Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 30

Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
An article on a conspiracy theory... which spends most of its time promoting the theory. This needs torn to pieces. 86.** IP (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. A crock o' shite, as my Irish friends would put it. I'm not sure about tearing it to pieces though. AfD it, as a POV fork, and be done with it - there is no separate 'conspiracy theory' argument when it comes to criticism of the scientific consensus, as far as I'm aware - this should be covered under Global warming controversy, rather than forked in such a way that wild and unfalsifiable drivel can be given more weight than it deserves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Erg, think you could get this one? Having just gone through one, I really don't want to have to deal with that crowd again. 86.** IP (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno - I may be involved with other things (like a life off-Wikipedia: I seem to remember having one ;-) ), and I'm not sure I can face another 'debate' with people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is a paid agent of something-or-another. Though come to think of it, the people who claim I'm trying to suppress 'the truth' about cold fusion because I'm in the pay of the oil-barons will have problems with me supporting the anti-oil-baron line here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think you crowd could stick to describing these fringe theories if notable rather than thinking you have a mission to expound the truth to the world? And Global warming controversy is simply the wrong place to put crank stuff, it is a top level article and it is mainly about the arguments about the science and its implication rather than crankery and paid for denial which is referred to but left to other articles. The wild and unfalsifiable drivel is notable and if you have concerns about weight they should be dealt with as such. We don't go trying to shove Jesus Christ under charlatans with his unverifiable and unbelievable miracles because the topic is notable. This is an encyclopaedia, not an organ of a version of correct thought like conservapedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that describing the topic as a 'Global warming conspiracy theory' is that there actually isn't a single core theory here at all - instead it is a random collection of more general conspiracy theories, linked only in referring to climate change in some way or another. At minimum, the article needs renaming - to 'theories', and a fundamental rewrite to make it clear that the topic is 'conspiracy theories' and not 'global warming' - frankly though, I'm not entirely convinced we need articles on every subject that conspiracy-theorists concoct their nonsense over. They inevitably attract partisan editors, and rarely come up to encyclopaedic standards. Still, this probably needs more thought, as we can't just pretend that such theories don't exist. I think what is needed most is secondary sources which actually analyse the theories, and put them into context. Without such sources, all we have is a collection of claims and counter-claims... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

86, that's a malformed AfD you created. There's an AfD template on the page, but you didn't create the talk page. Do you think you can fix that? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very poor article. We need solutions to the whole series of articles on the debate, or politics around climate change. These topics now have an academic social science literature and appropriate sources should be used. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies; Firefox crashed, and I didn't have time to finish. The AfD is now completed. 86.** IP (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man. By the way, you realize it's just a matter of time before someone starts calling you Agent 86, right? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. 86.** IP (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Spurred by this discussion, and by suggestions that mergers are inappropriate because some articles are already too long, I had a look through all the articles in. These are my impressions of the articles, and some suggestions for improvement: All this looks like a job for the Climate Change Taskforce, and I will post there, but wanted to keep this board informed since the whole category relates to a debate in which one side is mainstream and the other fringe in one way or another. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Climate Capitalism. 2011 book. No reason given for notability.
 * Climate change denial. This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. Possibly of the nature of a POV fork, although I hesitate to say that, because an editor regards identification of POV-forking as a slur on the good faith of editors on an article, and invalid unless one can show which article another was “rewritten from”. To formulate it differently: probably not a good idea to have an article on one extreme position in a debate.
 * Climatic Research Unit documents. Was created to take detail out of Climatic Research Unit email controversy. This need to be revisited with the benefit of hindsight, and consider merging back. Shorter is likely to be better.
 * Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Needs some rewriting to take out the WP:RECENT reliance on news sources.
 * Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports. No indication that this is a notable topic.
 * Garnaut Climate Change Review. Material in lead that should be in main body.
 * Ross Garnaut. Should carry the biography, no need for detail that should be in Garnaut Climate Change Review.
 * Global warming controversy. Carries the explanation of where scientific objections differ from the mainstream, which doesn’t sit well with the discussions of the roles of IPCC, Kyoto, etc. Move the sections that explain the scientific topics to Scientific opinion on climate change and start to turn that into an article rather than a misnamed list. This article then becomes the head article for all articles relating to the controversy.
 * Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints (2002). Book. 2002 is one edition; there are redlinks to other editions. No indication of notability. Article title not in accordance with guidelines.
 * Greenhouse debt. Concept introduced by Friends of the Earth. May be a non-notable neologism. Article veers from denial of its validity to promotion. Closely related conceptually to ecological footprint, therefore merge.
 * IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Table of contents and other material not written in an encyclopedic manner.
 * IPCC First Assessment Report. Dump of the executive summary.
 * IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. This is a long article. Lots of listing of report content. Bullet points overused. Does have section on reception.
 * IPCC Second Assessment Report. Short descriptive summary. Nothing on importance or reception.
 * IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Quotefarm.
 * IPCC supplementary report, 1992. Short article, could be merged with IPCC First Assessment Report.
 * IPCC Third Assessment Report. Summary of contents.
 * List of authors from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. What is this article for? Mostly red links.
 * The London Accord. Sourced from the organisation itself. Not clear if the programme is still active.
 * National Assessment on Climate Change. Needs attention. Embedded ELs, lack of clarity about which programme ran when. Precursor of Climate Change Science Program, so merge with that article.
 * Representative Concentration Pathways. Stub on predictions in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Merge with the article on that report.
 * Scientific opinion on climate change. Despite its title, this is a series of lists, full of bullet points and quotes.
 * Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Does explain what these reports are, but an obscure topic that probably needs to be merged.
 * Stern Review. Embedded ELs, long quotes and too much to-and-fro of the argument.


 * Well I have no problem with some merging of articles, I think that would be good. But I would like to point out a problem which a number of editors coming to this seem to have by just dealing with the second on the list 'climate change denial'. There is a comment here: Possibly of the nature of a POV fork, although I hesitate to say that, because an editor regards identification of POV-forking as a slur on the good faith of editors on an article, and invalid unless one can show which article another was “rewritten from”. I don't know which editor is being referred to about the slur, but can I emphasise the bit about identifying what it is a POV of. In a recent deletion debate POV fork was bandied about at the debate by some people from this project without figuring out that point. They just put in 'Climate change controversy' as a general catch all without as far as I can see actually even looking at the 'Climate change controversy' article to see where it would go never mind what it was a fork of. Talk about accusing me of being part of a cabal! Anyway just so you are at least informed even if not comprehending and confusing lack of understanding with lack of substance I will try and explain why climate change controversy would be a bad place to put climate change denial.


 * If you will look at global warming controversy you will find that it is a well based on scholarly sources about global warming and its possible effects and mitigation and contains a lot about alternatives proposed and the scholarly assessment of them. All very good and correct and according to weight by this projects standards I would guess. It is a very reasonable target for climate change skeptic which redirects to it assuming in the first instance that skeptic means what it is supposed to mean rather than what it is increasing becoming to mean. Basically it is correct when weight means the scholarly sources about global warming. In fact it is practically a fork of Global warming except it deals with the objections from scientists and has a bit about the political side. In there it refers to global warming denial under funding for partisans and has a list of some instances with no analysis.


 * Now why isn't the section there expanded? Well it would be inappropriate to do so. It really isn't about the controversy. It has no scholarly weight in the context of the controversy because there is nothing scientific about paying a lot of people to try and obstruct and befuddle. It has nothing to do with the science behind global warming. And the main part of the article is about the scientific controversy. It is a reasonable target for climate change skeptic. We do not say that skeptics in general are paid for deniers who couldn't care less about the topic in itself. That is a different topic. It is related as something that should be mentioned in that context but it is not part of the same topic.


 * So what happens when there is an article about climate change denial? Well it has had four nominations for deletion and an attempt to just redirect it to global warming controversy. The talk page has 29 archives with continuing charges that it is a conspiracy theory or that it is insulting to skeptics, and on the other hand editors like the crowd here wanting to stick the scientific consensus about climate change into every second sentence because of their desire to promote the scientific truth. It has nothing to do with scientific truth. It doesn't describe the run of the mill 'skeptic'. And on that note could I also mention that Environmental skepticism has had prod stuck on it recently which has just been declined saying "Redundant to either Climate change denial or The Skeptical Environmentalist; we rather need a bit of a trim down of this over-bloated set of articles." Well it isn't a fork of denial either, it describes the run of the mill skeptic, there isn't much about them even though they are huge in number as they are mainly Jo public. There have also been  attempts to direct climate change skeptic to climate change denial rather than global warming controversy because since the scientific evidence is so convincing they must all be deniers so they say.


 * Now the point about all this is that it is a notable topic like lots of others, and just because it says climate change in the title does not mean it is about the scientific evidence. Saying there is lots of articles and one would like to cut them down does not mean automatically that they are suitable for cutting down. One needs to check that the topics really are compatible and really do fit together as a single topic. Stuff from the article global warming alarmism has been just plonked into media coverage of climate change with no consideration of suitability except that in part of it some newspapers have used the term and reported people using it.


 * So overall I would ask editors here to stop looking at articles from just the perspective of whether they promote scientific truth or not. That blinds to a lot of other things. Just looking at 'climate change denial', oh that's about a POV in a debate. It isn't even part of the debate.


 * Oh and I notice a complete misunderstanding of Scientific opinion of climate change too above looking at it as if it was about the science. It is not about the science. It is about scientific opinion. That is not scientific except in so far as surveys are done of it and I suppose a survey could be called scientific. It is an article on the same sort basis as Public opinion on climate change. The top level science article is global warming. And no before you start we don't need to merge scientific opinion of climate change and public opinion of climate change and remove everything about the public perception because of the greater weigh of the scientific opinion. Dmcq (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your considered post. I will have to read it all carefully. It is taking me a long time to get my head around who thinks what belongs where. And I think that indicates that we have too many articles, because the structure ought to be clear to someone like me who follows the debates and cares about the science and its communication. I am relying on the scientists here to ensure that Global warming and the more detailed daughter articles are based on reliable sources and properly reflect what is agreed and what is up for debate. When it comes to the politics, sociology, even the philosophy of science, I am more qualified to comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree the climate articles could be improved. Here is one big way. I am not pursuing it at present so if anyone else wants to bring it back from the archives, please do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As the IP has provided no examples or evidence that the article is "promoting the theory", or that (per WP:FRINGE) the article gives undue weight to the topic, and a week's discussion has produced no such examples or evidence, I suggest that the assertion of fringe fails, and is unwarranted. In particular, the IP's assertion "[t]his needs torn to pieces" is unwarranted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion noted. Evidence to the contrary (above) also noted. There can be no question that the multiple forks of articles on climate change have led to a situation where our coverage of the topic is uneven, and many articles lack proper balance. It isn't so much the case that this article needs to be torn to pieces, but that most of them need substantial editing and consolidation. Having the same material discussed under multiple topics does nothing other than add confusion, and make proper editorial oversight difficult - though I'm sure that some people prefer it that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a snide bad faith accusation. How about countering where I pointed out that they are not forks and the description above was totally wrong? Is this the level of analysis and discussion editors should expect on this noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The initial poster did not provide any examples or evidence, and I do not see that any have been provided since then. If you think you see any, how about listing them? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to give things a bit of perspective, if you look at wiki article traffic stats (hits per day) for all climate articles, you find a small handful averaging over 200, and many averaging under 100. Then make a wild guess as to how many of the page views are from wiki editors and automatic web spiders and the like.  Subtract that number from the average hits per day to get the "real" page views by the "average reader on the street", if there is such a thing.  For a great many articles that formula is (less than 100) minus (spiders and wiki Editors)!   The result gets ever closer to z-e-r-o.   Too often the intensity of our arguments about a given article seems irrationally disproportionate to the amount of traffic the article was getting prior to the argument.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mu (lost continent)‎
Having some problems there with an editor adding obvious OR (using sources that don't discuss Mu to make an argument, and removing the pseudoscience category and replacing it with mythology (although there are no myths about Mu. I've reverted twice and now taken it to the talk page with a note on the editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I will help. Article is now on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly sources for conspiracy theories
At Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory Itsmejudith seems to be asserting that scholarly sources are needed to substantiate the article. Do editors on this noticeboard believe Wikpedia policies support that? There is an article Global warming controversy which covers the scientific or near science objections and I agree that sources there should be at that level to abide with WP:UNDUE, however this article is about conspiracy theories not the science as such. Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You will see my view on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a comment to add, but first I would like to request that the two of you decide which talk page is going to host this discussion. Could we please have a collaborative decision so I can post my comment in the main thread where you would like to discuss this further? Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind which and will be happy if regulars on both boards contribute, more eyes the better. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here since it is their home ground perhaps they will abide by what's said. Dmcq (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so D says Judith says we require scholarly sources for this article. Not just reliable secondary sources, but D says Judith says we must have scholarly ones. QUESTION FOR JUDITH, is that your position? It is not what I think you said on the article talk page, so before I comment I'd like to know if D accurately summarizes your view? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally scholarly, as there is a scholarly literature. You can find a lot of papers if you Google Scholar with search terms like "global warming denial". But any recent RS would be an improvement over using the primary sources. Sources from the early 1990s can be problematic because so much water has gone under the bridge since. For example, I found a textbook by David Pepper that mentioned the Conspiracy documentary. Aimed at undergraduates, not a bad source, except that Pepper took the word of the participants in the documentary that they had been excluded from funding because of their anti global warming views. I very much doubt that Pepper himself would still maintain that. I would email him to find out, but a better solution is to use a more recent source. I would recommend Friedrichs, J. (2011). "Peak energy and climate change: The double bind of post-normal science." Futures 43(4): 469-477. as one of the must-reads on where the whole climate change debate is at the moment. Anyone at all interested in the debate will find it thought-provoking, and it is just one of many very recent papers. There is also Mike Hulme's book length treatment. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for elaborating with detail. But let's zero in on the point of contention with D.  With laser focus on that issue I think your position was stated with these words, "any recent RS would be an improvement over using the primary sources."   So that leads me to a FOLLOWUP QUESTION FOR JUDITH, are you absolutely-opposed-to-the-point-of-insisting-we-delete any statement that is based on a primary instead of a secondary source? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain where this primary versus secondary business came from. I'd certainly hope to use secondary sources for any points of opinion and for any notability. Primary sources I see as providing straight facts where a secondary already refers to something. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no point emailing people as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
 * I do wish you'd stop trying to make out you know enough to give advice like 'one of the must-reads on where the whole climate change debate is at the moment'. Plus that is not about conspiracies, in fact it doesn't even have the word in it, nor does it cover climate change denial even though it repeatedly says denial. What it covers would come under environmental skepticism as far as anything in this area is concerned though I don't see it as anything worth noting myself.
 * As to the actual issue does anyone here really believe that climate change conspiracy theories is in more than a minor way an academic area of study of political science? Should it be treated as a part of political science? Or as I believe do you think that would be like treating the article on chess as an area of game theory, perhaps we should look around for articles in economics journals about chess? After that we can remove newspaper articles about 9 11 or UFO conspiracy theories and treat them a aviation science? Climate change conspiracy theories are like any other conspiracy theories, the actual subject is is I saifd a [MacGuffin]], the topic is about a particular set of conspiracy theories as noted in reliable sources like reliable newspapers. We need something saying what they're about is scientific and as per WP:UNDUE not imply a load of rubbish is true but that's about it. Is it an academic study or not? Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * D, please chill and give Judith a chance to answer my followup question. All this "stuff" is important to you, I'm sure, but for purpose of editing the article all we really have to do is keep laser focus on the narrow question.... and I'm not even sure there is a disagreement yet.  Judith?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for helping to focus this, but I think right now the best thing is to allow other people to comment. If I have to summarise, and this is based on WP:V and WP:NOR (will quote the sentences I see as most relevant on request) "mainly academic sources since they exist in the area but not ruling out other good sources; primary sources only with a really good reason". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you better point more exactly at what supports "mainly academic sources since they exist in the area". I'd also be interested  why you think the paper you mentioned was relevant to conspiracy theories if it didn't mention anything like that, and to back up that query here is a relevant bit of policy WP:OR end of first paragraph "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." Dmcq (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

D, plesae remind me what source(s) at Global warming conspiracy theory you want to include and Judith rejects? J, please don't dodge the simple followup question by asking others to comment first. Comment on what exactly? The simple followup question I asked you is designed to figure out what the dispute is about. It's hard for others to comment with this thread wandering all over the place. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Wait... Judith maybe I owe you an apology for maybe overlooking something in your prior comment.... did I hear you endorse the part of WP:NOR that says a primary source is OK if there is a really good reason? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I had put in about restoring three paragraphs 86.** IP had deleted from global warming conspiracy theory and noted that one of them about the channel 4 programme The Greenhouse Conspiracy was easy to source to a number of books supporting the conspiracy theorists but I was having problems with finding some stuff mentioning the programme rebutting the stuff and I'd like something reasonable before sticking in the other stuff. Itsmejudith came up with all this business about needing scholarly sources because it is a part of political science. I do not see anything about it as an academic study. Dmcq (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understood that insane run-on sentence correctly, you can not name a single specific source that is in dispute, is that correct? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you say insane? Yes that is correct, I want to check the policy before wasting my time. Itsmejudith said that before I produced sources. Do you think global warming conspiracy theory is mainly or largely an area of political science and the references should be from journals of political science? We've had AfDs and merge proposals about this area and Itsmejudith is responsible for quite a bit of that. If this can be cleared up then perhaps progress can be made with the treatment of the articles. They have gone on about researching their own sources at climate change denial as well. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bowlology
As an American and therefore clueless about cricket, I don't know whether this new article is a hoax, a copyvio, or just unencyclopedic. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a hoax (Google confirms). Not notable. Merge with Damien Fleming. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a note on the talk page of the article would be a good idea if there is going to be a discussion here about it. Dmcq (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Masreliez
The case of the fringe physicist putting in promotional links throughout the 'pedia. This is one of the latest places it has continued. Keep it in your watchlists?

Note Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem for some background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.48 (talk • contribs)


 * Beware, the IP here is a possible VanishedUser314159 sock puppet. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the AfD, I see Zarboublian, a sock of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole, trolling with a minimal knowledge of mathematics. Otherwise, ScientificApologist/Joshua P. Schroeder is correct in what he writes, as he was a year ago. Mathsci (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is up to the user attempting to add text to reach concensus. Your edits were unsourced. You should discuss your additions on the talk page of the article and not edit war for its inclusion. The added individual is non-notable and his wikipedia article was deleted in the past: IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was reverting the banned user's edits. I don't know about and don't care about the article. I don't oppose your revert. I didn't know about the previous AfD. Silly me. :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Climate_change_denial
Merger proposal for Global warming controversy. Since reliable sources connect the two (and the source article is terrible and needs torn apart anyway) I think this is by far the easiest way to provide context. Usual amount of trolling so far, including personal attacks and removing the merge-to tag from Global warming conspiracy theory, but hopefully that will sort out soon. 86.** IP (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the merge will be necessary. For the time being have made some edits to the Global warming conspiracy theory article. Much in it is of dubious notability, i.e. a collection of foolish op-eds from the last couple of decades. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For someone so sensitive to purported PA's, you're remarkably free with accusations of trolling William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he doesn't really know what "trolling" is, he just slings it about and likes the sound. And possibly got tired of typing out "harrrassment" all the time.  Well, another day, another AfD, FTN, ANI, sheesh, I think we need a plotting board to track this busy beaver. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like to lend him a hand on alt-med articles? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. (Why would I? Or was that a deep joke for which my supply of humor is inadequate to plumb?) If you think he is doing actual good on alt-medicine, please do us all a favor and ask him to stay there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On alt-medicine, he raised problems here. And they really were serious problems, and were taken up. He moves on to climate change articles and suddenly accusations of bad faith are flying around from people who say they are aligned with a scientific outlook. Something is going on, not sure what yet, but it will emerge in time. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When did you alert the articles you were talking about here about what you were doing? If a query is raised about an article to a noticeboard it is usual to inform the people watching that article by putting something on the talk page. What happens here is canvassing, not discussion. And then they go along to the articles and don't discuss things there just assert things. And even when I queried what you said here you did nothing but persisted in your mistaken notions. Why do you think people will react nicely to you when you treat them like dirt? Dmcq (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really do not care if people react nicely to me. The role of this noticeboard is to bring more eyes to articles with problems. There are whole series of fringe-related articles that have been walled off to outsiders. That is unacceptable when it is fringe promoters doing the walling. When people who say they support mainstream science act in the same way ... it's not a good use of anybody's time. FTN can be - is - an invaluable resource for the climate change articles. Whether you choose to treat it as such or not, actually. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How do I know you're not somebody working for the climate change deniers? There's been enough of them go around trying to delete or pervert the articles just the same as you. I believe you're just misguided and can't deal rationally with the issues but I certainly having more and more of a worry this is a deliberate denialist attack. Dmcq (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you seriously think I am trying to promote a climate change denying POV, then please take that up as a user conduct issue. I believe it will be quickly seen that I am among the editors least likely to be promoting such an agenda. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been my experience that people say things about others which is more true of themselves. Your protegė 86.** IP said I was part of a cabal and here you were putting insinuations about me 'who say they support mainstream science'. 15:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, this carping is not conducive to editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I've just gone and put yet another prompt on a discussion here about informing on the article talk page about discussions, hopefully with other editors coming along this noticeboard will become less of a canvassing ground for mobbing. Dmcq (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Stallions
On Talk:Stallion, there is an IP editor who is very persistent in wanting to insert information sourced to a website called animaldignity.org which is an animal rights website that campaigns against castration and gelding of livestock. Their claim is that it is possible to keep groups of non-breeding, ungelded stallions in male-only groups, but the only source they can come up with for it is the aforementioned animaldignity.org website, which is not a scientific source. There are some behavioural issues (threats of outing, personal attacks, uncooperative attitude and so on), which I will warn the user about, but it might be useful from the WP:FRINGE angle to have some editors familiar with these issues to look over the article and discussion and make suggestions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wondered whether there was scope for a section Animal welfare issues. The section would carry the mainstream view of gelding and stallion care, if there are good sources for that. For example, there might be guidance from the RSPCA (UK), any of its counterparts in other countries, animal breeders' associations, perhaps Compassion in World Farming. You wouldn't be looking for scientific sources in that section, just for independent secondary sources. Then the animal rights view could possibly appear briefly in that section, but must not be accorded undue weight. If you find an independent source mentioning the anti-gelding view, so much the better. Nevertheless, advocacy sources are often acceptable sources for their own viewpoints, so long as they are attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We do already have, in the Stallion article, several mentions of stallions being kept together in groups, with good sources for these, including an academic paper.  It seems, though, as though nothing will convince this IP editor that to include more on this topic would be to give it far too much weight within the subject of "stallion".  Nobody is arguing with the editor that they are wrong about stallions being able to be kept in groups perfectly ok, it's just that the subject has sufficient weight allotted to it in the article, and with far more reliable sources for what's already there.  The IP really just wants to push this one website (animaldignity.org); the site previously (until very recently) had articles labelling horse-women as man-hating, oppressive animal-mutilating criminals, and advocated human intervention to give uncastrated animals the "relief" which they might need. Applied by hand. Hmmm. Those particular articles have now been taken down from the site, but those (or similar) could go back at any time.  The site is also very far from being a reliable source for anything other than it's own exsitence, and the existence of its views. And, for the existence of those views, it has already been cited.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. That website is not a reliable source for whether stallions can be kept together in groups. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just added another citation to mention of significant numbers of stallions being grazed together in groups, from the Verderers' Court, and clarified that the nfstallions site has photographs and video of group-kept stallions. Video, of course, is always a "reliable source" for its own content, and I hope that the clarification of this being included for the fact that it shows footage of group-kept stallions interacting happily with each other will help to make this obviously-upset IP editor happier both with the coverage of this subject in the article, and with the reasons why we make distinctions between what is "reliable" and what is not.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a notice been put on the article's talk page about the discussion here so editors there can see what is being said? Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Links to all related discussions are on there now.


 * This is also at:


 * AN/I
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 17:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support for Pesky and Oppose IP fringe view:  Pesky is merely providing some mainstream evidence for the natural management of stallions that exists in many parts of the world.  The anon IP with the tendentious views (and who tried to "out" Pesky) seems to be promoting an anti-castration agenda and a certain warped view of stallion management that implies that all the rest of us are in some sort of conspiracy to keep stallions cooped up all the time -- another management style, but not universal by any means.  The problem isn't with what Pesky is adding, which is simply a concrete example of natural herd management accepted within the mainstream horse community.  The problem is with keeping out the fringe views of the IP and his/her cites to the animaldignity site, which (until about half of it was taken down last week) also has pages devoted to some extremely misogynistic views (an article titled "horse-women are criminals" was just taken down) and one on the "sexuality of animals" that clearly advocates a form of zoophilia.  So quite fringe, really.  Also, the site admits it is an "organization" with only two members  Probably best to consolidate the discussion in one place, probably the Dispute resolution noticeboard, where most of the action is.   Montanabw (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Help on cold fusion
Could someone look and see if this revert was justified considering a lack of discussion about the merits of the edits it undid? Note the extensive explanations on the talk page. Just evaluate the content work and see whether it was worthy of being kept or should be changed back to include peacock terms, links to conference proceedings, poorly made c-f research websites from Japan etc.
 * It looks okay to me. This whole cold fusion thing is a mess e.g. NASA has been working on it since 2009 and the US Navy has been working on it since 1989. Selery (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no point in posting things like that here. If you think they are relevant to the article, discuss it on the relevant talk page - though I'd point out that 'working on it' doesn't mean the same thing as 'got it working' : we won't add claims regarding this until it is recognised in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals, per our usual policies on such issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NASA has not been "working on it". There are scientists inside NASA who have made isolated experiments. The 2004 DOE review adviced against any federally-funded program, that's why you won't find any. --00:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The DOE 2004 final report mentioned:"The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions." Scientists at NASA have worked on LENR. Whether "NASA worked on it" is just semantics. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article claims right now that NASA "continue[s] to fund cold fusion research", which doesn't represent the current situation. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We are currently discussing whether e.g. and  say otherwise. Selery (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Has the talk page of the article been notified about this discussion? Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it at Talk:Cold fusion but I agree with Andy that discussion should continue on that talk page. There are certainly plenty of mainstream peer reviewed scientific journal articles on both sides of the controversy already in the article. But the intro and the body of the article give almost all the weight to the idea that the topic is fraudulent or at least pathological, which isn't consistent with two major government agencies reporting positive results and making optimistic predictions for years. I guess it's also worth mentioning that the editor who created this section is blocked for arbitration enforcement. Selery (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Which positive results? Two goverment institutions are capable of being involved in research into pathalogical sciences, in the UK for example there are homeopathic hospitals. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As reported in the first couple minutes of for example. Selery (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Gold artifacts with wings
Not sure what to do with this badly named and pov article, redirect to Out-of-place artifact and add a section there? The latest editor has added it as a 'see also' to a number of articles. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If a reference states that something is "Possibly mentioned here", I think it is safe to assume that this is WP:OR - or even WP:BOLLOCKS. Sadly, there isn't a 'yeah right' speedy deletion template... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't any other editors of the article be notified that the article has been brought to the attention of this noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've done that now. It really needs a talk page also, just busy today. It doesn't seem to be discussed outside of fringe websites/publications, eg Childress. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good. Yes just the talk page should be enough, if the editors don't watch the page then they're not really entitled to expect others to put in work to inform them about it (though occasionally I do, not sure why!). I notify related projects too if that looks relevant but most problems are fairly local. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think a redirect (removing the article) is the best solution. I tried to modify the article in a more neutral explaining direction. That is also why I moved it to the new name. It is better that wikipedia discuss this fringe "science" than to delete it, because it is mentioned by many people and it is hard to get neutral information about it on the www. It is a fact that these artifacts exists. The problem is when you try to interpret what they are modelled after. --Glenn (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no source to support the artefacts being "mentioned by many people", and even if this were true, that isn't in itself a sufficient reason for an article - there are simply not enough reliable sources to justify an encyclopaedic entry. If and when it can be properly sourced, this might be looked at again - though we'd need more than just fringe claims regarding the objects. (And strictly as a personal opinion, the artefact illustrated looks to me more like a moth - or a flying fish - than an aircraft...) AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * Have look here:
 * http://www.precolumbiangold.com/cocle.htm
 * http://www.pacal.de/goldflieger_en.html (clearly fringe site) Quote: "...Location: Shaft graves of the Calima, Tolima and Tairona cultures, Columbian and Diquis, Costa Rica; about 500 AD..."
 * Banco de la República is the central bank of Colombia, http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/eng/s_toli01.htm Quote (with a few photographs): "...Their goldsmiths have left us figures of insects and small animals cast in gold, some fantastic, others naturalistic. There are fish, lizards, crickets or beings that boast features of various species, like the famous "little planes", which have the head and mouth of a jaguar, the wings of a bird and the tail of a fish...."
 * --Glenn (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is very hard to find reliable sources - on the www. I thought that the categories pseudoscience, hypotheses and pseudoarchaeology was enough to balance the fringeness, until more neutral information appeared. Some notes that they have been exhibited in the Smithsonian Institute - have not (yet) found reliable information, that support that. As far as I could read - and see from different photographs: (1) they exist. (2) Erich von Däniken has interpreted them fringely as models of air planes. (3) They are made of a gold alloy and has wings. --Glenn (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Need help on An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
...and probably Antony Garrett Lisi. I've lost all ability to deal with the situation. Basically, Lisi (a physicist, but with no academic appointment, no research team, etc.) wrote a paper called "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything", and posted it on arXiv. It was never published in a refereed journal. Due to (probably) the influence of some other scientists (specifically Lee Smolin), the article was picked up by the mainstream press as a possible unified field theory, the Holy Grail of physics. As one of our sources says, it sounds like a great story, since journalist don't understand physics (heck, I don't understand this physics either), but they do understand "rogue outsider rocks the Ivory Tower". Turns out that not only was his theory not an improvement on current theories, there were actually mathematical errors in it. Lisi has since published one related paper, but outside of Smolin and a few others, the theory is basically considered to be of no value, because it doesn't successfully predict certain things they believe a unified theory must predict (I think it has something to do with being able to mathematically define all of the types of particles? Again, I'm way out of my depth here). The rejection seems to be so nearly universal as to probably make the theory count as Fringe under WP's definition. Now, that doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article--it was notable at the time, it was covered in reliable sources, and so something should remain. The exact question is, how much (especially, how much of the theory do we want), and how do we characterize the opposition.

All of that is just barely within my tolerance range...but the problem is that the dueling is going on between a variety of different IPs and some named editors, each of whom are accusing the other of actually being the principles in the debate itself (i.e., one of them is allegedly either Lisi or Smolin, another is a "string theorist" bent on suppressing a brilliant new theory, etc.). And recently it has apparently escalated to the real world: an IP is claiming that Lisi is using Facebook, Google+, and Twitter to recruit editors to save him from the machinations of wiki elves (see User Talk:Qwyrxian, as well as the very end of Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything.

I'm simply at a loss for what to do next. Half the time I can't figure out what's being discussed because the science is so far beyond me, and the other half of the time I can't figure out what's going on because it's just a bunch of wild accusations about bias and COI. I would really, really love for some help. What form that help should take, I don't know. Maybe something needs to go to DR. Maybe somebody needs to be blocked for COI (or even sockpuppetry, as those accusations are flying as well). Maybe we should just let them squabble amongst themselves indefinitely, because at least it's being contained on a few relatively obscure pages...advise, action, input all requested.Qwyrxian (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's see if we can get this sorted relatively painlessly. Post on the talk page and say that this discussion is open (thanks Dmcq for reminding us of the usefulness of that step, and no that isn't sarcastic). Request semi-protection for the page. Tag the page for expert attention in Physics and also post on the talk page of WikiProject Physics to ask for quick attention. Those might be the best first steps, but others to consider for the medium term are whether Lisi himself is notable apart from authoring this paper; should his biography be merged? Do any editors have a conflict of interest - one is definitely an SPA. If you want to take that up, first ask them directly. Then consider going to WP:COIN; if you do go there, let them know you are. Come back if you want other ideas or other help. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a note on the article's talk page, tagged the page for expert help, and left a message on WT:WikiProject Physics. I'm not inclined to request page protection, though, because the two main opponents include one IP editor and one registered editor, and I'm not actually certain that the named editor deserves much more deference and access to editing than the IP (the named editor, User:Scientryst, is the one who has accused by the IP of being Lisi or a close assocaite, based on interest in the articles as well as a writing style that resembles Lisi's off-wiki writing). I'll let this sit for a day or two and see if anything new arises before I go to COIN. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sabine Hossenfelder and Lubos Motl have both written comments on this theory, unfortunately asking them to get involved here will lead to even more trouble :) . Count Iblis (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a heads up, I've opened a discussion on ANI at WP:ANI regarding possible socking in relation to these articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory
Having removed a personal web page being used as a source at Ten Lost Tribes, I noted that the IP who added it replaced it (deleting another source) with the edit summary "Update break link (without pictures) on site author of articles. IT AUTOR ON MAIN PAGE: Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory". I'm not sure what this means, but certainly Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory with some possibly dubious additional reading. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just realised he didn't delete another source, but that just means, IMHO, we need a better source. at Ten Lost Tribes. Unless someone feels this is a reliable source, of course. Here's the main page of the source being added . Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is ironic, sorry my bad english. "IT AUTOR ON MAIN PAGE" - I wish say "This author is on main page: ..."
 * I repeat my arguments: 1. it update for bad link (without pictures), which was in the article since 2006. 2. it link on website author (Kubo, Arimasa). 3. This author is on main article Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory (references #6, 7, Additional reading - 3 links). 4. On Talk page of article is section (2006 year) with precisely these links to this website: Talk:Ten_Lost_Tribes. 92.100.79.169 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. However, this clearly does: . Another problem is the wording, "which provide some evidence for this possibility" is not appropriate. See also this search result: . We need to replace the reference at Ten Lost Tribes with one of these and work on the common ancestor theory article which is in dire need of some reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You quoted a book with just the opinion of some of the author, which does not prove or disprove. In the section of the article and in the main article (Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory) is marked "This article may contain original research". Also, article subjects - theology and cultural studies, not an exact science with technical uniqueness of binary "true | | false ". In general, scientific atheists have repeatedly tried to abolish the Bible as a lie, but it did not work. In this source are some remarkable pictures showing the parallel cultures of the Jews and the Japanese - this is obvious. (The author himself says in his source, that this parallel of cultures is not clear, but his observations.)
 * Personally, I don't care about this article. You can kill this link (which was in article 5 years). Can kill the article with all sections, and all articles on Biblical studies as "refuted by scientific atheism."92.100.79.169 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "scientific atheism". That's typical religionist rhetoric that seeks to discredit science as well as atheism. There is only science, which means serious research. Religio-racist thinking was typical of the 19th century, just look at Mormonism which makes similarly idiotic claims about Israelite tribes. But of course there are many facts that stand against such hypotheses. First of all, Israelites were no Jews, so correlations of Jewish and Japanese culture are no indication for influx of Israelite persons or culture into Japan. And last of all, genetics rule out influx of Israelite into Japan. This article lends attention to a fringe opinion within a fringe interpretation of history that holds no notability of its own. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 22:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Vision restoration therapy
Beyond it being written as an ad, this article smells of pseudoscience and fringe theories. Anyone have time to look at it in detail? --Ronz (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick Google search suggests that it probably isn't pseudoscience - but it is controversial. And yes, the article reads like an advertisement. I'd say this is probably one for WikiProject Medicine to look at, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at the damn thing all day and my vision isn't any better. Think my monitor is busted? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that almost every source is primary. Every reference is either the company, the developer of the therapy or someone who has written a paper with him. I've removed the section on Clinical studies as the format implies that the studies were independent. Instead they are those by the author or related. It doesn't seem to be a mainstream technique; i.e it probably is fringe. I've also gutted out the overly flattering primary sourced material. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications
has been going around a number of creationism-related articles doing minor rewrites. Unfortunately with the rewrites (i) have been less minor, (ii) are generally to material cited to Ronald L. Numbers' The Creationists (generally the gold standard on this topic) & (iii) do not match what Numbers himself says -- e.g. removing several important qualifiers ("several dozen" -> "several", "conservative Protestant" -> "Protestant", "conservative religious" -> "conservative"), removing at least one claim that Numbers makes, and adding another that he doesn't. Discussion is at Talk:The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. As Portillo appears obstinate on this, further attention would be appreciated. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Their edit to also appears less than helpful. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Transhumanism (relist)
The Transhumanism series of articles was raised here a few weeks ago, and some people were of the opinion that it is like a walled garden. I had a look around, and made a number of edits, especially to the main Transhumanism article, and some of those edits were reverted by regular editors. That article is FA, but it got that status a long time ago and the quality of the sourcing is not what would be expected now. Many sources are bare URLs, many are advocacy sources (although there is evidence of considerable effort to balance pro and con), some are deadlinks. At least one fringe journal is used too. Featured article review would seem to be called for, but it would be good to have some more opinions on the article before that. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it seems to have been bumbed up to featured status a long time ago (2006), a review seems in order so the inadequacies can be addressed. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I can't seem to find a link to the discussion where it was actually made a featured article. I'm not familar with FA; how is one to know if an article was accepted or not. I thought the process would be similar to an AfD where the discussion would be closed by an admin with a result. Edit: it seems that is now the case for FA discussions but wasn't in 2006. IRWolfie- (talk)
 * Here's the application. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Transhumanism Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm taking it offside, my issue was on how do you tell if it was accepted or not? i.e like this Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/November_2011. (I wanted to see the state of the article on the day of promotion) IRWolfie- (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the version that first carries the FA star, if that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say to put it for review. It doesn't seem to have been reviewed in the 5 and a half years of it being a FA. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For those who may have been involved in the previous transhumanism discussion, it has been nominated for a review. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Milton William Cooper
In a recently-cleaned-up article about a fringe conspiracy theorist Cooper, an editor active on David Duke and similar articles insists on removing a well-sourced mention of Cooper's references to Protocols of Zion. The editor maintains that Goldwag's book is an "unreliable source", however, considering positive reviews by the Washington Post, Scientific American, and other high profile mainstream sources, I'd say Goldwag's book satisfies WP:RS. Strange. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this editor is now edit-warring in material sourced solely to YouTube. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this editor is now edit-warring in material sourced solely to YouTube. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Otherkin
This article could use some outside viewers' opinions. It's an alleged movement started on Usenet and email lists of people who claim to be able to shape shift into animal form. A lot of the existing sources are to occult books and other high woo sources. I'm not entirely sure the topic is notable at all, but there are a couple minor mainstream mentions of it in the history of everything. Every now and then some group of self-identified Otherkin take it over and add new stuff. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like some sort of in-universe fiction. These people don't actually think they are vampires etc surely? Most bizarre fringe article I've ever seen. It does seem to be notable however on a first glance. Edit: the sourcing is not great. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Golden Domes
An article being discussed at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard appears to possibly come within the remit of this notice board. Can I ask anyone who has any comments to respond there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI: related issues have been discussed here before. See:
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 1
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 17
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 27
 * As well as discussions on less-closely connected topics.   Will Beback    talk    00:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In what way does any of this have to do with an article you created under discussion as a coatrack article? Looks a lot like a school of red herrings.(olive (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC))
 * It's relevant because the assertion is that the Maharishi Effect material (now mostly removed from Golden Domes) encompasses fringe views.    Will Beback    talk    00:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is hardly 'an assertion': 'Maharishi Effect material' is clear-as-daylight fringe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ace Baker
What a mess, I don't even know where to start. Essentially it's an almost 100% SPS article about a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who has gotten very little attention for that, but might be mildly notable for a couple other things, like having a gold record for drum programming on an ICE-T. I'm going to be doing some editing on it over the next week but I could use some help of people who are well versed in dealing with conspiracy stuff as I'm sure there are sourcing intricacies of which I am not aware. N o f o rmation Talk  03:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Decided to take it to AFD before I work on it just in case it's a waste of time. Still, if anyone can help with sourcing or anything else in the meantime it might make it keepable.   N o f o rmation  Talk  03:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Theosophist articles
Spiritual Hierarchy came up earlier, and got me looking at Theosophist articles lacking third-party sourcing. Among the worst offenders that I've found have been:


 * Seven rays
 * Seven rays
 * Seven rays
 * Seven rays

The first two are simply stubs, that I've suggested should be redirected to Helena Blavatsky (who is their author). The remainder also could do with further attention (as could probably further articles in the Theosophy template). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Isis Unveiled is indeed unsourced and I would have said definitely non-notable were it not for the high powered cultural references. James Joyce, Arthur Conan Doyle and Umberto Eco. Wow, even if the references are fleeting. Other than that, Google Scholar shows up a mention in Mircea Eliade's 1964 History of Religions, several sources about Joyce's reference, a feminist critique from 1983, and a [1988 paper http://mtw160-150.ippl.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_womens_history/v010/10.3.robb.pdf] about an Edwardian woman who used both eugenics and theosophy as arguments for women's rights. On balance the literary critics' interest in Joyce's reference is enough to keep the article, I think, or at least to merit a paragraph in Blavatsky's article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Joyce does baldly mention its title, as part of what appears to be a stream-of-barely-comprehensible-esoteric-consciousness. Lacking a literary expert to tell us what (if anything) it actually means, its hard to tell if it means anything. Or is it just a particularly pretentiously-portentous-sounding title that Joyce and others chose to salt their work with? That's why we need third party sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree about 3rd party sources. I saw some on Google Scholar, so if they are any good the article can be kept. I doubt if many of her books are independently notable, but this was the first one. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seven rays needs to be carefully examined in case the whole article is nothing but synthesis to prove an ancient origin for theosophist ideas. I'm seeing a lot of primary sources and even if it is a real mythological/religious theme outside theosophy, the theosophy section is much too long. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This subsection Seven_rays appears to be particularly undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that everything in Seven rays, after the first paragraph in Seven rays, appears to be unsourced, that could be said about most of the section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * +Uncaused cause—Machine Elf 1735  22:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * +Causeless cause—opps, make that “causeless cause”.—Machine Elf 1735  22:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not really something that I know a lot about, but I'd suggest circumspection before applying too heavy an axe to Theosophy articles. Theosophy of the Blavatsky sort - for all it's idiocies - had a significant influence on 19th and early 20th century thought (in fact, I kind of suspect that we wouldn't have modern skepticism if it weren't for the well-published charlatanism that latched on to theosophical thinking).  Gut these articles too badly and you destroy a lot of necessary context for other articles.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but having an article on each individual "charlatanism", sourced solely to the 'charlatans' themselves is hardly the way to explicate this 'influence on skepticism'. Far better to discuss the whole thing in a single balanced article on the topic. Incidentally, we don't actually have a separate article on 'Theosophy of the Blavatsky sort' -- Theosophy deals exclusively with the topic of the original, non-Blavatsky meaning of the word. Blavatsky's sort is dealt with in Helena_Blavatsky. It might be logical to split that section out into an independent article that all the host of non-third-party-sourced articles on theosophist topics can be merged into, for a more balanced treatment of the overall topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Granted, with the caveat that that's kind of a hole in our coverage of the material. the 'Blavatskyisms' (as I understand it) were an important transitional movement: the first non-reactionary effort at defining a sense of metaphysical purpose in the post-Enlightenment, pro-commercial world.  What I've seen of it still tastes like dirt for all that, but it had an influence on a few generations of thinkers.  For instance, I've never read Blavatsky directly, but I know her name because there must be dozens of books in my library that mention her in one way or another.


 * I'm not saying that pruning is not called for, I'm just suggesting trim rather than hew. I'll take a look at it myself, but I'm hesitant to act or offer advice beyond this - as I said, this is something I know little about directly.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to see how mere 'trimming' is appropriate for when (i) the material in question is of very poor quality & (ii) it is sourced purely to Blavatsky and her cohorts. What purpose is served by preserving such inappropriate material? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Material that's sourced, at least, to Blavatsky et. al. should have a place. Even if it were just consolidated, I imagine it would make it easier to improve. I'm sure people must find it difficult unless they know what to look for. Also because it's so syncretic, consolidation might help set a consistently neutral tone for her representation of other philosophies, religions and… etc.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  09:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." (WP:PSTS) Therefore, if all there is is "material that's sourced, at least, to Blavatsky et. al." then no, it does not "have a place." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you want to learn anything about Theosophy, I actually AM a Theosophist, so I may answer any of your questions. Especially about the Seven Rays and the Ascended Masters.--The Theosophist (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is the lack of reliable third party sourcing (e.g. scholarly academic commentary & analysis) on these topics (see list above), to both demonstrate notability, and to present a more neutral and balanced treatment of them. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a question I may answer?--The Theosophist (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you take a look at this noticeboard's headers. This noticeboard is for discussing problems associated with WP:FRINGE theories, not for asking general questions about a topic (that would be WP:Reference desk). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, User:Blueboar told me about it. I did not even know its existance.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can help by contributing to the above discussion on some of the articles which have significant issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The main Theosophy article itself looks like it needs some work to get it to encyclopedic standards. It's far from clear with sentences such as: ''Traditional theosophists engage in circular analysis of the universe, man and divinity. The theosophist inquires into the hieroglyphs of nature ...''. After looking through the article I still couldn't answer the question "What is Theosophy?". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What has happened to this article? It was the triple than it is now some months ago.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Blavatsky material (most of which was either unsourced, or sourced to Blavatsky herself) got stripped out in a rewrite, that was discussed on the talkpage at Talk:Theosophy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So, we have a number of problematic articles, and some more eyes on them. What is the plan of action? I can look up the literary criticism sources that mention Isis Unveiled. I was also thinking of posting at WikiProject Christianity about Seven Rays, as the article seems to be pushing a syncretist point of view that seven rays depicted in Catholic iconography is somehow connected to the Hindu depiction of seven rays and other forms. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest: (i) Decide if we want a separate article on Blavatskyian Theosophy. (ii) Decide on a list of core Theosophy articles that are 'must haves' even if they are currently badly written/lacking third-party sourcing. (iii) Merge/redirect all other articles lacking third-party sourcing to these. (iv) Somebody with expertise and access to third party sources rewrites these core articles to these sources (and maybe even re-expands the number, if sufficient third-party sourcing to support this becomes available). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I may make you a table of the Seven Rays as they were taught to me. Will this actually help?--The Theosophist (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, that would not help at all. We are looking for independent, reliable sources, not for individual experiences. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that finding independent reliable secondary sources is going to be difficult. While there is a lot of primary source material available (books, pamphlets, videos etc that have been written by adherents of one branch of Theosophy or another), there are not a lot of secondary sources that discuss it (this is a common problem when dealing with fringe topics). Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are enough RS for the early period. There's been a lot of interest in how Theosophy fitted into 19th century feminism, for example. We won't have enough independent sources to cover every aspect of the belief system but does that really matter? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a matter of interest, does any extant article cover the Theosophy-feminism connection? I can't remember coming across it. It would be somewhat ironic if, among all the wastelands of unsourced and primary-sourced articles, Wikipedia has neglected one of the few aspects that actually has significant third-party sourcing. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Annie Besant's biography is all I can think of, and that isn't good at explaining the connections between the various things she was into at various times. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Her article seems to indicate that her political activism was well-established well before her conversion to Theosophy, so it seems unlikely that there'd be any significant causal relationship. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the connection is that Theosophy led people towards feminism in a narrowly causal way. Rather, there was a whole complex of "alternative society" convictions that could include feminism, socialism, eugenics, vegetarianism, rational dress, and various non-Christian quasi-religious and pseudo-scientific beliefs, including spiritualism or Theosophy. If you were attracted to one of the non-mainstream viewpoints, you would come across people who would preach the others to you. Very like the late 1960s. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. I'd express it as 'once you start looking outside the box, it's rather hard to stop'. Rejecting the conventional wisdom in one sphere will tend to get you rejecting it in others (with positive feedback loops that are psychological, social and informational). I'm not sure how this would translate into an article topic (or topics) though. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be used to create a new article. Rather, we should carry on doing literature searches and adding good info to the existing articles. I got interested in Victoria Woodhull recently, for example, who seems to have been almost as important in the early history of eugenics as Galton, but like many of these people she lacks a good recent biography. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bowen technique
Bowen technique is a type of extremely gentle message therapy. There's very little quality research (or quality sources in general) on the topic. When there's so little quality info available, and pressure from those who believe the large amount of hype and marketing about it, it's been difficult to find a neutral presentation for the article. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"It has been suggested that Bowen therapy may correct faulty vibrational frequencies in the body and establish more favorable overall balance, improve connections between the nervous system and brain, improve connections between different body systems and facilitate overall harmony of the body." --Ronz (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL. It cures "Addiction... Bedwetting, Bunions... Constipation, Diarrhea, Difficulty conceiving children... Groin pain, Gynecological issues, Hammertoes... Jaw pain/misalignment... Premenstrual syndrome... Sprained ankles..." and "Tennis elbow"? Sadly, it seems to have no effect on chronic-believing-this-bullpoop syndrome. I think it needs clarification though - are the "two minute pauses" of 120 seconds, or just two very small ones? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Many articles on massage therapies and "holistic bodywork" &c tend to be afflicted by similar problems. Would anybody like to try the Trager Approach? bobrayner (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the evidence suggests that the appropriate instrument to approach that article would be one borrowed from Lizzie Borden. But seriously, don't articles like this fall firmly within the remit of WP:MEDRS? On that basis they should simply be deleted, as unsourced according to the standards required. I'm going to assume that this is indeed the case, and give the Trager article 'forty whacks', as the bullpoop it appears to be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wessex Institute of Technology
came back onto my radar again (I can remember it coming up some time ago), as a publisher of fringe papers ("paper-mill" as it is described on its talkpage). It seems to consist of little more than a conference centre and a publication house. There is a lot of discussion of controversy on its talkpage, but the article itself seems to be largely an unsourced whitewash.

It came back to my attention because Andrew McIntosh (professor)‎, editing as is attempting to add a citation to a paper authored by him and published by WIT Press to the article on himself. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Turns out that most of the article was a copy-and-paste of their own website -- have stripped this material out. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Erich von Däniken
Continual attempts to remove well sourced and attributed critical material. An IP is now complaining about it being reinserted at WP:BLPN. Typical edit summary by the main editor removing it is " Even if such nonsense should really be mentioned in a "book" published by Oxford University Press, it would rather appear appropriate to protest against such a publication than to quote it on Wikipedia.)" Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Protoscience
The only thing referenced in the article is what is already in the pseudoscience article. I propose that Protoscience be redirected to pseudoscience. Comments to Talk:Protoscience. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's been done I see, but I'm a bit concerned as protoscience seems to be used frequently to mean something different, see and  as examples. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede had about 3 or 4 contrary definitions of what protoscience was which made things even more confusing. If someone wants to recreate the article they can, but it needs to be very clear what protoscience actually is. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's the trouble - to different people "protoscience" is different things. Sometimes it's nutcases pushing their latest perpetual motion machine and lamenting that they're being rejected by the academic cabel, and sometimes it's historians describing 14th century alchemy.  Pseudoscience might fit as a redirect for the first case, but not the second. Buddy431 (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Protoscience does not involve nutcases. I'm going to restore it because you evidently need this article. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If we need an article on the subject, it certainly isn't the one we had. If you want to write a properly-structured and sourced article on the subject then do so. And yes, some so-called protoscience is well into nutcase territory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note '84.106.26.81' has now restored the article. Given that there seems to be no consensus for this, I'm tempted to revert to the redirect, but I'd like to see input from others first. Comments please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Protoscience" is a fairly uncommon discriptor; Synonymous with "pseudoscience" Revert to the redirect. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the article needs to be sourced to RS's that specifically discuss protoscience. There seems to be a bit of SYNTH going on in it, as well as fringe and 'frontier' sources being treated as authoritative when they should be treated with "According to X..." attribution. NB: Dougweller shows that there is minor coverage dealing with philosophical meanings of the term protoscience, and if these can be folded into the pseudoscience article (or already are) I see no reason not to REDIRECT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Protoscience is a legitimate term used in the history of science that refers to investigations in the early stages of the development of the scientific method - stuff like parts of ancient Greek philosophy, alchemy, and such like. Supporters of "fringe" concepts might like to label their modern concepts as protoscience and hope that they will develop into a new science, but this is wishful thinking.  Note the difference between "woo-woo" concepts and developing new areas of research; for example molecular genetics has really only been possible since the discovery of DNA and its function - yet no-one would describe the early advances in molecular genetics as being protoscientific because they were clearly part of a wider ongoing research programme into biochemistry and genetics.  Basically, the article as it stands is completely nuts. We have a well developed scientific method already. I am not a dog (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The best way forward then is to gather some sources together to get some notability for this definition of the term for the purposes of creating a solid article on it. Since there are a variety of meanings for the term, some countrary to each other, perhaps there should be disambiguation page instead leading to relevant articles? Protoscience within pseudoscience (redirect to pseudoscience), Protoscience within Philosophy of Science and Protoscience and within History of Science and whatever other definitions there are. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Guys, protoscience was a term used by Kuhn to refer to the collection of competing theories that exist before a scientific discipline establishes a cohesive paradigm. It's not fringe science by definition, because there is no paradigm against which to establish whether something is fringe.  The article we have does suck, though.  I'll see what I can do about that.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect it would be possible for protoscience to be a 'fringe science' even without a detailed paradigm against which to compare it -- particularly if it was sufficiently malformed as to be perceived as violating the paradigms of science at a more general level. I agree that the article sucks, and don't see the that the continued attempts to raise its zombie have improved the rotting flesh that much. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And Philosopher of chemistry Jaap Brakel offers a rather different definition of the term to Kuhn. Add to that the fact that the (Kuhnian) idea of 'protoscience' plays a very different role in the establishment of a scientific field after the development of the scientific method than it does in the development of the method itself, and we have a pressing need for greater clarity. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is my OR on the topic:

We cant really use something like this in article space but (trimmed down) I think it could be helpful in the guidelines.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks but no: WP:No original research. A Wikipedia pillar says we include none of this sort of thing. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote: "We cant really use something like this in article space but (trimmed down) I think it could be helpful in the guidelines."


 * Our edit guidelines are full of original research.84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And in addition to being original research, it is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are going to be obnoxious again, please explain what is wrong. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why should I bother? As original research, it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Redcurrant
The redcurrant page has some unusual sources for fringe health claims. The entire medicinal section contains claims about the medical effectiveness of redcurrant, but the source doesn't seem to be very reliable. It also contains the claim that dried redcurrant berries are "highly alkalising". Thewelshboyo (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Welsh Boyo removed the offending stuff, and the article seems to be in good shape now. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ica Stones interesting issue about material sourced to Skepdic
The issue is a sentence that says "In the past, a number of engraved stones were uncovered in the context of archaeological excavations, and some engraved stones may have been brought from Peru to Spain in the 16th century." It's source to Skepdic.

On the talk page, I've written:
 * Let's make one thing clear, when we speak of the 'Ica Stones' we are not just referring to any old engraved stones, but to stones "decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing." My concern is that by making a statement that engraved stones were taken to Spain without any evidence that these qualify as 'Ica Stones' we are misleading our readers. I'm also saying that we have problems with the sources for this claim. As another editor wrote recently at RSN, "Sources are not inherently reliable or unreliable simply because they are one type or another. What makes a source unreliable is how we use them."
 * I've tried to trace where the sources got this from to see if that provided any evidence that any stones that can legitimately be called 'Ica Stones' were found and taken to Spain. I found which says "One student of prehistory, JR Jochmans, claims that a Jesuit missionary, Father Simon who accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast in 1525,". But Jochmans is not what we think of as a typical 'student of prehistory' but someone who among other things claims to have 'ghost co-authored' the book "Secrets of the Lost Races" by Rene Noorbergen and other strange stuff.  I can't find anything about this Father Simon. Other sources (eg ) use the claim (ie Father or Padre Simon found some engraved stones, Spanish explorers took them to Spain in 1562) but no one has any sources for this.
 * We have no reliable sources justifying our origins section. The fact that real engraved stones may exist/existed in the 16th century is not sufficent reason to suggest that they are the 'origins' of the Ica Stones or bear any relationship to them.

I've had a response, focussing on my statement that "when we speak of the 'Ica Stones' we are not just referring to any old engraved stones, but to stones "decorated with etched depictions of advanced technology and medical procedures, depictions of other planets and unknown continents, as well as numerous depictions of humans and dinosaurs co-existing." - the argument is that Ica Stones should refer to any stones "found in or near Ica." and that the sheer volume of stones speaks for them being old. I'm not sure if this is an RS or NPOV question, but it's certainly a fringe one and I strongly disagree that the phrase Ica Stones refers to anything else than these stones decorated with dinosaurs, etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is all very odd. There are only two respectable sources here, Carroll and Coppens. The point at issue is simply this: were there any engraved stones known from before 1966, when Javier Cabrera Darquea started his theorising? and if so, should the article mention them?
 * Coppens says "Cabrera’s private museum includes a collection of stones belonging to his father – Bolivia Cabrera, a Spanish aristocrat – gathered from the fields of the family plantation in the late 1930s." Later on he relates "The Soldis’ interest began in 1961 when, according to Herman Buse, the Ica River flooded and “uncovered in the Ocucaje region a large number of engraved stones which ever since have been an object of commerce for the huaqueros who found them” ". Similarly we have "Santiago Agurto Calvo, then rector of the Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria, who bought many and, in 1966, began excavating pre-Inca tombs around Ocucaje. In an article that year, he described the designs as “Unidentifiable things, insects, fish, birds, cats, fabulous creatures and human beings [..] in elaborate and fantastic compositions.” "
 * Coppens goes on to say "discoveries of engraved stones in the Ica region go back to Spanish records of the mid-15th century". As to what the older stones showed, he says "While some investigators claim that they were refused permission to see the Calco collection in the Museum of Ica stash, Neil Steede was granted access. He concluded that these “definitely genuine” stones show a finer workmanship and have less deep cuts than Cabrera’s stones. This is a clear indication of a more highly skilled manufacturer than Cabrera’s artisan. Furthermore, they are restricted to depicting conventional humans and existing animals, not extinct animals; nor do they include any examples of the more exotic motifs of the Cabrera stones."
 * Coppens sums up "It is quite possible for the engraved stones, if authentic, to have a simple anthropological origin." and "It seems increasingly likely that the Ica stones have been fabricated, but it is difficult to believe that they are all – estimates run to 50,000 pieces – made by one poor, uneducated farmer. No independent study has been made, if only to separate any possibly authentic artifacts from the fakes."
 * Carroll adopts a similar tone, ending with "Are the stones authentic? If by authentic one means that they were engraved by pre-Columbians, then the answer has to be an unqualified 'not all of them.' Some engraved stones are said to have been brought back to Spain in the 16th century. It is possible that some of the stones are truly examples of pre-Columbian art."
 * All I'm saying is that the article should admit the existence of old stones and appraise them in the same way as the sources. I am at a loss to understand Dougweller's motivation in trying to exclude such content. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Craniosacral therapy
Soliciting a third (or more) opinion on the reliability of quackwatch for a claim on this page. Please see relevant discussion on the talk page, thanks. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation <sup style="color:black;">Talk  08:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I intend to address the issue on the talk page, but at least from our PoV here the main issue isn't so much the fringiness of this quackery, but on the future of QuackWatch as an authority. There are ample sources out there testifying against this massage technique. Mangoe (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted a number of them to the talk page. Also I seem to remember some sort of ruling or consensus that QW can be used, but only as giving its own opinion:  "Quackwatch.org classifies X as a pseudoscientific practice", not "X is pseudoscience", although I can't remember where it was for the life of me.  a13ean (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Céline Hervieux-Payette
This article has a fairly large section called "Model Parliament for North America – Regionalism" that seems to mostly consist of conspiracy theories about a North American Union. There are lots of sources, but they may perhaps not be among the most reputable. I notice that the article in the French Wikipedia lacks this stuff, even though the article is about a francophone Quebec politician. --213.236.196.39 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't comment on the conspiracy theory but have removed it from Céline Hervieux-Payette as completely WP:UNDUE and per WP:BLP: the only reference linking her to this material is dead. Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ica Stones redux
Although the above is at RSN, I'm having another problem with an editor removing the descriptions of the stones (because they are fake - again an editor suggesting that 'Ica Stones' refers to something other than a collection of stones considered to be hoaxes by mainstream sources). And another RS issue which I may also take to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nano-thermite
This article (which probably ought to be merged into the main thermite article anyway) is being beset by persistent attempts to refer to a somewhat notorious paper to defend the thesis that nano-thermite was found in the dust resulting from the World Trade Center collapse. It's a particularly challenging source issue because they authors appear to have made a good faith effort at analysis, and because it gives the appearance of proper peer review. The science of the paper has been criticized by many people, though, and frankly it seems to me that someone with a decent middle-school-level experimental procedure education can see some of the holes in their analysis. It is suspected that the material they identify as thermitic is actually rustproofing paint, and said paint is surely a contaminant of the dust they analyzed; by my reading (and I'm hardly alone) the arguments made against this suspicion are weak, and the obvious step of subjecting a sample of similar paint to the same analysis was not performed, nor did they perform an elemental analysis of real nano-thermite.

The other side of the coin is that the supposed peer review is tainted. Apparently the article was snuck into publication without the knowledge of the editor-in-chief, who resigned in protest when she discovered that it had been published. There is a great deal of backing-and-forthing about the qualifications of the various people involved.

The NIST reports dismiss the thermite/controlled-demolition theory in a FAQ response. Thermite simply isn't a material which is used for this kind of application (real controlled demolitions people use linear shaped charges to cut steel beams), and nano-thermite seems to be invoked as a magical (and semi-mythical: I get the impression that it is the subject of research and isn't the sort of thing you can buy off-the-shelf, as you can with ordinary thermite) super material to get past the limitations of the stuff used to weld rails en situ or in incendiary weapons.
 * , being dubious of the custody of stuff which was literally scraped off Manhattan sidewalks, if that's where it came from. The controlled demolition was taken down, so to speak, by probably the man most qualified to assess it, the guy the real CD people call in to document their work.

This particular issue is likely headed to WP:RSN RSN, but I'd like some other people to go and have a look at the argument before I take that route. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Quoting Mangoe:
 * "The science of the paper has been criticized by many people"
 * Criticized by whom? And what is their criticism?
 * "someone with a decent middle-school-level experimental procedure education can see some of the holes in their analysis"
 * What holes? Describe.
 * "It is suspected that the material they identify as thermitic is actually rustproofing paint"
 * Suspected as rustproofing paint by whom? Have those who "suspect" rustproofing paint actually conducted any tests of their alleged paint to determine if it possesses the characteristics that they claim?  Such characteristics (low ignition temperature, rapid energy release, and hot enough to melt iron) would be very undesirable in a paint; especially a rustproofing or primer paint.
 * "The NIST reports dismiss the thermite/controlled-demolition theory in a FAQ response."
 * NIST didn't test for incendiaries or explosives, so as is the case with much of their investigation, their dismissive approach is unscientific and evades the issue.
 * "Thermite simply isn't a material which is used for this kind of application"
 * Materials used by military or black operations are not necessarily going to be well documented in the public domain. I doubt that you have a reliable basis for making a statement regarding what materials might or might not be used in this instance.
 * I get the impression that it is the subject of research and isn't the sort of thing you can buy off-the-shelf"
 * Correct.
 * "NIST also declined to perform the sort of analysis done in this paper"
 * Correct. This can be viewed as unscientific and a severe failing on the part of NIST to perform a thorough and proper investigation.  NIST instead chose to play ostrich and stick its figurative head in the sand, even though it could very easily perform the appropriate analysis, and lay the matter to rest.
 * "being dubious of the custody of stuff which was literally scraped off Manhattan sidewalks"
 * The tested samples came from a variety of locations; none of which were sidewalks. The closest to a "sidewalk" was one sample which was taken from a pedestrian handrail on the Brooklyn Bridge.  All of the samples contained chips with the same thermitic characteristics.  The government has (or has access to) samples collected by entities it regards as reliable (such as the material examined by USGS), so unavailability of appropriate samples is not a valid reason to avoid analysis for thermitic material in the dust.
 * "The controlled demolition was taken down, so to speak, by probably the man most qualified to assess it, the guy the real CD people call in to document their work."
 * Who? Perhaps Tom Sullivan, former explosive-charge placement technician for Controlled Demolition, Incorporated; who also worked as a photographer documenting demolitions?  You won't find him agreeing with the government's account regarding the destruction of the WTC buildings.
 * As the "notorious paper" (as you call it) is the document which has likely brought the topic of nano-thermite into public view more than any other, it would not be unreasonable to allow mention of it in the nano-thermite article. Wildbear (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be excluded per WP:UNDUE. The root causes of the WTC1,2,7 failures are well understood at this point and thermite (nano, super, or otherwise) did not play a part. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not going to go through the motions of spelling out all the argument here when it can be seen all over the place, particularly in the long-winded exchange on the article's talk page. If/when I go to RSN I'll have to go through the details exhaustively there anyway, so between the two locations, I figure people here are bright enough that I don't have to repeat it all here.


 * I will address two points directly. Supposition about rustproofing paint is not a substitute for dealing with the real thing. The fact is that iron oxide is a common-to-the-point-of-ubiquitous ingredient in such paint, as it is in fact in many paints in the red-orange-brown hue range. I don't know that it was used in the WTC formulation, but perhaps that could be found out. One would expect to find the residue of such paint in dust from the collapse, so it needs to be accounted for in any case. And whatever one wants to claim about the desirable properties of such paint, the fact is that paint dust of almost any kind is volatile to the point of posing risk of explosion in confined spaces. You can find demonstrations of this on YouTube, but you'll also see the work safety guys concerned about this too.


 * Second, the person I have in mind is not Sullivan, whose remarks, frankly, smack of a lay assessment from a video rather than from analysis, but Brent Blanchard, whose report addresses the incident as a contractor hired by the CD firms to assess their work. He was in NYC that day, and his monitoring equipment was deployed and did detect the collapses. It is hard to imagine someone who is more expert than he is. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr. Blanchard's document is dated August 8, 2006. In this document, Mr. Blanchard writes:  " Please…if anyone knows of specific physical evidence relating to explosives being used in any manner on the Ground Zero site, bring it to our attention."
 * The "Active Thermitic Material" paper was released in early 2009. Mr. Blanchard's document and request predates this, and so does not address the evidence for thermitic material in the dust, which is the topic of this discussion.  Mr. Blanchard also writes:  "We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here."
 * It's disappointing that Mr. Blanchard does not express the intellectual curiosity to want to find the precise cause of the destruction of WTC 7, given that he is in an industry where such knowledge would be very important to have. And especially, to have an answer which is without question scientifically verifiable and reliable; rather than a dubious hypothesis of fire-induced collapse.
 * As for the explosiveness of paint dust versus the ignition behavior of the red/gray chips: that's very easy to test.  Place both (independently) in an oxygen-free environment, and raise the temperature until the material ignites.  Thermitic material provides its own oxygen, (together with metallic aluminum ready to react with that oxygen) and so the presence or absence of oxygen should make little difference to its ignition behavior.  The same probably wouldn't be true for paint chips.  If they do ignite, the absence of available oxygen would likely make the ignition slower and much less energetic.  Scientific testing is the proper approach, rather than trying to argue the evidence away with theories.  Wikipedia shouldn't present conclusions as definitive prior to proper testing being conducted and reported upon.  Wildbear (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * " a dubious hypothesis of fire-induced collapse". This is the fringe theories noticeboard, not the noticeboard for the propagation of fringe theories. It is fucking obvious why WTC 7 collapsed - it was on fire, after being damaged by the collapse of the WTC north tower. That conspiracy-theory-peddling loons chose to argue otherwise is of no concern to Wikipedia. Please take your soapbox and tinfoil hat elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Andy; welcome to the discussion. Hopefully, Wikipedia tries to steer things toward a more scientific point of view when possible; and presumably, this section is here to help in this regard.  Wikipedia's Earth article is an excellent example of an article which largely avoids the well-documented (but dubious) beliefs of a large portion of the population, and instead focuses on the scientific knowledge of the topic.  Ideally, Wikipedia's documentation on topics like WTC 7 should give a similar emphasis to science over belief.  And herein lies the problem.  Popular belief is that the building collapsed due to fire.  This belief might be true, but it needs to have a scientific basis.  The complete collapse of a steel-frame high-rise like WTC 7 due to office fires is without precedent, and has not been validated by any real-world reproduction of such an event.  Wikipedia's Scientific method article has a lot to say about what constitutes proper scientific evaluation.  I would hope that the participants on this page, and those editing science-related articles, would be familiar with the scientific concepts and readily able to see where sound science is present, and where claims are dubious.  Just because a government makes a claim, and a large portion of the population believes it, doesn't mean that sound science has been applied.  In keeping with the spirit of the Earth article, sometimes Wikipedia should discount popular beliefs and uphold scientific principles.  In my humble opinion.  Wildbear (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTFORUM. And then troll elsewhere. One doesn't need advanced scientific knowledge to figure out why a building collapses after having sustained significant damage when another one falls on it, and a subsequent major fire. The Earth article is based on science, whereas the ludicrous ramblings of conspiracy theorists are based on nothing but the ludicrous ramblings of conspiracy theorists. I'm not the slightest bit interested in engaging in a debate with you. You're not worth the bother... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on reliable independent sources. A variety of explanations have been hypothesised, here is but a few . We should not be relying on a particular article of dubius quality where there are significant issues over it's reliability, even if it was published it seems undue to me since it was widely criticized by other mainstream sources. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. As a side note, the scientific method and the historical method are not used with respect to wikipedia articles. see the links provided at WP:CCPOL IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi IRWolfie-. Thank you for your response and your references.  You say, "it seems undue to me since it was widely criticized by other mainstream sources".  Can you provide references for some mainstream sources which criticized the article under discussion?  I'm not saying this to be argumentative - if genuine, well thought out criticism of the article exists, I would like to see it.  Sometimes useful things can be learned from criticism.  Especially if it's written with an intent to be constructive, and discusses the science, not the publisher.  You also say, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".  I absolutely agree with this, and I would be very solidly against inclusion of any document presenting extraordinary claims for which sound research and evidence is not provided.  I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the Active Thermitic Material paper should be mentioned in the nano-thermite article; either way is fine with me.  It seems sufficiently reliable and notable that a mention would not be improper.  But if criticisms are leveled against it, please provide sources for those criticisms.  Thank you.  Wildbear (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

British Edda
I've already redirected Eden Triad to this article, but I'm wondering why we have an article about this book when it isn't discussed in the author's article - Laurence Waddell. I've also raised an ANI complaint about the article's creatoer,, after his recent sock puppetry, trolling & creation of Tempomania. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be a notable book and "Eden triad" does not appear to be a notable concept. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, nominated for deletion. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 20:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

evolution
I am trying to include a quote from Al-Jahiz's book in the history of evolution section of this article using this source. However, another editor feels that an evolutionary biologist has to mention it or it would be a fringe theory. Sodicadl (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A historian of science would be the best interpreter of this, rather than an evolutionary biologist. Jim Al-Khalili does write about history of science, but this particular source is very much addressed to a popular audience and may be oversimplified. It isn't a fringe claim, but it shouldn't be made too much of and should be attributed to Al-Khalili. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are three problems here: sourcing, weight and fringe. For a topic like the history of evolutionary thought, we require top-notch scholarly sources from academic publications written by recognized experts in the history of evolutionary thought. The source you mention is essentially an aplogetic opinion piece in a non-specialist publication for a non-scholarly, popular audience. Sorry, but it's well below our standards. Now, whether or not the view should be given any weight depends on how much it is mentioned in the scholarly literature on the topic. Again, we would require top-notch scholarly sources to determine that. Absent such sources, any discussion about whether it is fringe or not is premature and futile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the quote? Where in the article would it go?  BTW, I'm a bit confused by both comments above about "popular audience" and "non-scholarly, popular audience".  That's our audience, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but information should be sourced to academically respectable literature, which we then mediate for a mainstream audience. There is a History of evolutionary thought article, which would probably be a better place to start than the main article itself. It's presumably intended for the history section anyway. We would need to know how accurate the translation is, what Al-Jahiz is thought to have meant by it, etc. That needs context, and specifically scholarship by a historian of science. What Arabic word is being translated as "species", for example. Also is this just an isolated sentence, or does he actually develop a theory? Paul B (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As an aside, from the guidelines; "Wikipedia strives to be a serious reference resource, and highly technical subject matter still belongs in some Wikipedia articles". While it should be made accessible "but this should be done without reducing the value to readers with more technical background." Make_technical_articles_understandable. Just because wikipedia targets a popular audience does not mean we should resort to poorer non-scholarly sources for the information when better sources are available. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @IRWolfie: The OP didn't indicate what the quote was, so I have no idea whether it's highly technical or not. In fact, I think you may be conflating highly technical content with sourcing.  Your second sentence seems to have nothing to do with your first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The quote in the article the OP links to is as follows:
 * "Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."
 * I have a problem with the translation. The unnamed translator (probably Al-Khalili himself) apparently tried to express whatever Al-Jahiz may have written in terms of modern biological concepts, using modern scientific vocabulary. This would make it seem more relevant to the stream of thought that led to modern evolutionary thought than it may actually be. Without solid academic sources, giving Al-Jahiz's statement a place in the the history of the developement of evolutionary thought would verge on OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "The unnamed translator (probably Al-Khalili himself) apparently tried to express whatever Al-Jahiz may have written in terms of modern biological concepts, using modern scientific vocabulary." OK, sounds reasonable.  @Sodicadl: I suggest you try to find other sources.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Khalili wrote Pathfinders: the Golden Age of Arabic Science. This is a published book dealing with the history of science. I don’t exactly have the book right now, but if this material is in the book rather than the Telegraph, would it then count? Sodicadl (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think it would be an acceptable source, but that still doesn't mean that the quote should be in the article. Any number of things that can be sourced could be put in the article. We also have to consider due weight, flow, scholarly consensus. As I suggested earlier, you'd probably be better off starting with the more detailed history article rather than trying to squeeze it into the main evolution article. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sodicadl: Another posibility is if the book itself is notable, you can write an article about the book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:Evolution where I said "The problem is that a theoretical physicist probably has no particular knowledge of the history of science, or of developments within biology (such a person of course may be an expert on these matters, but they have no known credentials in the field)". Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting test case for WP:HISTRS. Let's say that the claim belongs to history of science. What qualifications do we expect for someone writing history of science? The best known scholars tend to have unusual backgrounds, including both history and science. Al-Khalili a good enough science background to understand today's scientific method, except he is not a philosopher. He is an Arabic speaker, important skill for someone specialising in the Arabic scientific tradition. He doesn't seem to have any formal training in history, but he has a chair in public communication of science in a reputable UK university. So, it is a bit borderline. I would endorse the idea of adding the info in the first instance to History of evolutionary thought rather than to Evolution - no indication that it is notable enough for the latter article. And it is better to use the book rather than the Daily Telegraph report. And it needs accrediting to Al-Khalili, so readers can look him up and see what his background is.
 * Personally, I am not worried about the translation of "species" or what the original Arabic word was. We know for a fact that Al-Jahiz was not working with the same 19th century concept of species as Darwin and Wallace. He wasn't standing on the shoulders of Linnaeus, John Ray, Gilbert White, Lamarck et al. His idea of evolution was a remarkable insight, but also a perfectly feasible insight for someone open-minded and interested in explanation.
 * Handled with a modicum of care, this is a harmless factoid that might spark readers' interest in science history. If it started to spin out into a "which nation discovered evolution first" race, that would be a problem. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A question that I like to ask myself when deciding content issues like this is, if the BBC were to do a documentary on evolution, is it likely that they would mention something like this? Perhaps for the topic of evolution, a better question might be, does the average college textbook on biology include this?  If the answer is no, then we probably shouldn't.  If it's yes, we probably should.  Just something to think about...  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBC cannot be our threshold for reliability of sources on science. BBC has news agencies that are certainly world-class and I would use them as a reliable source on news i.e. current events.  Beyond that ... well, like any TV network their principal goal is to entertain, at least as much if not more than to educate (yes, I learned this from a BBC documentary on the history of their own science shows).


 * Al-Khalili is one of a bunch of scientists in Britain who are telegenic and good teachers and are completely shaking up older stereotypes about scientists (Britisn versions of Mr. Wizard). I do not think one has to be a rocket scientist to see how appealing to the BBC is a pitch for a three-part (as I recall) series on science during the golden age of Islam, at a time when UK forces are slogging it out in Afghanistan and Islam is the second-largest religion in Britain.  How many of us here would not be interested in watching this show?  So, as is often the case, Al-Khalili put out a book based on the TV show.  My point is that this book was led by the production of a TV show, not by academic research.


 * Also, Al-Khalili is not a historian of science, nor a historian of the Islamic world. We have no idea of wht kind of research he did for the show, and there is nothing to suggest that has training in the history of science or in the history of the Islamic world, and we do not know to what extent he relied on the expertise of others.  Is his opinion of Al-Jahiz his own opinion?  Well, I simply reject that out of hand for an article on evolution.  Is he summarizing research by leading historians of science, or historians of the Islamic world?  All we need is to ask whoever wishes to mention Al-Jahiz in this article to look at Al-Khalili's book and see what citations he provides as sources for this view.  If this leads to a recent scholarly book widely respected by historians of science and historians of Islam, then this is the book we should use as a source.  If Al-Khalili does not provide references to any studies by historians of science, I really have to question its reliability.


 * We are putting together an encyclopedia, and that something is published may be the minimum to verify it, but so far all we have done is verified that a physicist and TV presenter has a particular opinion about a historial figure and biological science. Well, okay, but frankly this tells us much more about Al-Khalili than about Al-Jahiz or about evolutionary science.  So far no one has provided any evidence that Al-Khalili's claim is taken seriously by the actual experts, historians of science and historians of the Islamic world.  It is pretty obvious to me that evolutionary scientists (from biology or anthropology), intellectual historians and historians of science, and sociologists of science may all be appropriate sources for an article on evolution.  Before anyone adds someone from another category I would want to see evidence that this person did the appropriate research, and that this person's research is accepted by other experts on this material.  Normally, we take publication in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal or publication of a book by a university press that is authored by someone with the appropriate degree as sufficient evidence.  Maybe we should accept other evidence.  But the fact that the TV show appealed to the suits at BBC and Penguin Books (which frequently publishes books to accompany BBC shows) is simply not in my view sufficient evidence to justify inclusion in the world's leading on-line encyclopedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to ask (although I think I know the answer)... are you saying that there is not sufficient evidence to justify any inclusion of Al-Khalili or his theories period (ie anywhere in Wikipedia)?... or are you saying there is not sufficient evidence to justify inclusion of him and his theories in a specific article (such as the overview article on Evolution)?  The former would be governed by WP:FRINGE (which, in this case, I read as being in favor of inclusion), while the latter would be governed by WP:Undue weight (in which case I would generally agree with your assessment, although it depends on the specific article we are talking about).  Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He is a notable enough person that I think we should have an article on him, and such an article should describe3 the range of his work - as a research scientist, TV presenter and author. But given that his training and credentials are in physics, the only theories of his that belong in articles on academic topics ought to be his theories about physics, assuming that ithin physics his work has achieved the appropriate level of notability. I think you and I agree that citing his views on the history of evolutionary research in the articles on evolution would be giving his views undue weight.  Analogy: I think Walter Cronkite's opinions about outer space have a place in WP - in the article on Walter Cronkite, but not in our article on astronomy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get the Kronkite analogy, but so far we have no evidence that this quotation appears in any of Al-Khalili's books. I've done searches on Amazon sites for his two books on the topic, and can finds no reference to the quotation. All we have is a report in a newspaper article. Personally, I am very suspicious about the quotation, in part because of my experience of similar cases of 'creative' translations/epitomes of Arabic sources, and in part because I can find no evidence that any other scholars have identified this remarkable passage in a fairly well known book. I think we really do need more sources for a major article. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The extraordinary claim that Darwin's predecessors were influenced in a "major" way by the writings of Al-Jahiz is not matched by extraordinary sources. Do Muslims have a proud heritage? Yes. Can we trace specific influences of Al-Jahiz on Linnaeus and company? No. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a trained historian could find such a specific influence ... and maybe not. My point is, historians are trained to weight the appropriate evidence to establish such influences, and Al-Khalili is not, thus making him the wrong source for such claims. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any suggestion that Al-Jahiz directly influenced Darwin, just that he anticipated aspects of Darwin's thought. It would not be too surprising if we were to find biologists who said something about animals competing for resources, and even passing on characteristics. It's been well known for rather a long time that characteristics can be bred into animals by selection. The question is whether these disparate observations were really connected together in an original quasi-Darwinian form by Al-Jahiz. Maybe they were. Al-Khalili is not just a presenter/journalist like Cronkite. He does have a reputation for writings on this topic, but he's a generalist and the claim raises redflags. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Al-Jahiz is mentioned in the article, natural selection, for the same reasons that are brought up here. The citations do not refer to Al-Khalili's works. If it is considered WP:fringe or WP:weight to mention the influence of Al-Jahiz in the history section of evolution, I wonder if the same can be said of the history section of natural selection. Or perhaps the sources in natural selection are better? Thoughts? danielkueh (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

cold fusion
People need to look out. The article on cold fusion contains a significant amount of undue weight including claims referenced to primary sources, cold fusion conference proceedings, and other violations of sourcing guidelines on Wikipedia.

Look what I did to the lede:. This needs to be done for the entire article. Look for special pleading, promotional writing, etc., and balance or get rid of it!.

Hudn12 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits. Please see WP:BRD. Your user page seems a little problematic: like your account, it was only created a few minutes ago. Mathsci (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to understand what you found objectionable about the material you removed, because it was discussed in detail on the article's talk page well beforehand. Are you aware that two of the statements you removed were from peer reviewed secondary sources? The other material includes a list of the organizations which are currently working on LENR. Do you think it would help readers more to learn about such things? If you believe they are false, you should try to find similarly authoritative sources which agree with you and include them alongside the material to which you object so our readers can get both sides of the story. That is what our WP:NPOV policy is all about. Selery (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, the lede was overloaded and does not conform to the Manual of Style. I agreed with the pruning and reverted Mathsci's revert per WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Which particular part of WP:LEDE do you think supports the deletion? A new user just split a paragraph, but you left five paragraphs anyway. And removing the only peer reviewed secondary sources which indicate positive results and the work ongoing at e.g. the US Navy and NASA, along with the only available explanation of why the controversy occurred (Hubler 2007) completely biases the article. It's already under sanctions, don't you think it would be a good idea to discuss changes on the talk page first? I'm copying this discussion there. Selery (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As this has generated three undiscussed reverts on the sanctioned article, I've replaced the POV tag. Please continue discussion at Talk:Cold fusion to keep it all in one place and prevent FTN clutter with this perennial controversy. Selery (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This "perennial controversy" died in the early 1990s. RIP. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The removed sources clearly indicate that the US Navy, NASA, and all the several most recent peer reviewed secondary sources say otherwise. Selery (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Low quality in universe source are not accorded much weight, if any. Besides they are all primary regardless of the number of tims you claim them to be secondary.ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I invite people to judge that for themselves. Selery (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(copying my post from Talk:Cod fusion) Since wikipedia is based on sources, I'll point out again User:Enric_Naval/pathological_science. Scholar sources overwhelmingly consider cold fusion unproven. A handful of sources written by long-time supporters don't make a new consensus. Cramming low-quality sources in the lead only serves to give the false impression that the field is proven and accepted. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Cod fusion like cod Latin, or is it a fishy form of fusion cuisine? Paul B (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We have established at Talk:Cold fusion that those sources are not peer reviewed, and the peer reviewed secondary sources opposed to them have been cited in mainstream journals. Discussion is continuing on that talk page. Selery (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Enric already addressed this issue. "Hummm, it doesn't say such a thing, peer-reviewed articles are one of the available types of sources. Please re-read WP:SCHOLARSHIP (it's part of the Reliable Sources guideline). It's also in the verifiability policy "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources (...)" (P.S.: it's the short form of "academic publications and peer-reviewed publications")". Original research articles are also generally not suited for a lede, we should be relying instead on reviews etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Amazing amount of nonsense
Please read more about what I did here. Apparently, the new game is trying to convince the world that NASA is going to fund cold fusion by scouring the web for evidence that certain individuals connected to NASA are sympathetic to the cold fusion community. This now constitutes "ongoing" research.

Hudn12 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I invite others to judge for themselves: NASA's first tech report on the topic, NASA LENR video,, Zawodny's slides, Bushnell's slides, Nelson's slides on the eCat, patent application, NASA's gas phase tech report, news from Russia, news from Sweden. Selery (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also NASA's "early experiment" is also mentioned in a peer reviewed paper in 2006
 * Apparently, the new game is trying to convince the Noticeboards that NASA cannot be mentioned in the article.
 * It is pretty damn obvious that work on LENR is ongoing at NASA !
 * Raise your hands, who is happy with withholding information from the WP-readership because it is not in line with your personal POV ?
 * This is not about LENR "endorsement" by NASA, this is about what RS say about LENR research at NASA. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are cherry picking and re-interpreting your links to present a picture other than indended. Enric's comment sums it up best:
 * According to Forbes, Zawodny has clarified in his blog that he was still skeptical, that there was still no extraordinary evidence to back the extraordinary claims, and that no public demonstration had reunited all necessary guaranties.. Forbes also says that this was blown out of proportion. | Zawodny's own blog says, among other things "Nothing I say should ever be construed as anything other than my personal opinion. (...) There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works.". So, Bushnell has declined to comment on NASA's official position regarding CF, and Zawodny says that he doesn't represent NASA. Soooo, NASA still doesn't seem to have any official position regarding cold fusion
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, cherry picking is what YOU are doing by searching for an ever so tiny hook to support the complete deletion of mentioning NASA's work on LENR. Stop arguing your strawman "NASA's official position". I'll repeat my comment "This is not about LENR "endorsement" by NASA, this is about what RS say about LENR research at NASA.", maybe you understand it if I repeat it as often as you repeat your strawman. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, provide some mainstream secondary sources that report on NASA doing research into LENR. So far, all you've got is Ny Teknik (again), who seem to have got it wrong according to Zawodny, and a Russian website that says nothing specific whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is your special rule right ? As per WP:SPS "researchers at NASA langley research center are working on another way of producing energy efficient nuclear power" - what part of "NASA is doing research into LENR" is it that you feel isn't supported by that video ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Solomon's shamir‎
Thanks to Velikovsky this accumulates woo-woo speculation as to what it "really" was. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fringe speculations don't belong in an article on a mainstream topic, I've removed the undue section (it was also primary sourced it seems). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is that the article appears to be written as fact when it seems more like a myth/legend. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove the speculation and rephrase it as the myth it is. Mythpage88 (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Moon-God Allah
I would like your opinion on whether this article counts as fringe theory. In a nutshell the article is saying:

1. The word Hubal, one of the gods of Arabia before Islam, is derived from the word Allah.

2. Hubal was the moon God.

Until here everything has scholarly sources.

3. There is a theory that Allah is the moon-god.

I dispute this last step; that this theory is not notable enough. Looking at the article, it seems it was more or less devloped by people like Robert Morey who discredit all faiths but evangelical Christianity (and therefore does not count as an independent reliable source). Just do a CTRL+F on the word Morey in the article and you see what I mean.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There appear to be more than a few unreliable sources being used in that article, on both sides of the argument. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 05:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of the Jesus-was-a-mushroom theory. Yes, it is a theory (someone proposed it), but is it a notable one? Nope - no evidence that any credible sources beyond the proponents take it seriously. Delete, per WP:FRINGE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. How do I delete the article then?--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect that it will involve going through the Articles for deletion process, given that it seems to have editors supporting it. You could try posting a link to this thread on the talk page first - and then try the quicker Proposed deletion process if they have the brains not to argue that this bit of nonsense deserves any credibility. I'll look into this further, and see how it develops. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The viewpoint is notable because it's often touted by evangelical Christians . As scholarship, it's fringe, or rather it's meaningless. Since Allah just means "god" (or rather "the god") it's a truism that other gods have been called god, or the god. Paul B (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If the 'viewpoint of evangelical Christians' on this matter is notable, can you point us to some secondary reliable sources that have 'noted' it? Wikipedia isn't a forum for either the promotion nor the debunking of 'viewpoints' that nobody else considers significant: "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse" (WP:FRINGE). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you babbling on about? I'm not promoting anything, just noting that it's a familiar argument I've come across many times . I have no particular intest in the article. Please don't quote largely irrelevant chunks of policy at me. I've read WP:FRINGE often enough, so of course I am aware of what the best sources are. There are essentially two aspects to WP:FRINGE, one concerns the promotion of fringe ideas in articles on a mainstream topic (aliens built the pyramids etc). The other concerns articles on fringe ideas, writers etc themselves. It is the second that is at issue here, and yes, that can include 'debunking' if notability is established. As the policy says, "Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia—as notable ideas in the public eye". In addition, "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." There are several such discussions in scholarly books  . These took me a few minutes to find. I've no doubt there are many others. Paul B (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Miracle of 19 in Quranic Initialed Suras:
See the edits of. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to have added the same WP:OR in multiple articles - and marked the edits as minor - I'd take it straight to AN/I, and ask for an admin to see if we can revert everything in article space with a bot or something. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to contact the user, but somehow I think that this is rather beside the point here. This all needs deleting... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The claim that the number 19 has some special miraculous significance in the Quran derives from the writings of Rashad Khalifa. seems to be carrying on where  left off at the end of last year. Paul B (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whose ideas about this are self-published fringe backed up with some self-published websites, at least one in Tucson where he was based. I've removed it. Some of the entries even had our articles as sources! I think we only have one editor here, two accounts. At Talk:Ash-Shu'ara DukhanSmoke wrote ""These are based on independent, verifiable, reliable, undisputed Quran data, reference texts commonly accepted by those in control of web sites and Quran printings etc. of Sunnis and Shias too" etc, and the same text is at Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Virgil Miller Newton
The current biography is in violation of your Fringe Theory clause.

Citation 1 is in direct violation of propaganda rules a b Fager, Wes (2000). "Reverend Doctor Virgil Miller Newton at Straight, Inc. and at KIDS of North Jersey / KIDS of Bergen County". Retrieved 2009-08-03. It is a site that is not reputable site that was created solely to defame me.

Citation 2 ^ "Newton settles with Corter". Retrieved 2009-08-03. again goes to this same site.

Citation 3 is a falsification of information. I corrected that information in my edit and did not deny that there were suits filed while I was involved and listed them.

Citation 4 - 7 can not be sourced

Citation 8 and 9 as well as 13, 19, 21, 25, 26 are 404 can not be found pages

Citation 17 - again goes to the straights as referenced in citation 1

Citation 22 - does not validate the claim

Citation 23 - is another site created just to defame me.

And lastly 4 and 28 are from POKOV a self proclaimed watchdog of the Orthodox Church that publishes half truths.

Hopefully this will help in getting this matter cleared up.

Thank you,

Foucauld1 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Father NewtonFoucauld1 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Already under discussion at BLPN: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder
This article desperately needs some more attention. New editors (though, honestly, some of the activity suggests strong similarities to accounts blocked for using sock puppets to push POV onto the article in the past) who simultaneous are trying to claim that experts as published in reliable sources who believe the disorder (commonly known as multiple personality disorder) has been over diagnosed should not be mentioned at all (because allegedly "there is no controversy" and to mention it at all is supposedly undue weight). The talk page is full of disturbing comments about trying to run anyone who oppose them off Wikipedia, calling their opponents sociopaths, etc. The major driving force is someone claiming to be a mental health professional who claimed to professionally diagnosis DID and therefore only his opinions matter, and when he didn't get his way he canvassed around looking for any editors who were involved with disputes on other articles with the people supporting the consensus version of the article. Another newly active account has made many comments on the talk page attacking the idea of false memories and the False Memory Foundation, and it should be noted that alleged recovered memories of abuse and multiple personalities both feature heavily in satanic ritual abuse accusations. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone who looked at the page when I listed this and saw that the edit warring had stopped, or those who didn't have time at the time, if you could come take a look now it would be very helpful. The editors pushing their POV managed to make a series of drastic changes against consensus right before an admin locked the article for edit warring. If we are to ever get the article unlocked we need a consensus on the talk page, and we certainly never will as things currently stand. DreamGuy (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden
Claims to have received about 2000 messages directly from God. Very notable but the article is very pov. See my comments at Editor assistance/Requests‎. Dougweller (talk)
 * Many of the sections appear to be undue and based entirely on primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Tommy Golden
I never knew that "using the right level of emotional sounds will reintroduce the living energy to the Zero-point energy". Awful article manages to weave "spirit communications", "zero-point energy", and "memory persistence" into a promotional bio of an unknown 'researcher'. Includes requisite giant size publicity headshot of subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good candidate for AfD. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Exorcism, er, deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Tommy Golden. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Using the right level of emotional sounds will reintroduce the living energy to the Zero-point energy." Facedesk. Pound, pound, pound. The stupid, it burrrrrrrrrrrrns. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced rubbish. Waiting until the end of the AfD is too long for reasons of Immediatism. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubius article Quantum mind
The article appears to portray fringe views as mainstream. For example the section Gustav Bernroider appears to try and link a paper printed in Neuroquantology to what appears to be a respectable mainstream scientist with publications in Nature and Science to try and make it seem mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Bernroider's papers are worth including at all? Are they a notable fringe viewpoint? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I don't see any reliable independent sources to indicate notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've cleared out some of the undue stuff in the article. I've also removed the references which relied on neuroquantology as it seems to have pretty poor peer review with some very dubius articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be completely devoted to pseudoscience. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

DNA consciousness
I became aware of this article due to a wikilink added to consciousness. I am inclined to think that the article should not exist. It is entirely devoted to the ideas of one John Grandy, whose only claim to notability seems to be that he has written a few articles for a couple of Sage Press encylopedias, and a couple of papers for minor journals. I don't see any evidence that anybody else has taken notice of his ideas. I frankly have given up hope of getting rid of the bogosity that overwhelms wikipedia -- what I would really like to do is remove the wikilink from consciousness, an article I have largely written and have been maintaining. Any reactions? Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. An article on Grandy may be warranted, which summarizes his bold claims.  But until this idea has some currency or has been debated by other scholars (psychologists, philosophers, biologists) it is a paradigmatic example of "fringe." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article relies on just two types of references, irrelevant ones (used to document accepted neurobiology but in no way mentioning Grandy's theory), and Grandy's own writings in (of all things) an encyclopedia of anthropology, which is not where one would look for accepted neurobiology (especially one presenting the pet theories of an author who is just a registered physician's assistant). I don't see how his thoughts on DNA having thoughts carry the least bit of credibility, although I note that the purveyors of woo seem to have latched onto it on some web sites and he has given some conference talks. Does this constitute sufficient notability to justify such an overblown farce? Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One branch of anthropology is human evolution, and many anthropologists have expertise in genetics and evolutionary theory. But Grandy's theory really seems to be about consciousness - which is an area in which philosophers and psychologists have expertise ... and anthropologists.  So raising a flag concerning anthropology is a red-herring.  The problem is, we do not have enough evidence to tell whether Grandy is making an argument based on his own research or is speculating &mdash; and no evidence that other researchers care.  This is what we really need to know to determine whether it is fringe or notable. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the analysis of the article, but let's not get personal about Grundy. Remember that patent clerk?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those with terminal degrees in the area about which they are speaking, holding professional positions at the top of the relevant field (i.e. a faculty post or commercial scientific advisorship), or with substantial records of peer-reviewed publication are given the presumption of expertise. The patent clerk speaking about physics had to demonstrate his expertise by the power of his argument, by getting it past peer review and by its acceptance among those with expertise in the field.  You don't get the benefit of the doubt just by coming up with a lame-brained idea and self-publicizing it.  Yes, someone with no formalized training could come up with a new concept that better explains life as we know it, but every yahoo with a novel 'idea' does not get a Wikipedia page dedicated to their 'insight' just because of the successes of one patent clerk, any more than everyone 'persecuted' by the establishment must be onto something just because Galileo was persecuted. His level of expertise is relevant.  WP allows the use of self-published/publicized material if coming from an expert.  Nothing against PAs, but a physician's assistant talking about DNA consciousness does not qualify, any more than when an engineer says something delusional about evolution or an astronomer shoots his mouth off about paleontology. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that his job is irrelevant to an analysis of the article about his ideas. If they are accepted, or given credence, or comprehensively refuted, in reliable mainstream sources then we report that: if they are ignored in mainstream sources then we ignore them too. We judge the ideas by what the sources say, not by what Grundy's job is.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And my point is that this isn't entirely correct, because self-published sources are treated differently when they come from an expert, and one's job is relevant when evaluating expertise. Agricolae (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not suitable for Wikipedia, and I think an AfD is the best solution. See Requests for feedback/2011 May 27 where we learn "An article on a new subject not covered elsewhere. I'm seeking feedback on how to publish it to Wikipedia." Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Medical explanations of bewitchment
A novelist seems resolute on inserting her personal theories into the article. Without regard to the merits of her conjectures, her theory is backed up only by her own novel, and not by secondary sources. In addition to conflict of interest issues, the issues of reliable sourcing and notability are involved. The article will probably require monitoring, and I would prefer not to be the only one doing so. - Nunh-huh 03:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly that section should not be there, but the whole article seems to be suffering from some form of curse or split-personality. It looks as though it started off as an article about the Salem trials, and then was expanded, but not altered sufficiently. The lede section talks about witch trials n general, and then sweepingly says that all medical explnations are rejected by historians, which is palpably untrue of some cases (eg John Law's stroke which started the trials of the Pendle witches). Either the article should go back home to Salem, or give a more rounded view of the topic. Paul B (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Taliban
Given that all sources, academic, newspapers and politicians say that the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence helped found, and have given financial and military support to the Taliban, and also that the former president of Pakistan as well as various Pakistani politicians have also said they have given aid to the Taliban, then does the Pakistani denial of giving support become a fringe view? That they deny support since 9/11 is a given, but a user seems to think that these denials can be carried back to before then, as in Pakistan has never supported the Taliban. What weight should be given to this view? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't give any weight at all to what "a user seems to think". What sources are being cited here? If the Pakistani government is saying this, there is nothing 'fringe' in reporting that they say it. On the other hand, if it is a statement originating from a source with little credibility, it probably isn't relevant to the article. I'd think it was a little out of the normal remit of this noticeboard though, and you would probably do better to raise the issue elsewhere.


 * If you are intending to continue this discussion here, you should probably post a link here on the relevant talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I was just curious about it. His sources contradict the claims made though, This one has this Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban But the same source has former president Musharraf saying "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil." The other  says While politicians in Islamabad repeatedly denied that Pakistan supported the Taliban it is followed by the reality was quite the opposite I am unsure if picking single statements from a source like this is OK. It seems to me at least to be misrepresenting them. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Black holes as cold dark matter
Recently this passage was deleted from the Cold dark matter article as "fringe":


 * Black holes are known to exist in abundance. Intermediate mass black holes of about 100,000 solar masses in galactic halos are consistent with observations of wide binaries as well as microlensing and galactic disk stability.(ref name=frampton2011>Frampton and Ludwick (2011) "Number and Entropy of Halo Black Holes" Astropart. Phys. 34:617-9 (ref>Frampton et al (2010) "Primordial Black Holes as All Dark Matter" Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2010(04):023 Smaller black holes are also a possibility.(ref>Hawkins, M.R.S. (2011) "The case for primordial black holes as dark matter" 415(3):2744–57 (ref>Worsley, A. (2012) "Advances in Black Hole Physics and Dark Matter Modelling of the Galactic Halo" Applied Physics Research 4(1):128-37 (ref name=gsfc2004>

Many of the authors involved, such as Paul Frampton and Michael Hawkins are extremely prestigious, and most of those sources are peer reviewed in prestegious journals, while some of them are WP:SECONDARY literature reviews. Although the editor who deleted the passage claims that their sources at Talk:Dark matter and the subsequent section somehow proves that the idea of black holes as dark matter is a fringe theory, that seems completely absurd to me, and the top non-Wikipedia Google search hits on ["dark matter" "black holes"] clearly confirm that they are a top possibility; e.g.. Now the editor who deleted that passage has apparently accused me of being Paul Frampton, even though everyone ought to be able to see that I am in Colorado from my IP address (and for the record, I am a statistician, not an astrophysicist.) Would someone please do us the favor of evaluating whether this is a fringe theory? 67.6.175.184 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The idea that black holes might be dark matter is not fringe (although the theory that they could have masses of 100,000 solar masses is - that's what I was referring to, not to Hawkins' views). As far as I know, Frampton is the only person in the world advocating the point of view that 100,000 solar mass black holes can be dark matter.  In fact, decades of accumulated evidence have convinced the vast majority of experts that dark matter cannot be black holes of any mass, or indeed any kind of large, massive object (so-called "MACHOs"), let alone 100,000 solar mass holes.


 * The strongest evidence against such objects comes from direct searches - MACHOs passing in front of the field of view of a telescope produce detectable lensing effects, and if MACHOs are present in sufficient abundance to be dark matter, they would have been detected in the correspondingly large abundance, but several dedicated searches failed to find them.


 * To support this I went out and found eight (!) recent reviews of dark matter physics. I didn't pre-select them in any way, I found the first eight I could (by google and by using some specialized astrophysics search engines).  Of those eight, several never mention black holes as dark matter at all (bear in mind that these are 50-100 page overviews of the topic, some intended for experts and some for students that are learning the subject).  Of the reviews that did mention MACHOs or black holes, all were unanimous in saying that they are ruled out as a dark matter candidate, and devoted a short paragraph (again, out of 50-100 pages) to saying so.  I added those sources to the article, including quotes.


 * Given wiki's due weight policy, I don't think Frampton's theory should be mentioned at all unless the article is made much longer. Wiki articles are supposed to represent the prevailing view and accord alternate views due weight, which in this case seems to be pretty close to zero.  There are many other possibilities and important points that carry significantly more weight with the community and aren't discussed.  Even in a long version of the article, its lack of coverage in all eight reviews indicates that Frampton's theory shouldn't be mentioned at all, while black holes should be discussed briefly.  As it is now, in a fairly short section black holes are mentioned (in both the dark matter and cold dark matter articles).   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 03:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that Waleswatcher deleted both theories of intermediate mass black hole dark matter and stellar mass black hole dark matter as "fringe". Frampton, "the only person in the world" who Whaleswatcher says advocates the idea that IMBHs can be dark matter, has at least six co-authors on his two papers that suggest the possibility, both of which were very recently peer reviewed by prestigious journals. Actually reading the papers which Waleswatcher deleted will explain to anyone who wishes to take the time and effort that microlensing, wide binary orbits, and the cosmic microwave background are at present thought to be compatible with black hole dark matter, although only three to five years ago there was reason to believe that all three excluded the possibility. I asked Waleswatcher twice whether he has a financial conflict of interest in WIMP searches, and although he did not deny the possibility, that is when he suggested that I was Professor Frampton.

I am grateful that Waleswatcher now says that stellar mass black hole dark matter is not a fringe theory, but I would like others' opinions on IMBH dark matter, too, please. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dualus.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 04:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post on Cold Fusion
"Helium-3, an isotope that in the future may support cold fusion when earthlings finally figure out how to make it happen, is another potential treasure." - I thought the Washington Post was firmly siding with the mainstream science view that cold fusion was completely debunked and crackpot ? How can earthlings ever make it happen, when according to everything mainstream science knows it does not and never will exist. Or is this a sign that the view on cold fusion is really changing lately ?

Is the topic becoming more acceptable for discussion in mainstream science ? --POVbrigand (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CERN colloquium on LENR


 * I'm not sure it's advisable to use this noticeboard as a form of blog for advocating personal views on the future of cold fusion. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL BALL. The Washington Post and other newspapers often write in sensationalist terms about science, so do not usually count as WP:RS for writing wikipedia articles. Mathsci (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree. There is so much language of potentiality in the Wash. Post article, and so little of substance: we may mine on the moon, there could be He3 there, it might be used for cold fusion.... It's really something of a Pop Sci-style "soon everyone may have a flying car" advocacy piece, not a reliable source on the state of the field. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to insert a quibble... Major news outlets like the Washington Post usually do count as WP:RS for writing Wikipedia articles - However, reliability is not necessarily a binary "yes/no" assessment. It is a sliding scale... with some sources being considered more reliable than others (an assessment that changes depending on the specific topic).  When it comes to statements about science, there are other sources that are considered far more reliable than media outlets.  Our goal is to base our articles on the most reliable sources possible.  So, we should rely on those other sources instead of the Washington Post. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What this noticeboard is for: Editors may seek advice on whether or not a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience). --POVbrigand (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "...especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience". Within those topics we don't need to give advice, as policy is clear enough already - we base articles (particularly those making claims of radical breakthroughs etc) on mainstream peer-reviewed sources and the like. Yes it is interesting that CERN is holding a colloquium on LENR, but since we don't know what will occur at the colloquium, we are in no position to say what effect (if any) it will have on the views of mainstream science on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like poor editing -- sounds like the writer is mixing up normal fusion research and science fiction. a13ean (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That is true, I also got the impression that the Washington Post writer was a bit vague on the topic. Luckily other mainstream media writers can handle the topic better like this and this --POVbrigand (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those newspaper pieces are fairly good. Ideas tend to run to extremes on cold fusion. Some are wildly enthusiastic and believe it's being suppressed because it's part of The Truth That "They" Don't Want You To Know, while others think it's inherently a scam. The topic is a little outside my specialization, but my understanding from talking to people more knowledgeable is that it isn't inherently fraudulent, and there are some theoretical arguments for why it might be achievable someday. In other words it's the sort of thing that is worth supporting at some low level. The topic has gotten a bad reputation because of some poor work and shady characters but ideas aren't responsible for the people who believe in them. I think the Columbia Tribune story captures the overall state of things reasonably well (which is not always the case, to put it mildly, for mainstream press treatments of scientific topics). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that comment SBHBoris. As a SPA for Cold Fusion I have always edited with that idea in mind, that it is not inherently fraudulent and that some serious science efforts are made to advance the topic. The 5.5 million will hopefully help to shed some of the bad reputation of "cold fusion". I would really appreciate if we can offer an article to our readership that is more towards what is written in this article by Physorg: "In previous studies, scientists from the Naval Research Laboratory; ENEA, which is the National Energy Laboratory of Italy; and other scientific teams around the globe have reported observing excess heat effects when hydrogen or deuterium has interacted with palladium, nickel or platinum under certain extreme conditions. However, the researchers do not know how the excess heat is being created, nor can they duplicate the same, exact results on a consistent basis in some of these systems. "This phenomenon – excess heat being observed during the interaction of these elements – is intriguing, but we don't understand where it is coming from," said David Robertson, professor of chemistry and associate director of research at MURR. "The success rate is about 20 percent, so we know the conditions must be very specific. It's a hit-or-miss reaction, which is the reason why we're trying to understand it, and we're using every tool in the toolbox to find the answer. This gift to Mizzou will help us enhance our resources to find the answers to this phenomenon and potentially uncover the secrets of a new, clean alternative form of energy." Robertson says the potential uses for this excess heat energy will depend on how much energy is extracted and how consistent the process is for generating the energy." --POVbrigand (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there seems to be some evidence that LENR/cold fusion is being taken seriously - as a theoretical possibility - by meaningful numbers of mainstream physicists. Probably a small minority, but that is no reason to dismiss it as a topic for further research. And I don't think that anyone has suggested that Fleischmann and Pons' claims for example were 'fraudulent' - it was suggested that they made errors, but that is another matter. This is LENR as a topic for serious scientific investigation though. The problem from Wikipedia's perspective is that there is also a great deal of dubious hype and crackpot conspiracy-mongering going on from all sorts of odd characters, and strong evidence that the gullibility of some 'cold fusioneers' is being exploited for financial gain (even without going into the current E-Cat malarkey...). In this situation, all we can do is separate the wheat from the chaff in the way we always should be doing - insisting that extraordinary claims (which includes positive LENR results, obviously) are sourced to mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals, and scrupulously avoiding crystal-ball-gazing about what is going to happen next. We don't know. But we don't need to speculate. Just wait and see, and report anything of significance that has happened, when we have reliable sources to support it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Schuman -and- Schuman Declaration
All the stress around the word 'supranational' and Schuman's prominent authorship appears to be exclusive voicing of the author of the site schuman.info (dating back to Apr.22,2007 with adds on Mar.26,2009; referenced himself Feb.12,2007).

Though containing a few relevant corrections, the paragraphs are verbose, blurring and have poor factual contents. Apparently the same author made similar inserts in the 'Schuman Declaration' article.

I put abit more details in the Schuman_declaration Talk page. Wouldn't the plain removing of most of the contributions from these dates solve the bannered WP:COI problem, if not also the WP:Refimprove one ? Gwaevl (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems more of a reliable sources issue. At first glance it doesn't seem reliable but I would suggest taking it to WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you can just go ahead and improve the articles by replacing the poorly sourced and poorly written material with better stuff. Google Scholar should direct you to academic journal articles on these topics, and they will lead you to further sources. It isn't a fringe theories question, though, but politics. Do use WP:RSN if you need comments on sources. Ask at WP:NPOVN if anyone seems to want to insert biased views in the articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Amanda Feilding and Beckley Foundation
This is what seems to be an alternative consciousness promoter who is mostly famous for self-trepanation. Lots of her claims are listed in the article, like the fact that she believes we lost blood flow to the brain after we began to walk upright (apparently she doesn't get the fact that our brains weren't that remarkable until after that change) and that trepanation fixes that and lets us achieve "higher states of consciousness" (however you define that) like children are able to do before their cranial bones fuse. She is also big on supporting research into hallucinogenics. (Perhaps she associates a "higher state of consciousness" with mental impairment.)

I removed the most obvious breach of POV, the "scientist" designation from the lead sentence, but there's a whole lot on her "research" involving her own Beckley Foundation. That page also has a plethora of somewhat plausible sounding "research" yet with red flags throughout if you know what to look for. The bulk of both pages' edits seem to be done by a couple of single-issue accounts, and of course when you are dealing with an emotional subject like recreational drugs you are going to have POV pushers.

If anyone is familiar with her and her organisation, it would be great if you could give it a look. Bialy Goethe (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Beckley Foundation appears to be completely unreferenced and has probable COI problems as well. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis
Would someone else look at the 'Sea of Azov' section and my rationales in my edit summaries for removing it? It's been readded yet again, but it doesn't seem significant enough at least from this source to be in the article, and certainly not the level of detail. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems undue to me, the sourcing seemed pretty poor, one primary source and one unreliable source; thus due weight not established. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Traditional Counties POV Warriors
There is a theory espoused by some in the UK regarding the status of various counties. Wikipedia seems to be one of the places in which these POV warrior push there view. One particular user User:Owain seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to create objects like Template:County flags of the United Kingdom, Category:County flags of the United Kingdom all of which seem to reference only an organisation Flag Institute which is unofficial. The articles all miss out references to the Metropolitan county this has been going on for a vary long time, it has been caught and stopped in several places after votes but the users are now constructing a parallel system of articles that reflect there view.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you give some more specific examples? Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just had to revet the Merseyside article to include the flag.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merseyside does not have a flag. What you suggest is the flag is in fact the banner of the arms of the former Merseyside County Council. It was legally the property of that organisation and represented only it, not any wider geographic entity. Using it in any other way is an illegal misrepresentation of the arms. I don't see how pointing this fact out makes anyone a "Traditional Counties POV Warrior". Owain (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone can come up with some source that actually and specifically shows this as the county's flag, I don't think there would be a dispute. I gather that the Flag Institute is serving as a registry rather than as a legal authority (i.e., just because they don't list a flag doesn't mean there isn't one); they do seem to be a perfectly good authority for those flags which they do list, seeing as how they cite authorizing legislation or equivalent for each such flag. As they do not list one for Merseyside, some other source would need to be provided. I take it that part of the hitch is that Merseyside as a governmental authority doesn't exist anymore (if it ever did) and thus there is no governmental website to which appeal can be made. But surely something can be provided. I would agree with Owain that simply assuming that the council's arms can be used as a banner for the county is illegitimate. Mangoe (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The source of the Flag Institutes is totally invalid. It lists flags for counties that do not exist any more.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * These are just as good or we could go for a different flag.  --Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and one more thing this is a quote from the flag registry "In the case of county flags, the flag must normally apply to a historical county rather than a modern administrative area", meaning they ignore the existance of the Met Counties and ar e not neutral but and organisation with an agenda. Further supported by there creation date. 1971 just before local government reorganisation. They are a pressure group not neutral at all.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I reserve judgement on your agenda claim, but certainly the publisher of a postcard is not an authoritative source. People have put all sorts of bizarre historical fantasies on postcards. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Version of used in with the other Met County Flags  howvere I will appaoch the Liverpool Records office for an answer, via FOI see .--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is spiralling completely out of control. Why has no-one discussed this yet on the article talk page?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I started this because I view this as just part of the recurring traditional counties v met counties argument and was looking to get a judgement on it all.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the "recurring argument" (which is infinitely less of an issue than it was a few years ago) only seems to be a major problem for yourself. The best thing to do, in all these cases when it arises, is to discuss it on the article talk page, and seek a wider range of opinions, rather than spiralling off into the realms of FOI requests.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the FOI request is sensible. I just hate goingthroughthe same arguments again and again. I'd like just to revert and point to a decision.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've referred this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject England as it appears to be out of our bailiwick. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Baylor paper on Irreducible complexity
A paper, published by Baylor University, called "Dissecting Darwinism" appears to be disputed at the Irreducible complexity article. The editor, Dave Souza, who disputed my attempted use of the source, called it "fringe". Now, belief in the concept of Irreducible complexity by someone outside of the Discovery Institute, as Dr. Joseph Allen Kuhn, an oncological surgeon at Baylor University, appears to be, may be considered belief in a fringe concept. Is the paper, however, advocating a fringe theory, if the very topic of that article is that theory? The publication it was published in, the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings is apparently a peer-reviewed, academic, medical journal. I will post a link to this discussion on the talk page of that article, and I expect the regulars from that article to voice their opinions here, and I have also asked for confirmation that the paper is a reliable source, but I think opinions from the independent regulars at this board would be helpful. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The paper right now has notability problems, namely, that it's unclear that anyone cares about it. Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To amplify this, it is an attempted refutation of evolution published by a non-expert (a physician) as a non-peer-reviewed opinion piece in a non-relevant journal (a medical journal published in-house). As such, a detailed elaboration of the author's fringe beliefs seems WP:UNDUE. Agricolae (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with both Mangoe and Agricolae. Also, original papers are primary sources for the arguments presented by their authors.  TFD (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone were to, say, argue that there had never been any opinions that support the idea of Irreducible complexity published in any peer-reviewed, academic journals, would this paper refute that argument? Cla68 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. There is no such thing as a "peer reviewed academic journal". There are only peer-reviewed articles. While it's true that some journals publish only peer-reviewed articles, this one doesn't. This article has not been peer-reviewed. The only reason to say that it was published in a "peer-reviewed journal" is to imply that the article has some degree of scientific legitimacy, merit or recognition. The motive for doing so is, of course, every-day garden variety dishonesty, or complete ignorance of what peer-review is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bingo. It's not exactly a surprise that the Discovery Institute and other ID fans appear to be eliding this distinction. Prioryman (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with Cla's question is that no one is saying that there have not been any opinions [in the peer reviewed literature] that support the idea of Irreducible complexity. People have expressed opinions in support of ID in all sorts of fora, many of them peer reviewed (law journals, philosophy journals, at least one medical journal). But there haven't been any published science that supports ID. And therein lies the crux of the issue. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally, an actual answer. Now, why is it that you lot can't do that the -first- time, instead of firing off snide remarks that don't answer the question? If you spent less time trying to be smart-arses and more time listening to the real NPOV questions Charles poses and giving real answers, or adjusting your approach accordingly, you'd find that the crazies had less to grab onto, not more. Your attitude towards editors like cla68 undermines your position, not that of the pseudo-science-mongers.  Wondering why climate change is having trouble gaining a 100% holding?  You have your answer in your attitude.  Teach TO people, not at them; respond to people's questions with real information, not abuse. No one said education was easy.101.118.54.86 (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this board is neither to teach TO nor AT people. The purpose of this board is to discuss whether fringe theories are being properly treated in the article space of Wikipedia. If those sympathetic to fringe theories are offended by this, that is not the concern of the people commenting here. One person's snide remark is another person's editorial opinion about what should or should not be done at Wikipedia. If you want to be taught about the state-of-the-art understanding about various pseudosciences or other fringe theories, there are other places nearby where you can inquire. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will go out on a limb here and try to summarize this discussion so far. I take it that Mangoe, Agricolae, and The Four Deuces are regulars at this board and/or uninvolved editors with the ID or theistic science articles (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Their opinion appears to be that the paper's opinion isn't notable because it hasn't been discussed in other sources.  Jerry Coyne, an expert on ID, has commented on the paper on his blog.  So, does this help establish the paper as a notable opinion, since notable anti-ID activists are commenting on it? Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am more an 'occasional' in this forum, and have been uninvolved (but not uninformed) on these topics. My argument is not that the Kuhn editorial is unworthy for want of comment.  I do not feel that Kuhn's specific opinions are worthy of summary, because he is just a guy with no particular expertise who happened to have access to an editorial page in an irrelevant venue.  Given his past association with the editorial board of the periodical, it is all but self-published.  Thus, it is perhaps citable simply as as an example of this line of thought, but what was in the article was a summary and quotations of the specific arguments made by what amounts to 'just some random guy who wrote a letter to the editor', and I think this is giving them/him undue weight.  If over the next months and years, the DI starts using and citing Kuhn's arguments, then the situation might be different, but for now, they don't merit this level of attention. Agricolae (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I generally stay out of that particular topic. However given that the journal invited a rebuttal response even before the article in question was published, and then went out of their way to publish further negative response in advance of the next issue, it's extremely safe to say that their publication of the article does not constitute the sort of endorsement that would ordinarily be implied. And at any rate the issues, as usual for this sort of thing, is whether anyone cares. That's one of the reasons we want secondary sources: we need some assurance that the material is actually important. If nobody in the larger field wants to talk about the article, then I would tend to conclude that it isn't really notable. Mangoe (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the well-reasoned and thoughtful responses. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't normally weigh in here, (honestly, I was peeking at what some editors I was debating with were up to now that, unfortunately, an image was deleted) but my feeling is that this paper should be used. "Irreducible complexity" is itself a fringe theory; you need sort of fringy sources to describe it.  The paper is described at Pharyngula and "Evolution News" for example - it is notable enough to have been discussed by secondary sources of some sort, which is not actually a criterion for a reference.  The paper itself is a secondary source, just not one that scientists agree with.  The point is, it documents what people who believe in irreducible complexity think, which is what the article should do.  Now yes, from my background, I think what it documents are awful fallacies - for example, the author misses the role of stepwise selection in the evolution of antibiotic resistance, and postulates that amphibians require too many different mutations all at once, missing the point that walking catfish and such take to the land already, so the adaptation in lifestyle can be built up as responses to rare circumstances first, and then become increasingly common.  So I think that as a secondary source it is useful to people on either side of the issue as a "type specimen" of the ideas involved.  I'm not that fond of Cla68's text, but shouldn't he be able to use this as a source about this topic, rather than evolutionary theory? Wnt (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone was debating that it's fine as a source for the mans opinion (no matter how wrong), but the question is does his opinion have any real due weight, since he does not appear to have any expertise in the area. I would say not. The mainstream coverage appears to revolve around saying how bad it is, this seems an odd choice for a source. In the creationist/ID movement as a whole, this man seems relatively minor, so I don't think we could use this source to say creationists think X. As an aside, notability is not a criteria for the use of a source, rather it is the criteria for the creation of articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oyo Empire
Someone called Dierk Lange who belongs to some pseudo-Catholic sect called the Divine Word Missionaries with a pseudo-scientiric arm called the "Anthropos Institute" has edited this article to say that the Oyo in West Africa are a lost tribe of Israel. His source? His own article in the in-house journal of his organisation. Hmm. I've marked this as dubious. Paul S (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not the only article to which this editor is adding reference to his own work, e.g. History of Darfur, Bornu Empire, Tunjur people. At a minimum, this seems a possible WP:COI problem. I am not familiar enough with the topic to know for certain, but I somehow doubt this general pattern of Semitic hyper-diffusionism represents the consensus of most historians. Agricolae (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would revert the whole lot of edits which reference his own website as clear original research. I suggest possibly this revert: . IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He's added references to himself all across wikipedia. There must be a decent way to deal with this. I've filed a notice here: about a conflict of interest. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Strategy of tension
The Strategy of tension article seems a bit weird to me, so I'd like to get some advice. It reads somewhat like propaganda; also as if someone first came up with the term and then tried to find events that fit it. A Google search for "strategy of tension" returns some 6,370 pages, but the general quality of them seems low, with a trend towards "truther" type sites. Does this article reflect something that is real, or is it a fringe theory? --pmj (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, this is a very odd article in that it appears to be a literal translation from Italian, however in English we might use some other phrase (e.g. Divide_and_rule) to express much the same idea. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Quantum Mind - undue
Can someone step in and have a look at the issue here: Talk:Quantum_mind. The problem is that the editor acknowledges that there are no secondary sources on the particular section but he still insists on it being included although it would be undue as it seems to be a very very minor view. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is anyone around to have a quick glance at the talk page and provide some opinions on the issue of whether material can be based solely on primary sources? His version of the article even had this statement: These proposals do not appear to have generated discussion at a peer-reviewed or academic press level, meaning that primary sources are the only reliable material available. , which is pretty much the definition of undue! IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is that Henry Stapp does not appear to have been a particularly notable researcher, in fact he is only notable for a short period in his life when he got involved with this quantum conciousness theory. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's an RFC open if you wish to comment. If I try and remove the undue and primary sourced text my edit will probably be just reverted again. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis, again
The aquatic ape hypothesis is getting traffic and POV-pushing from several new accounts (and an old one who published a book on the topic in a vanity press). This has been discussed in the past at the FTN (here and here), it's not a mainstream theory but the latest round of editors want to portray it as a "true" but underbelieved idea rather than it's current status as a popular but essentially wrong one. The dispute is primarily on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy
Think I've got this in line with reality - it contained several counterfactual statements, like implying that the Faculty of Homeopaths was a branch of the NHS (!!!) and stating that the government rejected the Evidence check on homeopathy, when in fact it put the decision to the Primary Care Trusts, many of which do not fund homeopathy anymore. It also tried to use figures from 2006 to paint a rosy picture of funding in the UK, when the latest reports show a very, very significant decline.

Examples of appalling material removed:

...the National Health Service (NHS) currently operates two homeopathic hospitals, and the Luton-based Faculty of Homeopathy...

No, it does NOT operate the Faculty of Homeopathy.

]]. Homeopathy in Britain quickly became the preferred medical treatment of the upper classes as well as the aristocracy; it retained an elite clientele, including members of the British royal family. At its peak in the 1870s, Britain had numerous homeopathic dispensaries and small hospitals as well as large busy hospitals in Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, London and Bristol.|undefined

You may not think that's particularly bad - until you realise the article's about present day regulation and prevalence, and no other country - not even Germany, which created it - has Homeopathy's glorious past triumphs described.

The article also lied by ommission:

A study commissioned by West Kent Primary Care Trust in 2007 found similar figures for referrals for homeopathic treatment, but that referrals were almost always at the patient's request rather than as a result of a clincal decision.

Not mentioned: West Kent PCT closed Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital two years later, which tends to change figures. Also, the article, until today, failed to mention any figures from after 2006. Given the last three years have seen major campaigns against homeopathy, it tends to change things.

Remaining problems
I find the other sections of this article dubious, given how the U.K. section attempted to misrepresent the situation. In particular, it has a tendency to a rather pro-homeopathic tone:

According to the European Committee for Homeopathy, homeopathic industrial manufacturers register only those products that are economically feasible, e.g. in the case of the Netherlands 600 out of a total of 3,000. The strict safety requirements even for very high dilutions of biological substances also impede registration for certain homeopathic products such as nosodes. As a result, several homeopathic products have disappeared from the market.

That's right: The article presents the loss of nosodes - fake vaccines, which Britain's NHS has had to do an entire campaign warning people not to take - as a bad thing, and much of the article's language is in this "Isn't it horrible when Homeopathy is restrained, but isn't it great when it isn't?" sort of tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.223.49 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011

Every astrological sign article
I strongly object to the wording on every "astrological signs" article. Almost every one has a Key characteristics and definitions section. Gemini (astrology), for example, has:
 * "Correspondingly, Geminians are said to be curious and to enjoy mental exploration, to be almost always at ease in social situations, it is considered by some astrologers as the most flirtatious in the zodiac and to have a talent for writing and reporting, and to enjoy all forms of 'talk', from gossip to political debate. On the negative, they are reputed to have "butterfly minds" which become easily bored, and to shift their allegiances in a way that lacks commitment or loyalty. They are also said to experience discomfort with the expression of deep emotion. For this reason, though praised for being quick and clever(smart), Geminians are also criticised for being elusive, fickle and ill-at-ease with emotional commitment."

Any suggestions on how these can be re-written to not sound like this is factual information, backed by any sort of evidence? They're also full of weasel words, which doesn't help... -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I noticed that as well. it might sound better if it was perhaps attributed to the source? "are said by X to be" or "are said by astrologers to be" etc? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think this is so bad. The text uses the phrase "According to astrologers" - nobody suggests aybody other than astrologers think this. I agree that it ought to be made clear in the opening paragraphs for each of these articles that they are part of the astrological belief system. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem is that random editors, usually IPs, come along and add their favorite characteristic or keyword, or remove ones they don't like. Who knows what's vandalism and what is actually believed by 'real' astrologers? Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with Dougweller here. Probably the best way to go might be something along the lines of "prominent (or leading) astrologers like Linda Goodman (for instance) have characterized individuals with this sign as being "(insert quote here)". It could be amplified by specific quotations from multiple astrologers, if required. But using exact quotations, or paraphrases with the quotations included in the citation, would be one way to deal with this. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree these articles boldly assert truths about things which are utter nonsense and lack sifficient citations. I wonder if there is anythign such as a "real" astrologer, there probably is something as a "notable" or "famous" astrologer. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The problem is that there are few recognized experts in modern astrology. Very little has been written about modern astrology in the scholarly literature, which surprised me at first because so much has been written about Creationism. Why scholars find creationism so interesting while almost entirely ignoring modern astrology has me scratching my head.
 * Individual astrologers cannot be considered experts because no one outside of the astrological universe recognizes their qulaificaton, and it is impossible to gauge how representative they are of the "astrological community" as a whole. The "notable" and "famous" astrologers are primarily entertainers, not scholars.
 * Almost all information on what modern atrologers believe has been published only in in-universe sources of dubious merit, if any. We can't use them anyway because they have never been discussed by independent scholars. Doing so would constitute OR and SYNTH.
 * This question has been discussed here before. See: [].
 * The best thing to do, in my opinion, is simply to delete anything that isn't supported by a reliable third-party academic or scholarly source. In-universe sources are worthless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said Dominus. That was precisely my issue with saying "according to astrologers", because even that makes it seem like they are a reputable source.
 * I think some heavy pruning is in order. Either that, or make every article affirm that there is absolutely no scientific basis for any of the claims. -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The question remains as to whether we ever have identified actual reliable sources for modern popular astrology. It seems somewhat academic to talk about them as if we don't know of any, and I think there will constantly be problems if we essentially delete everything about the subject over sourcing concerns. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We've pretty much established that there are no out-of-universe sources for particulars about modern astrology like how to interpret horescopes and what signs mean, and the like. The only sources that exist for that sort of information are in-universe "for entertainment purposes only" sources, the "best" of which is "Astrology for Dummies". None of these sources meet our policy requirements. See the previous discussion on this topic: []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience there does tend to be a certain level of internal consistency regarding the attributes assigned to each sign. If you picked out a few random astrology books at Borders you'd likely find similar descriptions for "scorpio" in each book.  Perhaps we should inquire as to from where the descriptions came in the first place.  At some point in history there had to be some kind of traditional description that trickled down into modern astrology.  If the original sources are historically significant they may work.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, determining what has "trickled down" is impossible without violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Also, there is no historic continuity between medieval astrology, which died out in the late 1700s, and modern astrology, which was founded in about 1900, and is only loosely based on medieval astrology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also no historical continuity between Classical Greco-Roman astrology and medieval astrology. This further complicates things as both medieval and modern astrology claim to be revivals of Classical Ptolemaic astrology. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunate. I will say however that I'm honestly a little impressed by how much internal consistency does exist considering what you've just explained.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  22:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a astrology header/template similar to these pseudoscience ones, saying something along the lines of "This article describes Astrology, which is considered pseudoscience by most scientists." -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

James R. Lewis has written an encyclopedia of sorts on Astrology, and I tend to think that if that source contains the relevant data, that would be a largely unimpeachable source. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Lewis is one of several bone fide scholars who have published peer-reviewed publications on astrology. His peer-reviewed research, however, has nothing to do with the meaning of signs or interpretation of horoscopes. This encyclopedia is not one of his scholarly works, and was published by a non-scholarly press. It's just another in-universe "for entertainment purposes only" guide. A bigger problem is that Lewis is somehow associated with the Sophia Centre for the Study of Cosmology in Culture at Trinity St. David, which is trying to redefine modern astrology. We therefore can't be sure how much of what he writes reflects what modern astrology is as opposed to what Lewis thinks modern astrology should be. We have no way of determining how "representative" his information is of the astrological community as a whole. This is a problem with all of the non-scholarly sources.
 * Furthermore, we had a huge problem last year with editors apparently associated with the clique centered around Nick Campion from the British Association/Sophia Center/Kepler School of astrology. They were aggressively pushing their "version" of astrology, and many of them got blocked. Because of all that, I'd be wary about any sources coming from this clique, unless they were peer reviewed and published in an independent academic journal/press. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the further information. Taking that into account, maybe the best alternative would be to go back to the early suggestions, compiling quotes from Goodman and others which might be directly relevant. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

True Life in God
This has been brought up at ANI - it's about Vassula Ryden's books. I've just tagged it as pov for the lead, which reads "True Life in God is a series of books written by Vassula Ryden, a Greek Orthodox Christian. The books are about Jesus' messages to Vassula. It has been translated in 40 languages and there are 12 volumes in the English edition. In 2006, the complete True Life in God messages were published for the first time in a single, 1100 page, volume." The ANI complaint is about the same two WP:SPAs as before. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Vassula Ryden still needs a major deep cleaning. "‪The Vassula enigma: in direct communication with God?‬" is published by the "‪English Association of True Life in God‬"…not exactly an objective view on the subject. Ditto for "When God Gives a Sign" by René Laurentin. That's published by Trinitas, who specialize in promotion of, you guessed it, True Life In God messages and beliefs. And those are only the first two references. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Second Coming of Christ
Fairly mainstreamish topic for Protestants at least, yet encyclopedic/academic content submerged beneath regular fringeouts. Appealing to those with room on their watchlists to add... In ictu oculi (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Shiatsu
There has been some back-and-forth reverting lately over at Shiatsu; there are some serious neutrality concerns, copyvio, misuse of sources &c. If any other editors could contribute, that would be helpful. I'm stepping back for a while as I don't want to edit war. bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I reported the editor for edit warring, he had 5 reverts in 24 hours and no sign of giving up, he also refused to take it to the talk page, an indef is now in place. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * However, apart from the edit-warring, other editors with very similar perspectives do turn up a few times a year; I'm wary of getting stuck in a defensive mindset and turning into a reflexively-reverting article owner, so it would be helpful if a couple of other people could watchlist the article. bobrayner (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review Gabriel Cousens
There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about BLP and RS issues. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. The topic is definitely alternative medicine, so there may be areas where WP:FRINGE comes into play. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, the handling of fringe issues in the article. Cheers, Ocaasit 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis
It would be good to get a few editors to have a look at this article. There are a large number of SPA accounts on this article actively pushing to remove critical material without policy based reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the SPAs has started a section in RSN to remove all criticism: . IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Van Flandern
Please note that there is an editor consistently trying to get the late Tom Van Flandern's ideas included at Non-standard cosmology in spite of the fact that there seems to be almost no third-party notice of this person's peculiar ideas.



A few more eyes would be appreciated as well as some comments on the talk page.

71.174.134.165 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Monetary hegemony
Hi all, and (presumably the same person) have been adding lots of pages and categories to Category:Monetary hegemony. Examples include Odious debt, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, Pretext, Category:Arab Spring, Category:International Monetary Fund, and so on. I feel that this is inappropriately fringey, and not neutral; they feel that their edits are supported by this book. I removed the category from most (not all) articles; they have started reverting. Does anybody else have any comments or suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, clearly non-NOPV. a13ean (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Saw the revert, read Bob's talk page, and landed here. I agree; this seems very POV. I'm not sure Clark can be given such weight. A see also link is one thing, but a category is a whole different matter. I'm not sure why the IP insists that things must be recategorized before he/she can work on whatever article.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 19:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is monetary hegemony a fringe concept? I didn't read the thing through, but a quick glance showed some of the tell-tale signs, such as blowing off a more conventional viewpoint as if it weren't even there, and a strong flavor of advocacy. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article itself is a bit fringey, but my main concern was about applying that label to all kinds of other topics. We shouldn't put articles about general nonmonetary concepts, about commodities which are traded freely (in multiple currencies), or about benign international institutions, into a category about overwhelming dominance of one country's currency. bobrayner (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, the fact is commodities are priced in the international market in United States dollar, then converted to local currencies after importing. For example, Brent Crude is a dollar marker. American citizens, who make up 4% of the world population, do not notice this because they have the benefit of purchasing imports in their own domestic currency. In addition, international institutions, such as the IMF, lend money to the Third world only in dollar, coupled with certain conditions of course. For more info on the petrodollar, see Clark's book. Will you restore my categorization edits now?
 * monetary hegemony is a socio-political perspective. I think it would be a category mistake to call it Salimfadhley (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Monetary hegemony is monetary. For more info, see Clark's book. In addition, I have no political agenda, but it's possible to say that every human being is shaped by past experiences. Don't worry, there is no evil plot, I just thought this topic needed a boost. And please just don't make personal attacks or doubt my sincerity. It is better for an editor to focus on one topic, then to make shallow edits on multiple topics.
 * I think I answered the topical questions adequately, so I will continue with some categorization. POV, fringe claims do not hold because petrodollar recycling is a fact, a huge chunk of the US balance of payments deficits is propped up by petrodollars. It has nothing to do with domestic left-right politics. If you have any questions, go to Category talk:Monetary hegemony. I can answer any questions, but please don't assume bad faith and make a revert. I can clarify thinks in the talk page.


 * This is one person POV-pushing. Placing economic sanctions in this category, as the latest IP just did, was not helpful. Their messages here show an unwillingness to gain consensus or listen to others, once their edits have been challenged. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait. Economic sanctions is related. the oil for food program was moved to euro in November 2000. After the invasion in 2003 it was moved to the dollar, despite the fact that the fund had grown with the euro. This is a historical fact, not a POV. On a consensus, what then should I do?
 * Articles on wikipedia are written using secondary sources, represented in a balanced and neutral way. You are very clearly pushing your own personal point of view, a mixture of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Please read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:SOAP. Please also sign your edits with four tildes. Also please stop making edits like this. They do not appear to be constructive additions to this encyclopedia. Categories on wikipedia should not be controversial lists created by a single editor. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify that I was not commenting on the Monetary hegemony article itself. But, the editor's insistence on adding Category:Monetary hegemony to every article that might be even remotely related, resembles a subtle form of POV-pushing or soapboxing. I saw it added (and reverted) today to International monetary systems and Currency risk. I then looked at the IP's contributions and saw it added to a ridiculous number of articles. He even added to a company's article (IntercontinentalExchange) with an edit summary of "discussed", so I looked at the article's talk page and it most certainly was not discussed among editors there. So, either this edit summary is a deception to deter others from reverting the category additions, or the user thinks that because there is a discussion here on this noticeboard (yet unresolved) that it is some kind of permission slip for the indiscriminate addition of this category to articles. The editor has used "discussed" or "edit as discussed" to add this category to at least 15 articles today alone. John Shandy`  • talk 20:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that reliable secondary sources consider these articles to be examples of monetary hegemony. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Aromatherapy
This old favourite is back. I noticed User:Aromamonika adding links to the Aromatherapy further-reading section. After reviewing this section it appeared to be entirely spam: They were all texts written by aromatherapy advocates, naturally giving undue weight to this minority / fringe view of the topic. I've zapped the entire section. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Lights
No doubt because the 15th anniversary of the event is this week, there has been some activity on Phoenix Lights that appears to be by "believers" in it as a UFO event. I've noticed some potential COI editing by and  regarding events that involve themselves, if their account names are accurate. I advised Sblonder to visit the COI notice board via his talk page, don't think anything came of that. Sblonder seems to be in WP:SPA territory, and Timoley is close. Anyway, I think maybe this could use a fresh set of eyes if someone is up to it. --Krelnik (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What sort of citations are appropriate for a UFO flap article? Most of the references seem to cite either tabloid-style news which are themselves based on dubious, unverified observations. Do these even count as "relible secondary sources" for the purposes of this kind of article? --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weren't they just Parachute flares? 86.** IP (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes. The "triangle UFO" was a set of A10's flying over one location, and the hovering lights were a set of flares dropped by the same A10's. That's pretty much it. --Krelnik (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Check out the reports attributed to "a man" and "an unidentified former police officer" in the Timeline section. Then read the text of the source it's cited to. The rest of the article has similar problems.- LuckyLouie (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)