with random references added to give the illusion of reliable sourcing. 86.174.101.101 (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories hit ANI
From WP:ANI:


 * is continuing his conspiracy theory campaign. As noted in a previous AN/I thread (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714), Mystichumwipe is a proponent of the view that Al Qaeda's crashing planes into the World Trade Center etc. is merely one of a number of "conspiracy theories". After being notified of the discretionary sanctions around 9/11 conspiracy theories, he has generally avoided the actual 9/11 articles themselves, and instead focused on the Conspiracy theory article, where his intent has been to prove that conspiracy theories are not fringe theories., while arguing at length on the Talk: page. Today he decided to completely re-write the lede of the article, insisting that the term has a "primary meaning" and a "secondary meaning", and that one of the world's foremost experts on conspiracy theories, Michael Barkun, is a proponent of the "secondary meaning". As it probably obvious, there are no sources that indicate that the term has a "primary" and "secondary" meaning - this is merely an invention of Mystichumwipe, as part of his larger project of re-habilitating the 9/11 conspiracy theories. He on-going campaign has now driven the article's main contributer to abandon the article. This cannot be good for Wikipedia, so I've brought the issue here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd repost this here as it is in FTN's bailiwick. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Mystichumwipe there are serious problems with the conservancy theory article as the following secondary and primary sources all disagree with Barkun's definition of "conspiracy theory":


 * Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY ("Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term.")


 * Clarke, Roger (1985) Industrial economics Wiley-Blackwell Page 64


 * Coady David (2006) "Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate" Ashgate Publishing


 * Coady, David, (2007) "Conspiracy Theories" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology - Volume 4, Issue 2, 2007, Edinburgh University Press E-ISSN: 1750-0117 Print ISSN: 1742-3600 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0019 pp. 131-134


 * Fenster Mark (2008) "Conspiracy theories: secrecy and power in American culture" University of Minnesota Press


 * Cubitt, G. T (1989) "Conspiracy myths and Conspiracy theories" Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford Vol 20 No 1 pg 12-26


 * Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley ("A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government.")


 * Keeley, Brian L. ["Of Conspiracy Theories"] The Journal of Philosophy (published by Columbia University], Vol. 96, No. 3. (Mar., 1999), pp. 109-126. ("Conspiracy theories as a general category are not necessarily wrong.  In fact as the cases of Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair illustrate...")


 * Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9


 * Parker, Martin; Jane Parish (2001) "The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences" Wiley-Blackwell


 * Young, Katherine K.; Paul Nathanson (2010) Sanctifying misandry: goddess ideology and the Fall of Man McGill-Queen University Press ISBN 9780773538733 pg 275


 * Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" New York Times ("Other historians argue that past government lies, particularly in the past half-century, have helped fuel conspiracy theories, by giving Americans reasons to suspect their leaders. (“See, I’m not paranoid, I’m right.”)


 * So on InfoWars, the Web site of the hypervigilant radio host Alex Jones, a list of www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used “33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True”] leads from the deceptions of the Gulf of Tonkin and Iran-contra and then moves to accusations of plots by the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve.")


 * Yet we are repeatedly being told that we should ignore WP:WEIGHT and accept Barkun' views as more reliable all the above material. Alex Jones list of "Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True" is a especially a problem as mixed in with fully documented conspiracy theories of the Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, Project MKULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, Watergate, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Operation Northwoods, Nayirah (testimony), Iran-Contra Affair, CIA drug trafficking, Business Plot, Project Valkyrie, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, Operation Snow White, Operation Gladio, and Black Sox Scandal there are boarder lines such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and several often regarded as tin foil hat nonsense such as the New World Order (conspiracy theory).


 * When you have a list of conspiracy theories that puts Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, and Project MKULTRA in the same category as the New World Order (conspiracy theory) and a source claiming that all conspiracy theories are fringe it seems that the all conspiracy theories are fringe source is spouting nonsense on par a guy hiding in his basement in fear of the black helicopters piloted by Gray Aliens who are led by Elvis and call Area 51 home.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Having looked at Jones's list (and um, he fails RS massively-- I'd give Cracked more credence) he's conflating conspiracies with conspiracy theories. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that he is not the only one:


 * "What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose. This definition is consistent with our intuitive responses to many cases. It fits paradigmatic conspiracy theories, such as those according to which Lee Harvey Oswald not acting alone kill John F. Kennedy and those according to which James Earl Ray did not acting alone kill Martin Luther King." (Coady David (2006) "Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate" Ashgate Publishing pg 2)


 * "A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government." (Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)


 * "a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)


 * "As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9, pg 730)


 * "Under this legal definition of conspiracy, it becomes clear that federal prosecutors have often promoted conspiracy theories: examples include the actions of the Chicago Seven at the 1968 Democratic Convention, the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Murrah Federal Building bombing in 1995, and some cases associated with the post–9/11 terror/war." (Bratich, Jack Z. (2008) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 4)


 * "Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category.  We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (sic) (Bratich, Jack Z. (2008) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6)


 * Ashgate Publishing, ABC-CLIO, and SUNY--WP:RS publishers through and through. ANd this is not even touching the Wiley-Blackwell, Columbia University,  McGill-Queen University  University of Minnesota Press sources above that say basically the same thing.


 * Coady's definition raises problem of with the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations ruling back in 1979 where does that leave the conspiracy theory that Lee Harvey Oswald did not acting alone to kill John F. Kennedy? So this "conflating conspiracies with conspiracy theories" not just based on the New York Times or Jones but by academics in various fields.  DEAL WITH IT.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BruceGrubb, what is the point of posting the same material here as on the talk page for Conspiracy Theory? --Nuujinn (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is expressly stated in the above so why are you asking?--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Druid
We have two IPs and an account, one of the IPs being clearly the named account, adding fringe and original research to this article. I can't keep reverting, so more eyes are needed. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ayurveda
Of all the major alternative medicines, this is probably the one that's most criticism-free. There is a mention of the heavy metals being intentionally added to some remedies, but very late in the article. =/ 86.177.230.127 (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rasa shastra
Oh my freaking god. A brief mention at the end is the only indication that INTENTIONALLY EATING GODDAMN MERCURY might be a bad idea. But it's alright, it's only WESTERN Medicine that says that.

Actual quotes:

Traditionally it is believed that when mercury is properly prepared, it balances all three doshas (humours of the body), has a soothing effect on the body, prevents disease and old age. It is claimed to nourish all the vital parts of the body and increases the strength of the eyes. It is a vrisya (aphrodisiac), balya (tonic), snigdha (anointing), rasayana (rejuvenative), vrana sodhana and ropana (wound cleaner and healer), and krimighna (antimicrobial). it is believed that when it compounded with any herb it heightens the medicinal properties. Mercury is also said to give a firm physique, a stable mind, and to be the best destroyer of disease. Furthermore, It is considered holy because it is the semen of Lord Shiva.

Rasa Shastra is a very individualized system of medicine that requires immense proficiency to be practiced safely and effectively. Perhaps the most important factor in the efficacy of a treatment is the nature of the practitioner. It is said that one must first have undergone a thorough personal and spiritual purification before the ability to work with the transformative effects of herbal and metallic remedies is attained. Rasa Shastra is not easily adjusted to address the health needs of large numbers of people, but is capable of providing access to the most powerful healing tools of the plant and mineral kingdoms.

86.177.230.127 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments would be welcome at Articles for deletion/Rasa shastra. --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Stubbified for the time being. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Rauscher
Argument on the talk page about RS, WEIGHT, & how much is fringe. — kwami (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also being discussed on the NPOV noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hindu gods and goddesses and Abrahamic religions
Fringe, wanders all over the place, unreliable sources, etc. Up for AfD but who knows what will happen. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've taken out the stuff about Native Americans and Greek gods as obviously nothing to do with Abrahamic religions, & a couple of unreliable sources, but it still needs more work, maybe deletion or retitling. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Damned knowledge
Damned uncited, and reads like a personal essay. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find a damned thing, at least a g scholar. I found one page at google.   Oh besides some damned song..   Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's from one of Charles Fort's books. I've redirected to the appropriate section of The Book of the Damned. (Certainly not the best article, but one that is undoubtably on a notable subject, due to being one of the initial texts that spawned the Fortean Society.). 86.179.216.1 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Immanuel Velikovsky/Ages in Chaos
I'm currently proposing that: be merged into: Any input would be welcome. Discussion can be found at Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky/Archive 3. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarian-Vlach Empire as alternative name for the Second Bulgarian Empire
Hello. I want to ask for some neutral opinions regarding this alternative name. I've inserted 8 different reliable sources that support this view, but someone reverted me with the edit summary "Rvv Fringe views". I don't agree at all with his edit, so we need a third party to settle the conflict (SamiraJ (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
 * (1) You are edit-warring, and that needs to stop. (2) The proper approach is to start a discussion of the issue on the article's talk page, which you have not done.  If you do not participate in a discussion, you are automatically in the wrong.  (3) Adding a long list of sources to support a point of view is always the wrong thing to do -- it is sometimes known as reference bombing. Looie496 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) I was trying to insert a well referenced information and someone was refusing it with no valid reason. But I will respect your advice to stop warring (2) There is nothing to be discussed on the article talk page, it is simply about respecting reliable sources (3) I've inserted so many sources to show that it is a widely used term and that many authors present it in their works. The term Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars is mentioned even if Encyclopædia Britannica: . I hope this source is notable enough(SamiraJ (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
 * It is good that SamiraJ has opened a section here. There is the other view - it is true that some Western historians called Kaloyan Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Vlachs (no other ruler after Kaloyan is known by that title) and that a term Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars exists. However, it is not synonymous with the term Second Bulgarian Empire, because it can only be used for the first years of the existence of a coutry which existed as a single state for over 200 years. Therefore, such a name does not belong to the lead of the article. If it has to be mentioned, it should go in a section called "Nomenclature", as in the First Bulgarian Empire, or in the existing "Liberation" section. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So you do you finally agree that the "laughable" names "Vlach-Bulgarian Empire" and "Romanian-Bulgarian Empire" should be included in one form of another in the article?
 * These names are laughable indeed when intended to be used as a symomyn of the Second Bulgarian Empire, because they are not. And I do not agree that "Romanian"-Bulgarian Empire has to be added because it makes no sense and was never ever called by that. In any case it has not place in the lead. --Gligan (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The name "Romanian-Bulgarian Empire" is widely used in Romanian historiography and I think it is relevant to mention this aspect in the article (SamiraJ (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC))
 * That is only supported by Romanian historiography, the same as the Macedonian historiography calles Alexander the Great's Empire a Macedonian (meaning connected to modern RoM) state and Bulgaria under Samuel again a Macedonian Empire. The only term acceptable by everyone for the country Bulgaria in the period 1185-1396 (which is what the article is about) is Second Bulgarian Empire. I am sure that even Romanian historians do not claim that a "Romanian-Bulgarian Empire" existen in 14th century, for example, or that the Ottomans conquered a "Romanian-Bulgarian Empire", do they? --Gligan (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies and Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact
Could use some eyes. I'm being 'strongly advised to back off'. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's now an RfC at the latter article's talk page. I've placed an addendum as it did not cover all the issues that were being discussed (ie it covered RS but not WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, but I only did it after several comments. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nordic aliens
I have just stumbled across -- a poorly sourced article on an obscure (and likely non-notable) offshoot of fringe UFO claims (which are well into the fringes of my own area). Regulars may wish to take a look. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles_for_deletion/Nordic_aliens_(3rd_nomination) - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual Hierarchy
I got to here from Nordic aliens. It's a mess, mainly by the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oy. At least three big problems:
 * The Theosophists don't own the concept of a spiritual hierarchy.
 * Most of this stuff probably doesn't have anything to do with Theosophy.
 * Cleaning out all the non-Theosophist crap is going to be difficult to do without just erasing pretty much everything and being citation nitpickers.
 * At least for starters I'm inclined to move the article to Spiritual hierarchy (Theosophy). Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bioenergetic analysis


All the (solely general) references given for this article appear to be WP:FRINGE, from advocates of this idea, and would appear to fail WP:MEDRS. What should be done about this article? Is the topic sufficiently notable fringe that it should be balanced with the scientific view? Or should it simply be WP:AFDed? It's well outside my area of expertise, so I'm not really in a position to assess how notable it is. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Donald Eisner has a section on it in The Death of Psychotherapy. Views on Eisner vary a bit but I think it is a least a sufficient reference to establish notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rovas Script
And editor has been trying to push a fringe theory about an alleged Hungarian Runic script, stating it as if it is an established fact. (See Articles for deletion/Khazarian Rovas and Alsószentmihály Rovas inscription. User Rovasscript has added this fringe theory and links to a site supporting the theory Alsószentmihály inscription, as well as Szarvas inscription , Karaite Judaism , Jews in the Middle Ages , Crimean Karaites , Khazars , and Kabar. I doubt this theory is notable enough to even be listed, let alone as an established fact. Edward321 (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercury is good for you, and other Ayurvedic nonsense splattered all over Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has real problems with telling people Mercury is a good thing to eat, because Ayurvedic practitioners say so.

From Mercury (element) [A Good Article!]

Mercury in the form of one of its common ores, cinnabar, remains an important component of Chinese, Tibetan, and Ayurvedic medicine. As problems may arise when these medicines are exported to countries that prohibit the use of mercury in medicines, in recent times, less toxic substitutes have been devised.

From Samskara (ayurvedic)

In ayurveda, toxic ingredients, which sometimes include heavy metals such as mercury, are purified using a process of prayer and pharmacy. Some practitioners believe that both are necessary to transform the toxicity though a pharmacological study on aconite showed that only the washes are necessary to render the substance non-toxic. [Aconite example given, then...] More general scientific evidence that ayurvedic medicine impurities and ingredients such as heavy metals may be rendered nontoxic is not available, and case reports describe adverse effects of these substances.

From Rasayana, we get simple lies about Ayurveda NOT containing mercury

Because of negative publicity and cost factor, the use of the classical rasayana formulas has declined considerably, and most of the preparations available now have herbal ingredients with a couple of mineral and animal products. The non-availability and wild life protection act has made the use of musk, amber and parts of wild-life animals, nearly impossible.

Miscellaneous advertising-only pages
From Shilajit:

Shilajit, also known as shilajit, mumijo, and momia, is used in the Ayurveda, the traditional Indian system of medicine., Shilajit is a rasayana material and is an adaptogen, due to its proven ability to increase resistance and support the adaptation of the body and its inner workings to a variety of chemical, biological, and physical stressors. The composition of Shilajit has been investigated numerous times in both India and the former USSR, and depends on the location where it is found. It has been reported to contain at least 85 minerals in Ionic form, including triterpenes and aromatic carboxylic acid, as well as humic acid and fulvic acid.

Check out the sources for that. They're pretty awfful, including a site wanting to sell you the stuff.

List of herbs and minerals in Ayurveda gives us an entire chart of unsourced medical claims. Example:

From Triphala, claims cited with reference only to a fringe textbook. In traditional Ayurvedic medicine, Triphala is used for:
 * immune system stimulation
 * improvement of digestion
 * relief of constipation
 * gastrointestinal tract cleansing
 * relief of gas
 * treatment of diabetes
 * treatment of eye disease

From Chyawanprash:

Chyawanprash, also spelled chyavangysha, chyavanaprash, chyavanaprasam and chyawanaprash, is an ancient Ayurvedic health tonic, widely used in India, as a rejuvenative, energizer and immunity booster. It is often called "the elixir of life" due to its numerous nutritional properties and benefit to the body.

From Adaptogen, we get a lot of health claims, with no sources whatsoever.

Panax ginseng, for example, is an adaptogen that has shown an "overall normalizing effect". [...] Many adaptogens contain polysaccharides that have been reported to stimulate immune system components and have immune system enhancing benefits. Polysaccharide-rich plants and mushrooms have a long history of use in traditional practices such as Chinese medicine. In addition to stimulating the immune system, they are used to increase vital energy and considered qi tonics. Adaptogens that contain polysaccharides include: American ginseng, Asian ginseng, astragalus, Cordyceps, eleuthero, licorice, lycium, prince seng, Lingzhi/Reishi, rhaponticum, and shatavari.[1]

As I think you'll agree, Ayurveda has spread its tendrils all over Wikipedia, getting away with blatant advertising. Something should be done. 86.182.184.39 (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There do seem on the face of it to be some problems here. I can start looking in detail at the articles, and I expect some others will have a look too. Can you help out yourself, too? Anything without a good source can be deleted. Good source means a scientific source for scientific fact, a history of science source for a history of science fact etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So the mercury article now seems only to contain info about use in TCM, sourced to a recent study. Do you still see problems there? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What's left
Making a new subsection to make this easier. I've done a couple, other people have done some, and we've fixed quite a number. Here's what left.
 * List of herbs and minerals in Ayurveda is unfixable, hence prodded. Much of the rest has been edited and stripped of claims, but there's some remaining.
 * I have no idea what to do with Shilajit. It's all mouse studies. I've cut a bunch, but there's really nothing worth saving, so prodded it too. This article so badly fails the miracle cure test: if science had genuinely proved something was a miracle cure, it wouldn't just be a fringe treatment. Has gotten trimmed to a description of the substance, which is perfectly fine.
 * Rasayana is similar to Shilajit, but has enough good content to be worth salvaging. It'll need a lot of research to fix well. Perhaps merging rasa shastra would help? Cut all the unreliably-sourced material and advertising. Looks pretty good now, actually.
 * Triphala is better than it was, but still not great. Anyone know any good balancing, non-fringe material? Stubby, but fine

So, it's a start, but two really problematic articles left. 86.183.39.90 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. Provided the List of herbs prod goes through, this may be sorted. =) 86.176.222.148 (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit about Ayurveda itself
The article isn't too bad, but has three major problems. It's an awkward one because the science behind historical ayurveda was very advanced for its time, but its continued use now that modern medicine is available is kind of like using Copernicus' epicycles as part of your spaceship calculations.

1. This quote is simply awful, but removing it would be worse. We need better sources to discuss it.

Western medicine has ayurveda classified as a system of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is used to complement, rather than replace, the treatment regimen and relationship that exists between a patient and their existing physician.

However, fixing the other problems should sort this:

2. It fails to include sufficient criticism of the modern-day practice. There's some criticism of the heavy metal content (I removed some special pleading and cherry picking), but that's a very narrow focus of criticism, and the inclusion of that narrow focus seems to have acted to isolate the practice from any more general criticism.

3. The criticism is only in the last section. By hiding all the criticism at the end, it means that anyone who only reads part of the article will be misled. Giving the article a proper WP:LEAD, which summarises ALL points should fix this. 86.183.39.90 (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Still an annoying, cherry-picked-study-full article, but it is getting better. =) 86.176.222.148 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

More Ayurvedic spam
Is Terminalia arjuna at all salvageable? 86.183.39.90 (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also Panchakarma.

To give samples:

From Terminalia arjuna: Terminalia arjuna (Neer maruthu in Tamil & Malayalam) is a medicinal plant of the genus Terminalia, widely used by ayurvedic physicians for its curative properties in organic/functional heart problems including angina, hypertension and deposits in arteries. According to Ayurvedic texts it also very useful in the treatment of any sort of pain due to falls, ecchymosis, spermatorrhoea and sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhoea.It is thought to be a useful astringent, cooling, aphrodisiac, cardiotonic, tonic and is used for ulcers, leucorrhoea, diabetes, cough, tumour, excessive perspiration, asthma, inflammation and skin disorders etc. Arjuna bark (Terminallia arjuna) is thought to be beneficial for the heart. This has also been proved in a research by Dr. K. N. Udupa in Banaras Hindu University's Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi (India). In this research, they found that powdered extract of the above drug provided very good results to the people suffering from Coronary heart diseases.,

As usual, it fails the miracle cure test. If what was claimed to be proven really was proven, it would be much more widely used than just in a fringe practice.

From Panchakarma:

In order to stay healthy and fit one should carry out Panchakarma methods as a way of cleansing and servicing the body. The greatest benefit of this system is preventing possible serious illness due to 'Srothas Avarodha' obstruction of channels or ducts.

A Panchakarma Specialist is someone who specializes in Panchakarma therapies of all kinds. Post Graduate in the field of Pnachakarma makes a ayurvedic physician a specialist in the field of Panchakarma. There are many institutions in India which imparts Post Graduation courses in Panchakarma.

The Panchakarma therapies are highly specific and require years of hands-on clinical training and experience to be effective. Without the proper training in Ayurvedic Medicine, these therapies cannot be administered properly and may even aggravate or worsen the person's condition. [Emphasis original]

Both are proposed for deletion. 86.183.39.90 (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I cut the Terminalia article back a lot, but haven't looked up the refs to see if they justify the text. It would be a pity to lose an article about a plant just because of coatracking. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * True. I'll remove the prod, and add some rather strong warning tags. 86.176.222.148 (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it back some more, and put up a request with Wikiproject Plants to rewrite a botanical description. Those things are evil to rewrite without accidental plagiarism. The request's here, and I included the description I found.
 * I'm happy to believe herbs can have pharmacological effect, but when the article claims it can treat diabetes, asthma, and cancer, at the same time as saying the traditional usage was solely anti-inflammatory, there be issues. 86.176.222.148 (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks much better. Herbs can definitely have pharmacological effect. Antiseptics, stimulants, emetics, purgatives, diuretics, analgesics, in any hedgerow. They're all in the pharmacy too, should you need them. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, I meant more that I'm happy to believe a specific herb could have some named pharmacological effect, but there's so much overselling and just made-up stuff about herbs (for example, no claims that Echinacea is good for colds predates the 20th century, as I recall) that I need to see decent evidence. =) 86.176.222.148 (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Max Muller
Uncited and inaccurate text is being added by the usual "Muller was trying to destroy Hinduism" party. I have already pushed 3RR, though I think this is now essentially vandalism. However, extra input would be appreciated. Paul B (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also reverted and left polite but blunt warning on the editor's talk page. Somehow, I'm expecting this to end up at WP:AN3, especially after they reverted you on the talk page.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nasal irrigation and Oil pulling
Are these really the unambiguous good that the articles paint them to be? 86.179.217.124 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oil pulling contains a big copy & paste from this paper, except that somebody mendaciously changed "There is no scientific..." to "There is some scientific...". I've removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 September 2011

Ayurveda update
Went through a lot more articles.

Lots and lots of copyvio, and even more promotional essays, often signed by the creators, in the articles.

I've dealt with pretty much all of them, but, ye gods, it's pretty clear noone has ever checked up on this topic before, or they'd have caught this stuff. Worried that the Ayurvedic worldview isn't as clear anymore - Dosha turned out to be almost entirely copyvio; I found a revision I could revert to, but it lost a lot of (copyvio) content. it'd be good if Ayurveda could be improved to clearly explain the five-element, three-dosha, seven-dhatu ideas (key word: clearly), because the only halfway clear explanation on Wikipedia was copyvio. 86.182.20.107 (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ex-gay movement
Included in the article Ex-gay movement is a list of individuals that consider themselves ex-gay and/or part of the ex-gay movement. Many of those included are of no or minimal notability, with extremely little or no coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is currently a heated debate about whether mention of these individuals should be deleted or retained. See []. I've started an RfC on the article talk page, and your input would be highly appreciated as it involves a fringe theory. The RfC is located here. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the listing of individuals is inappropriate. Some of the organisations and publications they are associated with may be notable, in which case they should be mentioned as part of a description of this movement. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * List of ex-gay people was deleted as a BLP nightmare (among other reasons). Presumably the same concerns apply here, although good luck getting people to acknowledge that. MastCell Talk 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the list is a list of persons associated with the ex-gay movement. The individuals listed need not be "ex-gay" themselves, although many are. The major issues are notability, relevance and poor sourcing, although there are BLP problems as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I think the implications of being "associated" with the ex-gay movement are not that different from those seen with list of ex-gay people, but that's just me. In any case, who determines whether someone is "associated" with the movement? The sources used to make this determination in the article seem singularly poor, especially from a BLP perspective. MastCell Talk 20:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Ex-ex-gay? That seems likely to contain the same sort BLP issues. aprock (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. WP:BLP applies to both. However, there are other issues involved, and BLP hasn't been the central focus of the discussion so far. It would be appreciated of you and MastCell could look at the discussion [] and leave your comments in the RfC section []. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The most obvious approach is to treat it like the social/political/religious movement that it is. Readers want a dispassionate account of the movement, its different components, i.e. notable organisations, publications, points where it has surfaced into public debate. That definitely involves mentioning people, but in their capacities as website host, author of a book, all that. Not just a list of "people involved", which is much less informative. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Emotional freedom technique
Hi all, There is a slight dispute over at Emotional Freedom Technique; extra eyes, or any suggestions on how to improve the article, would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga
I won't even try to describe it: this new article has to be seen to be believed. The only question is whether it should be reduced to a two-sentence stub or deleted entirely. I am also wondering whether it may be a recreation of a previously deleted article, but I couldn't find an AfD for it. Looie496 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw it, and I still don't believe it. I can't see any reason to retain any of it. The Hindustan Times, Chandigarh Tribune and Indian Express sources are not really articles, but announcements obviously based on press releases by the proponents. The other sources are crap. Fails on notability alone. Recommend nominating it for AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Related to Swami Budhpuri Ji which has the encyclopedia claiming that he has not eaten food since 2004, and Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga "may be used easily by one and all to alleviate all physical, mental and spiritual problems". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Same problems. Add it to the AfD to do list. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The same editor(s) responsible for the Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga article created this article Swami Budhpuri Ji the day this article Swami Buddhapuri Ji was deleted. Sneaky little bastards, ain't they. I recommend we discard AGF and move to directly to deletion of both [[Siddhamrit Surya Kriya Yoga and Swami Budhpuri Ji. There is no doubt that they are just spam added in bad faith by the two perps, user:ssky and user:ssky2. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please avoid the temptation to call editors names, it is never helpful. Looie496 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was about to AfD it, but Fastily fortunately saved me the time. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I request a speedy delete (db-g11). And it was deleted within a few minutes. You might want to change your AfD to speedy delete, and link to the present discussion in the edit summary. I'm reporting the perps at ANI now. They are both spam-only accounts with no contructive edits. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PROBABLE SOCK: - because it's NOT AT ALL suspicious that the users first and only edit oi to remove a template warning the page was copyvio. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Cross-quarter days
Do editors agree that the new Category Cross-quarter days is unnecessary, and tending to promotion of fringiness? And indeed the category Quarter days is unnecessary. For info, quarter days were important in European calendars from the Middle Ages onwards, coinciding roughly with the equinoxes and solstices, and linked to Christian holidays. There are also festivals occurring between the quarter days, but identifying them as "cross quarter days" is surrounded by much unfounded supposition. I cleared a lot of that out of the article, and am now dismayed to see a category founded. And we see Chinese festivals now assimilated to the European ones, which is weird given that Cross-quarter days is a subcategory of Christian festivals and holidays. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd keep the category quarter days (they are undoubtably significant, and worth grouping therefore), but "cross-quarter days" should only be kept if it's proved that this term is actually used in Neo-paganism, and then only as a descripption of Neopagan belief, like the equally apocryphal Burning Times (the idea that the witch trials were persecuting genuine groups of real witches, hence proving the Catholic Church right? (I'd be surprised if significant non-modern usage is found.)86.178.193.2 (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but even if Neo-Pagans do group these days as cross-quarter days, they are also traditional and/or Christian holidays, which is their meaning for many more people than follow Neo-Paganism. I am going to put it in Categories for deletion. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it being part of Neopaganism AND something else necessarily means it can't be categorised in the Neopagan way (it's just a couple words at the bottom, after all), but agree there's no evidence this is a common division, even there. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my proposed solution. Keep Category:Quarter days. Add Candlemas, Lammas, Martinmas and Whitsun on the grounds that they were quarter days in Scotland. Make sure that the Scottish system is discussed with sufficient prominence in the article Quarter day, and that Term day is a redirect. Merge Cross-quarter day with Wheel of the year, which is where the parallels with Lughnasa, Beltane et al. can be discussed. Propose deletion of Category:Cross quarter days. (If I can work out how to propose a category for deletion, because it seems cumbersome.) Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. =) 86.178.193.2 (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Mumijo
Needs a year-overdue AfD-mandated merge done, avoiding merging in any of the unsourced or marketing claims. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Kamal Salibi
I removed this section per WP:UNDUE and because whoever Lias is, his ideas don't seem to have been reported elsewhere and he himself doesn't seem important enough to have his ideas reported in the article, he is apparently someone that was found just to add a postscript to Salibi's book which promotes a fringe theory that the place names of the Bible refer to places in Arabia. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Kamboja
For those of you who remember the Kamboja fancruft mess we had a couple of years ago (parts of which we still do), it might be cropping up again, only it now extends to Atlantis and Egypt. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely bonkers. I think it isn't out of control at the moment, but we still have lots of the old cruft around. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Terminalia arjuna
Done a fair bit of work to defringe this. Not thrilled with the sources for the remaining section on Ayurveda - would much rather have actual historians or even primary sources for the history of use than a herbal company, but it MAY be good enough for now. See what you think? 86.178.193.2 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I second the request. 86.178 has done a lot to improve the article and others on Ayurveda. If we can be sure it is right then we have a model for articles on herbs in alternative medicine. A specific question is: without a disclaimer explicitly saying "this doesn't work", could the article be too close to promoting use of this herb? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, don't be too hasty to say doesn't work; I mean, it's claimed to have analgesic properties, but so does willow bark, so it wouldn't be surprising if it had effects. The key is to only show the reasonably well-documented, plausible ones, and not let this grow into the all-too-common "this herb can cure E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G!" that unchecked articles devolve into.
 * A good guide might be that minor, plausible effects - e.g. this herb is an analgesic, this herb can repel insects when rubbed on the skin, this herb is a stimulant - can probably be left in with a well-done study in a decent journal, but things like "this herb is anti-cancer", "this herb cures diabetes", "this herb cures disease X" would need a HELL of a lot more evidence to be allowed in. I'm also far more inclined to allow documented, widespread historical uses, e.g. "Galen said the herb could treat...", and pretty much forbid modern herbal supplement claims (which are A. less notable and B. far more likely to be made up.)
 * Some care will, of course, be needed here, but that's the basic principles I think should apply. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer
Can I get an opinion on whether these studies of the dog whisperer amount to fringe theories? These have previously been deleted as "self-published" and again as "original research" and it is now suggested that they are "fringe theories":

The Dog Whisperer program has been the focus of a number of research papers from a variety of discipline perspectives including family therapy and ethology.

A research paper that examines the role of family pets in family processes and relationships, says that in Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan goes to the family home and works much like a structural family therapist, helping to build an effective family structure and establish hierarchies and boundaries.

In an observational study of the philosophies, methods, and skill sets used by dog trainers, one researcher concluded that there were two very different methods that dominated current dog training: a modern version of dominance/obedience training  demonstrated on Dog Whisperer and a method based on reward and behavioral modification demonstrated on It's Me or the Dog. The author concluded that the fact that both methods continue to dominate the training world suggests that people still have ambiguous relationships with their companion animals.

A study of the narrative structure of Dog Whisperer published in a leading critical animal studies journal placed it within a tradition of representing the relationship between humans and nature as one of domination, where non-human animals are presented as commodities that serve the human animal’s wishes.

In a research project designed to assess the safety risks of techniques used by owners of dogs with behavior problems, owners reported hearing about the techniques of giving a "schhhtt" sound correction and "abruptly jabbing the dog in the neck", on television. They were not asked for the names of television sources, but one respondent specified that they were referring to the program Dog Whisperer. Both techniques were concluded to be potentially provocative and therefore capable of triggering defensive aggression.

Sources:


 * 1.Walsh, Froma (2009). "Human-Animal Bonds II: The Role of Pets in Family Systems and Family Therapy". Family Process (Family Process Institute) 48 (4): 462–480. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x.
 * Walsh, Froma Family Process:


 * 2.Greenebaum, Jessica B (2010). "Training Dogs and Training Humans: Symbolic Interaction and Dog Training". Anthrozoos (International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ)) 23 (2): 129–141. ISSN 0892-7936.
 * Jessica Greenebaum Anthrozoos


 * 3.Jackson-Schebetta, Lisa (2009). "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan". Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS)) 7 (1): 107-130. ISSN 1948-352X.
 * Jackson-Schebetta, LisaJournal for Critical Animal Studies


 * 4.Herron, Meghan E.; Shofer, Frances S., Reisner, Ilana R. (2009). "Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours". Applied Animal Behaviour Science (International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE)) (117): 47–54. ISSN 0168-1591.
 * Meghan HerronApplied Animal Behaviour Science


 * I think a more important issue is that they are primary sources. Even if they are from reliable journals we shouldn't use them on that basis alone, as we are not in a position to judge their relative merit. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A primary source is an interview, a letter or personal communication. A published journal article is a secondary source, it is one step removed from the original information - the dog owners' experiences. Marj (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Involved editor: There seem to be several issues. The content was moved to the talk page until the concerns could be ironed out. Its worth looking more closely at the Primary source issue. Thanks.(olive (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Marj, that's not quite correct. Journal articles that the results of research done by the author of the article are generally considered primary sources--the author is not one step removed from their work. We generally require secondary sources that evaluate a journal article to be able to use them. I would also suggest that studies about pets which do not directly treat the TV in depth would be of very limited value for an article about the show. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So Nuujinn you are saying that Wikipedia editors cannot use journal articles - they must find another article that evaluates the first journal article and only use that second article. Wow! That really turns Wikipedia editing on it's head. It's hard enough to find reputable publications in the first place, but having to find other articles that comment on the first. Marj (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn is correct that journal papers such as studies or surveys are primary sources for their findings. Primary sources can be used within narrow limits. Note that many studies begin by reviewing existing literature or previous studies, and that portion of the papers would be secondary sources for those prior papers.   Will Beback    talk    01:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Marj, we use Journal articles all of the time, and that's perfectly fine. The particular articles above seem to be articles about research performed by the authors, and those are primary sources. Will Bebeck is entirely correct that to the extent that such articles include reviews of prior research, they may be also consider secondary sources. Links to the articles themselves would help. You mention that it is difficult to find reliable sources, sometimes when that is the case, it is because the information is not really suitable for the article in question. Dog Whisperer is a TV show, and sources about that should be easy to find. These articles appear to be more about training methods and pets in general, only the Jackson-Schebetta seems that it might be appropriate for use in an article about the show--do any of the other three go into any depth about the show itself? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Once something is published it is no longer primary source material. Google a definition. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/education/008-3010-e.html Marj (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wikipedia uses the terms a bit loosely, but according to the Wikipedia definition, things by people too close the subject of an article are considered too close to the subject to be fully reliable sources for the discussion, e.g. personal webpages, or books by the person. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So Wikipedia does not allow the use of research conducted by experts in the discipline, reviewed anonomously by people familiar with the content and the method for accuracy, edited by a journal editor, and published in an authoritative academic journal - saying that the resultant journal article is a "primary source". That is just nonsense. Personal webpages, press releases, self-published books, yes. Peer-reviewed articles??!!Marj (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really, this is one area that is pretty sharply defined, see WP:PSTS. Research articles are primary sources. Jackson-Schebetta has some promise as it is analytical, but it is using the show as a jumping off point. Mere publication does not a secondary source make. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A jumping off point for what, exactly? The whole article is an analysis of the program.Marj (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they meant a jumping off point for future research into the subject. Either way, the policy on sourcing is pretty clear.  One problem with primary sources is that journals will publish research on novel ideas that have not necessarily been replicated yet and thus aren't accepted by the scientific community.  Some articles are also published as "risk" articles, that is, articles that come to novel conclusions on previously established science that are interesting enough to publish but again, not replicated.  Using primary sources on Wikipedia is difficult because interpreting data is beyond what editors are expected to do.  Hence, we use secondary sources that can interpret the data, and then we report what they say.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  08:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the reasons for not using "primary sources". But these are not primary sources, and there are no novel ideas.
 * Millan works to establish boundaries and heirarchies in the families on Dog Whisperer.
 * Two very different methods of dog training are currently popular, one is shown on Dog Whisperer.
 * "Dog Whisperer" fits a tradition of stories where humans have dominion over animals.
 * People provoking dogs using techniques shown on "Dog Whisperer" have been bitten.
 * These would all seem to be in the category "You needed research to tell you that!" Not in the category of 'novel conclusions' not widely supported.Marj (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia rather than google, such research studies/articles are primary sources, unless they are published in reviews or meta analysis, and in this case possibly veterinary textbooks or other more academically driven publications. We can't in an encyclpedia interpret research and use those interpretations as references/sources for claims made in an article. (olive (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Dog Whisperer uses sources such as People Magazine, Paw Nation and People and Pets - and checking the links above these contested articles and the journals they were published in are as "academically driven" as you can get. Not sure what is going on here.Canis5855 (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because primary research is "academically driven" doesn't really say anything about the quality of the research. Lisa Jackson-Schebetta's "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan" was written for the Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS)).  To answer the original question, then, ask who is the ICAS. Critical animal studies (CAS) was introduced by Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella, II and Richard V. Kahn in 2006/7, as an attempt to provide an interdisciplinary academic forum for the wider theorization of animal liberation politics through the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (CALA).  Keep digging and the fringe nature of the organization and the "research" becomes clear.  People magazine may not be great, but there's a transparency to their editorial board, their credentials and their agenda.  These "academic" sources may not even be able to surpass the low threshold of People magazine. 842U (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)