Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 31

Gua Sha
Gua Sha - Describes a form of therapy in which the skin is scraped by sharp-objects to "let out the disease". Implausible and insufficiently referenced. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Animal-assisted therapy
A new editor,, added a large criticism section to the article back in December which I moved to the talk page. The editor has now rewritten the section as a proposal on the article talk page here. While once again I think there is a great deal that can be used from this proposal, it still violates NPOV and NOT, and OR as well. (Yes, I'm hoping that an explanation of the problems isn't needed, but apparent from the proposal. I'll explain, later, if needed, but don't have the time at this moment.)

Are editors available that could help rewrite and incorporate the information into the article, while helping explain the applicable policies and guidelines to this new editor? --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I zapped the entire "Early Relationships" section. It was a bunch of nonsense about Catholic saints and Aztecs. I think the next section ought to go as well. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There were also some sections in the main article based on an unreliable source which I have removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie- would you mind reviewing the latest edit done by User:Montanabw who seems to have undone a great deal of our changes. His rationale for reverting was that I had deleted cited sections. My rationale was that these sections were either irrelivant or based on unreliable sources. --Salimfadhley (talk)


 * I'm quite happy now with the state of this article. I think it's time to remove the fringe tag. Any comments? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm late to the party here. The article does need some work overall, and better sourcing, but that's a separate issue. It has had some material removed where it seems (by lack of reverts) that Sal, IR, Ronz, and myself did agree.  Ronz, who I am viewing as mostly neutral in this discussion, asked me to do a piece by piece reversion, so I did, restoring some deleted content that is sourced, and seems potentially verifiable via other sources, but there seems to be a remaining disagreement whether the whole concept of Animal-Assisted therapy is fringe pseudoscience.  My position is that AAT is well within the mainstream of other alternative therapies, I compared it to acupuncture as an example.  One editor (I forget who) said that acupuncture was also pseudoscience, which I think is a little over the top. I think there's a distinction between alternative medicine and "pseudoscience."  There is also a disagreement over use of two books as sources, essentially the works seem to pass WP:RS but may be questionable per MEDRS (though this is based solely on a cursory analysis that one book was written for a mainstream audience no one has yet actually examined the book)  I have determined that a copy of the one most in contention can be found at my local library and I will go check it out and take a look at it directly, but it will take a few days as I am busy in real life.  But essentially I'm concerned that the overall tone of the debate is to simply substitute one POV (that AAT is fringe pseudoscience) for the previously too-uncritical version that started. I'm all for good sourcing, but I'm concerned that it was at the expense of premature deletion of material that is probably verifiable via multiple sources and the removal of a source that may well be suitable for the article.    Montanabw (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Donna Eden
This page appears to be a vanity page associated with a non-notable alt-med practitioner. Apparently she is associated with Applied kinesiology, however that article makes no reference to her role in it's history. What's the best way to propose this entire article for deletion? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There have been two unsuccessful attempts at deletion so far, both of them back in 2008. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...never heard of her.  Weird....WebMD has a short bio.  I normally consider WebMD a reliable source.  Why would they call her a "pioneer in the field of energy medicine".  This seems pretty fringe-y.  Is this user generated content or something?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is just her potted autobiography and not an objective statement of her qualification and notability. In my opinion she is a non-notable fringe-theory advocate. Does anybody know why the two previous deletions failed? --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are links to the 2 deletion discussions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Gatoclass just rolled back the delete proposal. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Donna Eden (2nd nomination)‎ 86.** IP (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This doctor was also mentioned in the AfD, he also appears non-notable and his article appears to be a small puff piece Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_Siegel_(2nd_nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Charmstone
New-age nonsense combined with blatent mis-statments concering other religions, e.g. "The worship of the Black Stone as a charmstone is of particular importance to Islam". --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This got caught in a train wreck of a move of crystal power. Charmstones are real-world artifacts, but they are archaeological, not woo-woo. I'm going to stub the article and redirect all the bogus redirects. Mangoe (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Quantum Mind
Boy do we need a few more eyes at Quantum mind. Please come by and take a look. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't one of more eyes on a page. The problem is that there is an editor who is edit warring, FTN is not the right place for user edit warring discussions, Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring is. I've already posted there. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oops, sorry if I went to the wrong place. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness, it's often hard to decouple fringe theory promotion from other bad behaviors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination)
For those interested. 86.** IP (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that this article, and a buch of others seem to be clustered around the WP:Fringe nexus of New_Thought, also did you notice the references in the AFD talk page to "The Watkins List", a list of the 100 most spiritually infulential individuals which puts Bernie Siegel higher than the pope! --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a problem with pseudo-notable people. You know, the people just notable enough to have a few references, but not sufficient references to actually make any sort of article. 86.** IP (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems these non-notable people are frequently backed up with smalll mentions in newspaper clippings or standard non-front page coverage NOT. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think Siegal is notable. Maybe I'm dating myself, but I can remember when he used to be all over the television on major talk shows pushing his new age flapdoodle. This, as I recall was in the early days of AIDS when people were desperate for a way to cope. He was really kind of the flavor-of-the-month media guru for a while there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding here, per my observations at the AFD and subsequent discussion at my talk page. I think it's a mischaracterization to refer to these clippings as small mentions, when many of them constitute rather copious coverage of his public engagements, and some include biographical content. Nor do guidelines state a necessity for front page coverage. There are also multiple reviews of his books provided, from sources like the LA and NY Times. The inclusion of this under 'Fringe theories' seems inappropriate to me, given that substantial coverage at least satisfies WP:AUTHOR. I understand its inclusion here, based on the discussion at [], yet enough non-controversial sources exist to render the list in question superfluous. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which criteria of WP:AUTHOR is satisfied? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied here . More generally speaking, the number of reliable sources and duration and depth of coverage all indicate notability. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've become more convinced that the issues current issues with the article are potentially solvable and the deletion isn't the only option. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Creative visualization
The article on Creative visualization makes use of some highly suspect sources. I'm not sure that this is suitable for an AFD since it refers to a not uncommon topic in the new-age belief-system. Is there anything else we can do to get this cleaned up a bit? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Have put a bit in the header about informing interested editors
I think too often the editors of articles suddenly have a bunch of people from here descend on them without having had a chance to put their point of view across or properly see what the concerns are, so I've added a bit in the header about informing about discussions on the original talk or a relevant project page. Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary. This noticeboard is to discuss when material is fringe and issues with articles. Much like how WP:RSN doesn't require notification I don't think we need it here either. If the sourcing is poor etc or the views fringe then people on the notice board can see, and they can also join in the talk page to see what the discussions are. It's a courtesy someone may give to interested people but it should not be compulsory. If someone has ulterior motives or the material is not obviously fringe it is usually readily apparent. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well this is the one where I found a real problem with. If you really dislike telling editors that you're discussing things behind their backs then perhaps I should take it to VPP and perhaps we can have a proper talk about editors forming a cabal and mobbing on articles? Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any content noticeboard that requires interested editors to be informed. That includes RSN, NPOVN, NORN and BLPN etc. This board is for discussing the content and not about user disputes so I fail to see the issue. Do you plan on discussing these at VPP as well? And seriously, don't edit war to change the header as you have done so here . You were bold, I reverted, now discuss it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the heading for WP:NORN again. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also have another look at the heading for WP:NPOVN. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No mentions at all like your wording that I can see. NORN mentions if you talk about another editor, which is wholly different to "interested editors". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons why we have noticeboards is to inform previously uninvolved editors that a potential problem exists... and to invite these editors to participate in resolving the problem. In other words... having a bunch of new editors "descend" on a problematic article is sort of the point behind having noticeboards.  Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also called mobbing. Okay it sems you lot are unwilling to deal with your problem editing. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you stop with the battlefield mentality and discuss things without the edge. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So how exactly do people collaborate when they're not told about discussions behind their backs about articles they have worked on and put an effort into? Or exactly what type of collaboration are you talking about? Why should you expect anything expect battleground mentality? Dmcq (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Any consensus reached about the article is still done through the talk pages so I fail to see the problem. If I boldly edit I still have to take it to the article talk page if I'm reverted. I expect no battleground mentality because I would hope they would assume good faith. If on the other hand a specific user is mentioned by name then it seems that a mention should be made on the talk page about the FRN section as a common courtesy. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would assume that those who have worked on an article will have it on their watch list. They will see that a bunch of edits are being made to the article, and that there is a sudden flurry of comments being made on the article's talk page.  At which point they should go to the article, and find out what the issue is... and talk about it.  Everyone then edits collaboratively until a consensus is achieved and the problem is resolved. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me to unreasonable to expect us notify people who simply edit a particular article. And in practice we have not wanted to turn this into yet another place to discuss content of specific articles. I could consider some sort of article talk page notification for extended discussion. Mangoe (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... to be fair, we do sometimes discuss specific issues here... in addition to being a place to request third-party involvement, noticeboards are places where editors can ask questions and get advice as to how to interpret the relevant policy/guideline within the context of a given situation - advice that can then be taken back to the article talk page for further discussion.
 * I suspect that Dmcq is thinking this noticeboard is a place where disputes are settled and "rulings" are issued (like AfD). It isn't.  It is simply a place where editors can ask questions and get answers from experienced editors, and a place to request that more editors get involved in an article's talk page discussion.  The decisions are still made at the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No I view it as a place where people WP:CANVASS a bunch of like-minded others and talk about articles without the editors who actually are doing work on the articles knowing what silly decisions they come to. Then a mob goes off and supports each other against the established editors in revising the article or sending it to AfD or whatever without ever properly listening to the other side of the argument. What I wanted in was a request
 * Please inform editors of any named articles about the discussion by putting a note on the talk page of the articles or an associated project.
 * so in most cases unless there was a good reason otherwise the whole business would be transparent. I believe something like this is needed to stop this happening. I am not asking for the fringe noticeboard to be removed or anything like that. I just want it to comply to some extent with 'Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.' in WP:5P. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence that WP:5P has been violated by the regulars here. What I have seen is you characterizing the editors here as a cabal and as "problem editors". Do you think that is a respectful and civil manner? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One would expect that a sizable discussion on this page should have some input from editors on the article. Looking upwards the first big discussion is Monetary hegemony. The discussion there mentioned particular ips and a specific article. Looking at the talk page of the article and the ips I see no mention of the discussion here, nor even any discussion about fringe. This is the sort of lack of transparency I am talking about. People are coming to decisions about the article here based on one sided discussion. Exactly how much respect does that show for editors of that article? Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose the disconnect here is that I don't see a need for transparency. There is nothing to be transparent about. While we do sometimes discuss specific articles or edits on this noticeboard, we don't reach any decisions ... all we do is give third party opinion and advice.  Any decisions still need to be made at the article in question. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A decision is something people agree to. Decisions are made here. It may require consensus at the talk page of the article but when people make a decision they are unwilling to rethink. The rethink time needs to be before or during any discussion, not afterwards. You are simply fooling yourself if you think you can engage in a discussion here and then go off with an open mind to talk with the editors of an article. Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It may seem as if we are not open minded... but that is because we are not being asked to be open minded. We are being asked to share an opinion give advice. Thus, when presented with a question about a problematic article, we each go off and examine the situation and reach our own personal opinion... we then come back, and share that opinion.  Sometimes our personal opinions agree... but just as often they do not agree.  That's OK... because the job of this page is to offer opinion, not to reach agreement.  You say we reach decisions... I disagree.  Can you give me an example of a decision that was reached on this page? Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I could see a line positioning it as an option and not a demand, e.g. "Consider adding a courtesy notification and link to WP:FTN to the Talk page of the article in question. Notification is not mandatory, however ensuing discussion may help clarify the undue weight policy to editors unfamiliar with it". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was phrasing it as a should rather than a must with the please, but I don't see the need for 'notification is not mandatory' as if it was some great imposition and people were wonderful to do it. I could live with that though. Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be of interest to create a template to drop on an article talk page informing them that a discussion may be taking place on FTN. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI: I haven't looked too hard, but I see other boards such as WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN don't include any such advisories in the header. My guess is that 'courtesy notifications' on article Talk pages are considered to fall within the purview of the individual editor and not the noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * NPOVN says 'Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result.'.
 * NORN says 'If you mention specific editors, please inform them of the thread.'
 * The problem with this noticeboard is that unlike those noticeboards people tend to have a very strong viewpoint about any fringe stuff on this noticeboard. As one editor says here 'In other words... having a bunch of new editors "descend" on a problematic article is sort of the point behind having noticeboards.' But that is not what happens in other noticeboards to anything like the same extent. And this lot go in for wholescale revision or deletion not just looking at specific points in articles like some OR or NPOV problem. Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While it's true that people (myself included) occasionally verbally roll their eyes or make wisecracks about some of the marginal fringe stuff that's discovered being given undue weight in the encyclopedia, I don't think it indicates the presence of uniform mindset and coordinated group action you may be feeling. That said, I'd support the inclusion of 'If you mention specific editors, please inform them of the thread' in the header. That's only fair. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly have you against informing people if you are discussing an article at this noticeboards You said 'however ensuing discussion may help clarify the undue weight policy to editors unfamiliar with it'. That seems to assume this notice board is always right any editors who know about a subject are wrong. Ignoring that though, exactly why now are you coming round to thinking you should discuss things without informing the people who are most concerned? If it were actually true that this noticeboard just gave some advice I could perhaps see the point of having a quiet spot to ask a third opinion, but that is not what this noticeboard is at all. Just consider the first big debate on this page about some astrology business for instance. As usual no notification at anywhere relevant. However looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology I see the noticeboard trying to tell them directly what to do about some earlier business and then accusing them of votestacking and meatpuppetry at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive729. The accusation seems to me from that discussion to have been wrong, but what gets me is a crowd who go around discussing things and in effect canvassing behind editors backs going around accusing people on a project of votestacking. It always seems to be the people who are doing something who go around accusing others of doing it. The main problem I could see in that discussion was that people had not been involved in discussion to clarify policies - so why not involve them? What is so bad about that as the default action? Dmcq (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The cited examples of actions by 'the noticeboard' are nothing of the sort. They are actions of a single editor who happened also to have participated discussion here, and not of the group as a whole. For that matter, 'the noticeboard' is a forum and not a group at all. Agricolae (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The header says 'Editors may seek advice on whether or not a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience).' and 'Questions related to articles on fringe theories may be answered here'. That is supposed to be the main way noticeboards operate with perhaps an editor going off occasionally. You may try and say the noticeboard is just comprised of individuals who give advice and some help to editors on problems with articles, but that is not what happens, it acts as a project to root out fringe in Wikipedia or try and ameliorate it with lots of correct thinking.. For instance I give another current example on this page with the notice about an AfD at the bottom. You don't give notice about AfDs to noticeboards, you give it to interested projects. Dmcq (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against informing people if you are discussing an article at this noticeboard, but I don't agree it should be a compulsory condition of using this noticeboard. I do agree that if you discuss a specific user on a noticeboard it's fair to notify them of the discussion. And I didn't mean to infer that this noticeboard is always right. I'm sorry if you misunderstood. As for the Astrology article example, not being involved with it, I don't know much about what went on there, but I get the impression that problems were caused by individual editors behavior, not noticeboard policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying it should be compulsory, just something people should be encouraged to do. I fact I can see people wanting some quiet advice without dragging the editors from an article in. In NORN you quite often get people talking about a problem without mentioning the particular article and you get editors wondering what exactly the problem is because they are not explicit. If it was just the person asking the question who went back I'd be happy with them getting some advice, or if some people went to a discussion on the relevant talk page immediately without much noticeboard discussion that would probably be okay too even though it is tending a bit more towards canvassing. The real problems come when there is a lengthy noticeboard discussion without the involvement of interested editors of the article concerned and then people go to the article. Dmcq (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try out the 'Consider adding a courtesy notification and link to WP:FTN to the Talk page of the article in question. Notification is not mandatory, however ensuing discussion may help clarify the undue weight policy to editors unfamiliar with it' you said and see how people react to that. Dmcq (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading the links you supplied, I saw only the actions of one particular editor and no evidence of the noticeboard acting collectively, so I no longer feel adding my suggested admonition is necessary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was illustrating that this isn't a noticeboard, it acts more like a project whose members go out and do things to the articles. Saying discussion here just advises is false. Have a look at the end of another thing on this board just at the moment for instance Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) at the bit at the end with a complaint about the noticeboard and the reply 'it simply informs a large group of interested editors'. About what? That they should descend onto that AfD. That's what a project does. People from other noticeboards do go along to articles if requested and sometimes if not but normally to try an fix a particular problem, not in order to rip up articles or delete them. I don't see much cooperation or helping editors here, and how can it if it doesn't want to tell interested editors but wishes to keep things quiet till decisions are made? Dmcq (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the noticeboard to deal with undue weight being given to something. If material is undue a lot of the time nothing else can be done but remove some of the undue material and sometimes instead by providing more balance. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that you are not in that case giving advice on a noticeboard. if you discuss something here and then go to the article after a discussion here you have made a decision. Reinforming a decision after people have made is is difficult. If the people discussing do not include anyone from th article then what has happened is that a number of people with a point of view have been canvassed and made an uninformed decision and mobbed the article.


 * I have no objection to people coming to a noticerboard for a quiet second opinion, but if the noticeboard is being recruited for action and does a big uninformed discussion than it is simply acting just like any of those noticeboards on the web with a POV recruiting people to go and cause trouble on Wikipedia. I know editors here have the wonderful idea they don't make mistakes and you go on that if a mob descends on an article it still requires consensus there, but this is simply not true, and even if it were true exactly how is Wikipedia served by annoying people at the targetted articles instead of involving them in the decisions? You are the battle mentality ones with not wanting to reveal your plans to the enemy and acting as a group. How about a bit more openness?


 * What exactly is your reason for not wanting to encourage involvement from editors interested in the articles that concern you? And while you're at it explain why Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism is not used for recruiting people instead and this left mainly for discussion? They put a header onto talk pages declaring their interest at least. Dmcq (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard has 3 main purposes, 1. To allow an editor to find out if a particular topic is mainstream or fringe. 2. so that editors can ask fringe theories related questions and 3. to report undue material. None of these things requires notification and consensus still must be reached on the talk page if any objections are raised there. The most prominent recent example of this that comes to mind is the discussions at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_25 which were mentioned on the noticeboard here: . Notice that the editors who responded to the FTN also went to the article page and participated in the discussions, attempts were made to reach consensus on the article talk page and no "secrete consensus" or whatever was made or attempted at FTN, (have a look at RSN, a similar approach exists there too). RSN doesn't require notification either. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that article is well aware of your efforts having survived six AfDs. I note fringe was not one of the grounds people tried even though that was supposedly the reason for bringing it here.Editors just went in for anything they could think of sensible or not. Here is where I discussed it on the OR noticeboard I don't get involved with that article itself. NORN. My assessment of this noticeboard there was
 * You're quite right about that. The diagrams should go. Most of the lead should go. The notes should be made into footnotes. I believe you've got that lead there because you've got this Fringe project here that insist on plastering the correct science everywhere even though it is obvious an article is about fringe scientists. An the justifications on each scientist are because of people like the OP here disputing the inclusion of scientists even when it is as obvious as a punch in the eye that they are clearly correctly in the list. Basically a lot of public aggro politics and money makes it controversial rather than any of the facts. As to the reason the list is there i the first place, that's because such a list is notable - organisations like the Heartland Institute claim to have produce lists of such scientist and newspapers and books have commentated (not that all the ones listed in the Heartland Institute's list actually are so aligned!). Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you can see another problem I have with this noticeboard. I guess they're connected to some extent in that who does plots action on articles and wants to keep it quiet except someone with a strong POV? Myself I support NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to, Fringe is mentioned repeatedly in discussions on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While I also don't think it is necessary, I would not object to adding a request to "consider" notification. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Subject also apparently being discussed at WP:VPP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And how did you feel about that? Suppose that was explicitly about this noticeboard and went on for a week without anybody here knowing and they were talking about MfD. How would you feel then? Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this an admission on your part of being WP:POINTY? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is a straight question. I considered it a general problem but came to the conclusion that this noticeboard was the only one where it really was a very bad problem so no general thing was needed. There's no point in general stuff if particular remedies will do. And can I correct you yet again about your 'None of these things requires notification', I was not asking for notrification to be required, in fact I explicitly put 'is not madndatory' in the second version. I was wanting a prompt there to get people to consider notifying. I am fully aware there are circumstances where people might not want to and I have nothing against that. I would just like people to be prompted to do it if reasonable.


 * Anyway as to my earlier questions to you - What exactly is your reason for not wanting to encourage involvement from editors interested in the articles that concern you? And why is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism not used for recruiting people instead and this one left mainly for discussion? That project put headers on talk poages declaring their interest. Dmcq (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way I also get the impression that some of the people are here just to help fringe products or aid industry by ensuring Wikipedia does not have an article about them giving a fairly neutral perspective by ensuring the articles are deleted or made unreadable. Don't you ever wonder if you are being used in that way? Dmcq (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that attacking other users helps your case in the least. 86.** IP (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about actually giving a reason for your reversion? And who am I attacking that you'd like to defend? Dmcq (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's useful, it's rules creep, and it's not in accordance with other noticeboards. The change requires the case to be made, and I don't think you've made it. And frankly, conspiracy-mongering claims about trying to hide negative information should be marked with a . Demonstrate it happens before making claims we must change the policy of the noticeboard because of it. 86.** IP (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been showing the evidence from items current in this noticeboard for the problems without showing the worst cases because I wish to correct a general problem rather than accuse individual editors. Attacking individual editors is not my aim, helping this noticeboard to function better is. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want an example which raises concern but is not at the far end for this board and so not worth a formal complaint how about your one on this page of Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination)? The discussion went on here for two days with no notice and people have gone there to vote on an AfD. This example is not too bad because most people would have gone there direct rather than fixing their opinions here first but I notice comments at the AfD of
 * Comment per advertising this AfD. If we are canvassing editors from NB, only canvassing the Finge Theories NB hardly seems a neutral way to alert Wikipedia editors. I strongly suggest including other notice boards or removing the notice from the Fringe Theories NB.


 * No problem with posting on the Fringe Theories NB, lots of concern with posting only on the Fringe Theories NB which targets a specific group of editors, which defines canvassing. I've posted on the BLP/NB and RS/NB. I have no attachment to this article at all, but this should be dealt with properly.
 * Does this not imply to you that this place is seen as a canvassing forum and that a bit mor openness might help? This noticeboard was not mentioned on the article talk page or the AfD before this nor is the article even under the rational scepticism project. Why had the projects who had expressed an interest not been notified and this one was? I then went to the BLP project and saw Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and you might be interested in the comments there. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way that AfD should have been notified to those relevant projects deletion sorting lists as per the AfD notice directions by the instigator rather than leaving it to Gene93k to do it two days later. Dmcq (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I notice you omit the comment that was given between the two you quote (which essentially notes that there was no problem with the notice posted here). That's called "selective quoting" and indicates your own lack of neutrality.
 * Second, there is no requirement that anyone be notified when an article is sent to AfD (projects are rarely notified of AfDs) ... yes, notifying people is a nice courtesy, but it is not a requirement. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On your first point I was illustrating a person complaining, what was the point of the bit in between in that context? To reiterate that people on this noticeboard ignore complaints? And secondly as I have repeatedly said I am not asking for a requirement, I am asking people to consider the courtesy of informing people on the talkpage of the article they're discussing. Dmcq (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And as for the courtesy at AfD what it says is
 * After nominating: notifying interested projects and editors
 * While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD (see below), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply withWikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
 * ....+ more about notifying projects and courtesy to main contributors
 * That is the kind of thing I want here. They needn't have the bit about canvassing. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you look at the notification (a few sections below this one) you will see that it does comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvasing (WP:Canvassing)... the notification in question simply lists the AfD page and says "for those who are interested". That is not canvasing.
 * The thing is, I still think you don't understand the purpose of this page ... The purpose is to get input from people who have not previously been involved with a given article... people who understand the WP:FRINGE policy, and don't have an axe to grind. Having those already involved with an article get involved in such discussions can actually disrupt that purpose.  Indeed, I would actually discourage notification.  Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And I perfectly understand some people wanting quiet advice, that's why the wording was 'please consider' and 'is not mandatory'. And as I said in that particular instance people did go to the discussion without excessive discussion here beforehand. However if the purpose is not a quiet discussion and go back with some advice but to get action I believe it is a common courtesy to allow interested editors to comment rather than people discussing here and going with fixed opinions as a group to fix or delete an article. Dmcq (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about even more qualification by if the discussion lasts more than a day? I'm not keen on making things complicated but a bit of simple advice should be easy enough to do and it is the long debates which fix ideas that are the worry. Dmcq (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If any notification should be given, it should point interested editors to the talk page/AfD discussions, not to the discussions that take place here. After all... those are the discussions that really matter.  A discussion here might inspire someone to send an article to AfD, but its the discussion at AFD that result in deletion or retention ... a discussion here might recommend a particular way to fix an article... but it is the discussion at the article that results in a given fix being implemented. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, this whole debate should have been on the Talk page, not the noticeboard itself. I'll refrain from moving it, but please keep that in mind in the future. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You know as well as I do when people who are all united in something make a concerted decision it is difficult for an outsider to change their minds when they go off somewhere else. The interested editors need to be in the discussions early. They still might not be able to influence things much but just having a couple of people giving an opposite opinion can help greatly in avoiding problem decisions. Are you really saying that you think Wikipedia would be served better if this noticeboard was operated off Wikipedia and had some security on peoples questions so outsiders didn't get into deliberations like ArbCom does? Dmcq (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right - we all meet under the dark of the new moon, and after exchanging the secret handshake we decide the fate of unsuspecting pages, then climb into our black helicopters and swoop in to wreck havoc on poor helpless editors that can't withstand the onslaught of such an organized and belligerent foe. As if!  Contrary to this straw-man scenario you keep parading out, in the time I have monitored this noticeboard I don't recall once seeing the group reach a collective decision, or even act in such a way as to reflect a group decision-making process.  Nor have I seen them head off, as a group, to involve themselves in page editing.  What I have seen are editors already of like mind on a subject, who when learning here of a page that merits attention, each go there to edit in a manner consistent with their individual opinions on the matter, which happen to be in concert.  While it might look the same on the other end, that should not be confused with collective action after a concerted decision, as you repeatedly portray it. A legitimate argument could be made that this noticeboard is sometimes used for canvasing, but your repeated assertion that it is acting in any coordinated manner is totally without foundation. The discussion that matters occurs on the given Talk pages.  Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Dmcq's analysis of what goes on here seems wide of the mark. Mathsci (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me there is agreement that
 * Editors here prefer not to have interested editors from an article come here after being informed about a page
 * The pages brought to the attention of this noticeboard are discussed here sometimes at length
 * The people here do tend to be of a like mind about fringe
 * Editors often do go off from here to edit or vote on an AfD on an article
 * Editors here see no need to inform interested projects even as a courtesy about AfDs
 * Editors think that after a discussion without interested editors their minds are still open to when they go off to an article and that they can take onboard input from interested editors there even if they didn't want it here.
 * Editors here see no problem with what they are doing
 * Is this an accurate description of the situation? Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 is false. The entire point of the board is to get an outside view from uninvolved editors into the discussion & provide opinions on if the topic is fringe or not. Involved editors aren't unwelcome, but often just carry their previous dispute to this page (which is not very conducive to discussing the topic itself).
 * 2 is true.
 * 3 is too broad a generalization. Most folks watching this board tend towards a more skeptical bent, but that does not mean everyone here thinks alike "about fringe."
 * 4 is false. More often, the person who brings the concern here gets a fresh perspective, and sometimes more policy-based reasons for their opinion. Sometimes editors here will visit an article Talk or AfD if they feel they can contribute to the discussion.
 * 5 is not related to this board. If an article goes to AfD, then it's the responsibility of whomever files the AfD to inform interested parties.
 * 6... is worded very poorly. I think you mean "editors here make up their minds before going to the page," which is not correct. Or, at least, it's painting with too broad a brush again.
 * 7 is true. So far, the board appears to be working properly, just like the other Noticeboards.
 * Back to point 1 for a moment: Clarifications from the involved editors can be useful; more often than not, though, they tend to drag old arguments from the article Talk page onto this board. And I mean arguments, not discussions. Rivalries can be difficult to let go.
 * This board and its cousins (NPoV/N, NOR/N and the rest) are designed to be places where someone can visit and ask "is X appropriate for article Y?" It helps get an outside view on the subject, so you aren't just in an echo chamber that sometimes develops on an article's Talk page. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On #6... I have to ask what Dmcq thinks we need to be open minded about? Is he saying we need to be open minded as to whether the material in question is fringe or not? Is he saying we need to be open minded as to how to apply the relevant policies and guidelines?  Or is he saying something else? Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a search around and there's a couple of articles on Wikipedia which correspond with my impression of what happens here. The top level one is group decision making] and I believe the noticeboard falls prey to groupthink and conformity. Particularly this bit from groupthink:
 * He went on to write:
 * The main principle of groupthink, which I offer in the spirit of Parkinson's Law, is this: The more amiability and esprit de corps there is among the members of a policy-making ingroup, the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against outgroups.
 * Janis claimed to have found eight "main symptoms" of groupthink: "invulnerability," "rationale," "morality," "stereotypes," "pressure," "self-censorship," "unanimity," and "mindguards." Among nine "recommendations for preventing groupthink" were "1 The leader of a policy-forming group should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member..." and "5 The group should invite one or more outside experts to each meeting...."
 * covers it as far as what I was saying I think about notifying interested editors before things got too fixed in a discussion here. You might like to read the section Groupthink as well. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a nice failure to WP:AGF while painting anyone who visits the board with a broad brush. ಠ_ಠ Is there any further point to this discussion? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] This characterization is predicated on the misconception that there is any decision-making process going on here - there isn't. You put forward a suggestion. It was resisted by several editors.  Repeatedly mischaracterizing the process here, accusing the participants of this noticeboard of wanting to run a star chamber or of failing to think independently seems an unproductive approach to sway that opinion in your favor.  Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that comes under the long one in my summary. Editors who believe they can engage in a long discussion and then have an open mind rather than having decided anything. What I want if there s an extended discussion is input from editors who are interested in and know about the subject. Perhaps I should have split that in two. Editors thinking they can egage in a long discussion and not come to an opinion about something. And secondly editors thinking that when they have come to an opinion after a long discussion they are still pretty free and open to new ideas about a subject when the people who actually are interested in the article discuss it with them. And from that bit I read in Wikipedia perhaps I should add editors who believe they are immune to psychological effects of talking with an in group because things like that don't apply to them.
 * Anyway as far as the Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) which I used as an example above though it didn't have too long a discussion |here below]] on it. It looks like the AfD is being withdrawn after other editors got into the business. Since an editor said " That's called "selective quoting" and indicates your own lack of neutrality" for leaving this out out when quoting stuff from there I will now quote a reply from one of the noticeboard people there, Incidentally they raised the AfD and both they and the one who brought that article here and first responded to the AfD are the ones who reverted my proposed and alternate wording for the header.


 * It's perfectly acceptable to inform people on the FTN noticeboard as this is a way of centrally informing people (it's the primary board for dealing with undue and fringe material), it is not canvassing, the board isn't partisan, it simply informs a large group of interested editors (you can add FTN to your watchlist and be one of these interested editors). It's not put on other boards because there are no other relevant boards except maybe BLPN


 * They left out the courtesy AfD notifications to interested projects including BLP by the AfD sorting lists, another editor did that two days after the AfD was raised.
 * Now I can see people here grasping on this instance as an example where the system worked but really I would like you to consider if that really is the right conclusions or really you ought to notify an article in its talk page if a discussion here goes beyond somebody comes here, gets a bit of independent advice and then goes away with it. Do you really believe like people have said above that it is a bad idea to have interested editors from articles come here? Editors from this noticeboard go away with the idea of doing radical editing or AfDs. Do you really believe you listen properly to people whom you think you would be better off without here? Especially if they only get their voice in at the very end? Dmcq (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think editors go away with the idea of doing editing based on policy, which is hardly radical. This is all getting rather tiresome, one editor is upset.  Let's move on.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay I don't think I am getting very far with the editors on this noticeboard. I'll go and figure out what to say and then set up an RfC, that'll get a decision one way or the other as best Wikipedia is able to decide disputes like this. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action?
I would like a statement at the top of the fringe noticeboard along these lines:
 * If a discussion on an article is extends over a day or invites action, please place a notice on the article's talk page, or an associated project page for multiple articles. This is not mandatory.

I believe having interested editors informing discussions here would lead to better decisions. The 'extends' is so that people can come here for a quick bit of quiet advice and then go away with that. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Editors on the fringe noticeboard are active in radically altering or deleting articles and yet make their decisions uninfomed by interested editors, they actively do not want interested editors on this noticeboard. I believe their decisions are quite often rather poor because of this. I fully appreciate that sometimes people want a bit of quiet advice and then go back themselves without other editors jumping in, that's why I'm asking only that others be informed when the discussion gets extended or it looks like people might be thinking of doing something like deleting the article. Once people get the wrong iidea in their minds it can be hard to change during an AfD debate for instance, and having a whole lot of like minded people here tends to consolidate that. You can see more about their opposition to interested editors above and examples from this page of what happens in the above debate. You can check the later additions to this page for yourself too and see what's happening. The thing that brought me here originally was Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 30 when I checked up why a bunch of people had descended on an article wanting to delete it and just didn't seem to want to listen to anybody. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Simply put, you came at this with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and refuse to listen. Further, that you single out this noticeboard and no other indicates something personal on your end. The proposed wording is too vague to be useful (what does "invites action" mean?). You still seem to be under the impression that "decisions" are made here, which is incorrect and has been explained to you several times. Finally, you have been explicitly told we are not "opposed" to having involved editors come here. Given that, I see no point in your proposal outside your not hearing what you want to hear. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unnecessary instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum... Dmcq contends that a discussion here resulted in "a bunch of people descending on an article wanting to delete it" and that these people did not want to "listen to anybody". Given that the article in question was not deleted, I don't see what the concern is.  Obviously, enough people did "listen"... because the article was not deleted. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I covered this point in the discussion before this in a similar case on this page currently Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) which was eventually withdrawn after other editors got into the act. There was a complaint there that the AfD had omitted notifications to the appropriate deletion lists but that was done two days later by someone unconnected. As I said about that "Now I can see people here grasping on this instance as an example where the system worked but really I would like you to consider if that really is the right conclusions or really you ought to notify an article in its talk page if a discussion here goes beyond somebody comes here, gets a bit of independent advice and then goes away with it." There are a number of people interested in climate change as opposed to some smaller articles, but there have been accusations against people like User:William M. Connolley for instance who are very anti the 'skeptics' in climate change that they are pushing fringe because they are happy to show what these anti science people are up to, but the anti fringe crowd want to delete or cover with 'the truth' anything like that so people can't easily read what's said about it. Dmcq (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ... I'm barely following your statement here, given the long run-on sentence at the end. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with Blueboar's statement. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar said that there wasn't a problem because the AfD failed. I pointed out that there were a large number of people interested in climate change. I also pointed out that the the fringe noticeboard goes in for AfDs or smothering articles under caveats instead of being able to stand an article reporting on fringe things. For instance another article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is up to number 13 in the WP:Lamest edit wars list of deletion wars and people committed to the scientific point of view have been accused of being fringe pushers for supporting articles about climate change denial. That list is a good example of the truth being pushed too strongly in the lead of an article specifically about fringe, though I fully agree also that the quotes should also be removed from the main body of the article, it has just been turned into a mess by the battle. All that however does not apply to small articles which do not have a lot of others supporting them. How are the editors there supposed to get their words heard if people here think of them as a nuisance? Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Every editor get's their words heard the same way, by discussion on an article's Talk page. Mythical dark conspiracies aside, your major objection seems to be that when too many individual editors who disagree with a particular piece of content show up and make a point of it, it is hard for the person who put the content there to maintain the slant they want the article to have in the face of this opposition.  Well, yes. That is how the system is supposed to work. Agricolae (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, nothing in your complaint above has anything to do with this board, so what's your point? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that if people have extended discussions they come to conclusions and they are resistant to new information from people who actually know about the topic when they go off to an AfD. An ingroup is formed of a like opinion which has little respect for any input from the people who have written the articles. I believe that having some input before attitudes are too fixed could help greatly in countering that. So fine about a bit of quiet advice but bring in the editors if it goes much further than that. Dmcq (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, with the unsupported assumptions. You act like everyone who posts here agrees in a hivemind. Hell, most people here don't even follow the articles to AfD. Your belief that attitudes are "fixed" after discussion here is nonsensical. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong SUPPORT. My philosophy is expressed well by Kebbede Mikael in a 20th century textbook for Ethiopian schoolchildren. "A wise man once said: Only two animals can ascend to the top of a steep cliff that cannot be grasped with the hands nor grappled with the legs: either a eagle flying on its wings; or a worm by creeping on its belly. And those individuals who can rise to a level of greatness in this temporal world, are either they who arise by their own merits and virtue, or else, base, deceitful persons who creep sneakily within - burying themselves underground, in morals that were reprehensible, while they root around in malice and low work." Blockinblox (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to make an actual argument, instead of just quoting a platitude. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. This board more than any other single room is like THE closed "smoking room" where the "old boys" decide what the common people are or are not supposed to believe. This antiquated concept cannot survive long in today's transparent information society.  Those who want to continue to keep this board as exclusive as possible, are presumably those who have some vested interest in keeping it as exclusive as possible.  I'm not with them, I'm with those who want to make it more INCLUSIVE.  If that wasn't clear enough, or if you need more explanation, I'll be glad to give plenty more at any time. Blockinblox (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This characterization of how this noticeboard works is itself a fringe theory, and a rather reality-challenged one at that. Further, in speculating about the nefarious motivations of those whose opinion differ, it represents a failure to assume good faith. Agricolae (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This user has rather suddenly reappeared after over a year of silence. Back in 2009 he was complaining that FTN was a conspiracy of "mind control freaks" Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11. Obviously this board is not and never could be exclusive, as it open to anyone to participate in. Paul B (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "exclusive" about this page, so I don't know what you're ranting about. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What other reason could there possibly be for opposing a commonsense proposal like advice of notifying an article's talkpage when that article is being discussed here? As the proposing editor said, it's like discussion conducted "behind the back" of interested parties by the know-it-alls.  Instead of logical reasons, the only reasons offered for opposing the idea seem to be emotional, spite-driven reasonings against the editor who proposed the idea, attacking his "mentality".  It's still a good and common sense idea no matter WHO proposed it, and the reasons offered for opposing it are most telling of all. Blockinblox (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not common sense when it has glaring errors like the ill-defined "extends over a day or invites action" statement. Nothing here is behind anyone's back. It's a public page, anyone can read or post here. Pointing out errors in your and DMCQs assumptions about the people on this board is not "emotional, spite-driven reasonings." So what exactly is your argument aside from your belief in a cabal? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I might support a proposal like this for all project talk pages, but I don't see a basic difference between this and the project pages I visit most often. On those editors frequently ask for help with articles (or even editors). An example is the Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard which even has an urgent button on it to get immediate attention. We shouldn't be singling out one board like this. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poorly thought out and poorly worded: "invites action" - so a simple and typical note saying 'this page could use some attention' should include a notification encouraging discussion here, rather than on the article Talk page (where the discussion should take place).  The whole purported need is based on mischaracterization of situation, that there are extensive discussions here that decide the fate of nations, with minions going out to implement the will of the group - most extensive discussions occur when someone comes here to pursue an idée fixe, and the last thing that needs to happen is to encourage the spread of the discussion from its original Talk page (where it belongs) to here.  This isn't the place such discussions should take place. Agricolae (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as has been pointed out before, this really belongs on TALK:FTN and not the noticeboard itself. Agricolae (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, instruction creep and what The Hand That Feeds You and Agricolae said. WegianWarrior (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per arguments already given by The Hand That Feeds You, Blueboar, Agricolae. I'd also point out that Dmcq's 'support' arguments seem to be based on suggestions that existing policy has been violated. If Dmcq thinks it has, this should be raised at AN/I, rather than used as an argument in this RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If there is a reason to raise an issue here because of an unresolved dispute on a talk page I think it is polite to add a comment on the relevant Talk page saying that it is being raised at FTN. I usually do so. But there are many other reasons why issues might be raised here. We may just come across a problem article, or want input about whether or not particular claims are fringe. The page is open to anyone. It's just a "meeting area" for discussion of one type of issue. Each board is different. WP:OR by definition involves particular editors, since only individuals can create "original research". It is only proper that an editor whose work is being debated should have a chance to engage in the discussion. So in that case, they should be notified. The Reliable Sources board, in contrast, is about a source, not an editor. The discussion is determined by policy issues and judgements of scholarship independent of any particular editor. As far as I can see, this board corresponds to the RS, not the NOR board in the relevant respects. Paul B (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You might think it polite to comment that way but I haven't found any articles where any such notice has been given for what's currently here. That's my complaint. I thought my wording would allow straightforward things, but exactly how can we hope for good outcomes if people here don't think interested editors are worth talking to even when discussions are extended? 17:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough with the ridiculous straw man, already. I think every editor here thinks that interested editors are worth talking to - on the articles' Talk pages. That is what they are for. It is not what this board is for and it is counterproductive to try to get more discussion here, away from the eyes of those following it at the appropriate place. Agricolae (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What discussion on the talk page? That's the problem. If there was something saying that any extended discussion should be on the article or project talk page that would also be very satisfactory. Dmcq (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting that no one ever goes to article Talk pages to continue the discussion? Because that would be careless of you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So are we also to have a notice describing other basic aspects of Wikipedia? I mean, if we are going to remind people what Talk pages are for, do we also tell them not to engage in personal attacks, and to use reliable sources, and to not use sock puppets, etc.  Centralized policies exist so you don't have to repeat them everywhere, and the idea that extensive discussions belong on the relevant Talk pages is just such.  In the end, your problem is not the instructions at the top of the noticeboard, it is the (perceived) behavior of the participants, and given how closed-minded and conspiratorial you say they are, no change in the header is going to alter that behavior anyhow so this whole exercise is just a waste of time. Agricolae (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Don't see any need for this. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not bureau, and per The Hand That Feeds, Blueboar and others. S Æ don talk  20:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose pointless addition, and a rationale for the adding this is not provided.Curb Chain (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Arguments for this so far have been pretty nonsensical. See Dcmq's rationale above, for instance. Instruction creep. 86.** IP (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose No need for more rules, things actually work quite well as they are. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like everyone's pretty much staked out their positions and dug in their heels here. It also looks like as though a bit of a (false, in my opinion) dichotomy has been created, in that "supporters" are themselves fringe theorists, while "opposers" are the sensible, level headed folks. I think that something like this is worth doing though, personally; and it's worth doing for all noticeboards, not just this one. There doesn't have to be a huge production made out of it (no one ought to be blocked for failing to post a link on a talk page, fer cryin' out loud!), but a simple note to the article talk page that a discussion has started here seems obviously useful, to me. It's easy enough to craft templates with canned messages for the purpose, and plopping one of them on an article's talk page takes significantly less time than even starting a new discussion here takes. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As this seems to refer to my comment, I must not have been clear, since your description only bears a superficial resemblance to what I meant to say. I was not calling the 'supporters' fringe theorists because they are supporters.  I was referring specifically to their repeated mantra that there is a cabal at work here that discusses a page in secret and then all, as a group, descend on the page to wreck havoc and overwhelm poor hapless editors.  It is this 'theory' of how the noticeboard supposedly works (which bears no resemblance to reality) that I referred to as 'fringe', not their opinion on notification - if we are going to have a discussion of the benefits of notification, it should be based on reality and not such a fiction.  Thus the false dichotomy you decry is one of your own imagining.  Further, you are conveniently ignoring that both of the other 'supporters' have been portraying themselves as champions of fairness and full disclosure and their 'opponents' as closed-minded conspiratorial bullies.  To just single out the side with which you disagree is to fall prey to the same manner of thinking as that you are criticizing.  It seems unfair to reject a developing consensus as nothing but 'staked out positions' and 'dug in heels' and a 'false dichotomy', and thus by implication to diminish all of the arguments that run counter to your preference.  To reiterate, the goal should be to have discussion on the relevant Talk pages, not try to find elaborate ways to make it easier to draw the discussion away from there and bring it here. Agricolae (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused here because I wasn't commenting towards you or anyone else specifically above. This reply strikes me as being a bit paranoid, but I'm probably just missing something (I'm really not sure how you could have thought that the above was a reply to your comment, which I'm not even sure where it's located...). As for the rest, maybe if the one group would actually try to listen to the other group, and vice versa, then there would be less of a problem with groups and thoughts of cabals, nevermind paranoid seeming replys to comments from otherwise uninvolved third parties. The funny thing is that I agree with your "the goal should be" statement, although I suspect that the conclusions that we each draw from that are somewhat different. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did my comment come from? I had earlier suggested that the straw-man portrayal of the decision-making process of this group being put forward by the supporters was itself a fringe theory. That is the closest anyone in this discussion had gotten to calling the supporters themselves "fringe theorists".  If you weren't referring to my comments, then you just made it up entirely.  I guess that makes it my fault for assuming you were referring to reality, but to suggest I suffer from paranoia, twice, is hardly civil. You quit being and uninvolved third party when you chose to distort the truth in this manner.  I was unaware that there were multiple conclusions to be drawn 'from an article's Talk page being the appropriate place for discussion of that page'.  It is the conclusion. Agricolae (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...huh? Um, OK, if you say so. wow. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support but I don't see why you would think I support fringe stuff never mind being a fringe theorist! I support having articles about notable things including fringe but I most certainly do not support reporting wierdo things as fact. I do get the impression though that some fringe noticeboard editors think anything fringe must be smothered under a ton of science or deleted. I do not support that sort of thing - it makes me feel Wikipedia is tending to be like RationalWiki or a militant science version of Conservapedia rather than just an encyclopaedia reporting on the stuff with a neutral point of view and generally rational angle. And personally I feel such a stance is very counterproductive to helping get a rational point of view across. It is preaching to the choir rather than just presenting the facts dispassionately. Have a look at Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) still on this page and especially the deletion debate it links to for instance and see the strong push to delete rather than trying develop a decent article and the way some other editors who weren't invited initially were able to help develop it. Do you want to turn Wikipedia into a RationalWiki? Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the original Bernie Siegel article that I nominated? Here it is: . No sources, and a search found nothing either. Also, it was Binksternet, who I think is a regular on these boards, who actually found the encyclopedia sources that helped establish notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's odd he isn't listed as having edited it but I'll take your word for that. But why exactly was it nominated without notifying the authors related list, or in fact any list, when the article listed seven books he had written? Didn't that sort of indicate to you there might be something there? That was left to somebody else to do two days later. In fact you defended not sticking the AfD onto a deletion list and you supported notifying the fringe noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He established it in the AfD discussion, I suggest you read it. And no, being the author of seven books which do not appear to be notable and have no corresponding articles does not make me think there was "something there". Can you also stop making stuff up, I did not "defend not sticking the AfD onto a deletion list" and I did not "supported notifying the fringe noticeboard", I just did not think it was improper although I would not have done so (and did not). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone who looks at the Seigel deletion debate can see that there is no substance in the accusation that there was a concerted campaign against the article. Where is this "strong push" to delete? Admittedly, 86.** IP may have wished to create one, but he failed miserably if that was his aim. He voted for deletion, and brought the issue up here, yes. But the only other deletion votes were from editors who have no history of connection with this board at all to my knowledge. One editor who has, later crossed out his initial delete vote. Other editors who are connected voted to keep. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that an AfD is a different process in a different forum than this noticeboard, I fail to see the relevance to the header of this noticeboard of whether or not interested parties were informed of the initiation of an AfD. Agricolae (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Agricolae. I tend to agree, especially since the AfD filing process itself automatically includes the suggestion to notify interested projects and editors. Putting a similar admonition in the FTN header, on the mere chance sending an article to AfD might be discussed here, strikes me as unnecessary.- LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again though, I wasn't specifically referring to anyone. I was only talking about the general character of the discussion here when I came across it (which has continued unabated, I've noticed). It's obvious that there was very little understanding of what I was trying to say, which is disappointing but not very surprising. I do agree that there appears to be a large block of editors who feel that anything that could be classified as "fringe" must be removed from the encyclopedia, which is hardly a helpful or constructive stance to have. I don't really see how that is relevant to this discussion, though. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to being unhelpful and unconstructive, such a stance would also be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on fringe. That is why it, fortunately, represents nothing but another straw man.  It sure is fun to use such accusations in order to blackguard those on the other side of the discussion, isn't it? Or have you failed to make yourself understood again? Agricolae (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * lol. (SMH) — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: So far there is twelve !votes opposing this, and just two in support - one of which is from the user who tabled the suggestion. To me it's clear that the user who fielded this feels that his view of the world is being challenged and possible marginalized by reality, but since the operating mantra of Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not truth" (whatever truth actually is - a philosophical question to be sure) nothing is going to change by trying to game the system. We got strong policies and guidelines in place that help us sort out what's fringe and not... might it be time to just close this per WP:SNOWBALL? WegianWarrior (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, the question under consideration is simply "Would it be a good idea to notify articles talkpages when they are being discussed here?". The other question that most, of the "objections" center on, is "What are the motives of the nominating editor, or what is their theory about how this board works?"  The second question is a complete red herring to the one under consideration, and a case study in faulty logic and ad hominem.  Even if the nom. has completely wrong motives, even if he is completely wrong about how this board works, INFORMING ARTICLE TALK PAGES WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING THEM HERE IS STILL BASIC COURTESY, A GOOD IDEA, AND ONE THAT IS ONLY TO BE COMMENDED. Blockinblox (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And you think that using BOLD ALL CAPS is helping your point any? ಠ_ಠ
 * If you think it's a good idea, feel free to notify people yourself. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * QED My use of caps shouldn't make a difference to those trained in logic, recognizing the question on the table, and identifying red herrings. I will start working on a subuserpage template, feel free to anyone who wants to use it. Blockinblox (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'm actually happy with people coming to noticeboards for a bit of quick advice without other editors crowding in, in fact I think that is a very reasonable thing to do, that's why I was explicitly not asking for it to be always done even as a courtesy. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Blockinblox, if the use of caps and bolds is irrelevant, why did you use them? You wanted to imbue your text with extra power by their use, but when such text manipulations draw a negative comment, it becomes a pointless distraction. Likewise, if focusing on the motivations of people is irrelevant, you shouldn't have based your original argument in support of the proposal on the motivations of those who would opposed the change.  "This board more than any other single room is like THE closed 'smoking room' where the 'old boys' decide what the common people are or are not supposed to believe. . . . Those who want to continue to keep this board as exclusive as possible, are presumably those who have some vested interest in keeping it as exclusive as possible."  Further, you started out with the suggestion that they these opponents were to be compared to "base, deceitful persons who creep sneakily within - burying themselves underground, in morals that were reprehensible, while they root around in malice and low work."  And now you want the response to your baseless insinuations about the nature of the board to be dismisses as irrelevant, and you want any discussion of motivations to be banished from the discussion.  Must be nice, having your cake and eating it too. Agricolae (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I am sorry if my use of that quote was misinterpreted the way you recast it, I meant to suggest we had two paths before us, that of encouraging letting people involved in topics know when those topics are being discussed here, or discouraging, and that it ought to be an ethical matter to choose the route of greater transparency. I did not wish to insinuate that any editors here would purposefully choose an unethical path. But then the attention to the nom's motives first of all rather than the proposal struck me as a typical smoking room excuse. As for worrying about things like my using CAPS, I am reminded of the Turkish astronomer in Le Petit Prince whose calculations suddeeny became "valid" after he had donned European clothes.  So if this same proposal were to be made again, but with a more correct rationale, then it would stand a better chance? Blockinblox (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how else one could read 'you either agree with my viewpoint or else you are a worm'. Even now you maintain that those who disagree with your position are being unethical, you are just willing to grant that they may be doing so unintentionally.  Mighty generous of you. At a minimum, had the same proposal been made with a better rationale, it would have stood a better chance of having a discussion that focused on the issues that are relevant. However, it is hard to un-ring a bell once the cat is out of the bag. Agricolae (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of bad faith in this proposal? Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't. I was trying to do two things. First, explain that Blockinblox, by setting up a dichotomy with eagles and worms, and then claiming to be the eagle, was by implication then applying the unflattering characterization of the worm to those holding the other position.  It thus represented an incivility. The same with the dichotomy between the 'ethical side and the side that disagrees with me.' I will have to take Blockinblox at their word that this was not the intent.  What was directed at you (somewhat) was to suggest that in framing the proposal as the only way to counteract the functioning of a cabal, you tainted the process irreparably - it can never now be just a dispassionate discussion of whether or not notification is a good thing, even were this RfC to be cancelled and restarted with a more reasoned rationale, the proposal is now inextricably linked to this viewpoint (it probably was prior to it even being taken to RfC, given that you had already made it clear this is what it is all about).  Since you asked, though, your continual mis-portrayal of what occurs here and on other pages, when you have been repeatedly set straight, makes it difficult to AGF. (For example, in the quote below, you state that when editors go from here to a page, they "make their decisions uninfomed by interested editors".  This can only be concluded by assuming that they 1) leave here with closed-minded certainty, and 2) never look at the Talk page there, neither of which you can possibly know, nor can you assume either in good faith.) Agricolae (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've assumed bad faith against everyone here by refusing to listen, constantly repeating that:
 * "Editors on the fringe noticeboard are active in radically altering or deleting articles and yet make their decisions uninfomed by interested editors, they actively do not want interested editors on this noticeboard."
 * That is the opening of your statement in support of your proposal. And it's blatantly false. Your entire reasoning is in bad faith. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So do you disassociate yourself from statements like "One of the reasons why we have noticeboards is to inform previously uninvolved editors that a potential problem exists... and to invite these editors to participate in resolving the problem. In other words... having a bunch of new editors "descend" on a problematic article is sort of the point behind having noticeboards." and "Having those already involved with an article get involved in such discussions can actually disrupt that purpose. Indeed, I would actually discourage notification."? Dmcq (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's not obvious already, yes, I disagree with those assertions. (I believe I have explicitly said so in the earlier section.) Especially the "descend" statement. Involved editors can disrupt the attempt to get some outside views, but I do not believe in "discouraging" their participation. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you 'disagree' with Blueboar but when I say the same thing it is blatantly false and I've assumed bad faith. Perhaps the two of you could duke it out amongst yourselves. And how about a bit of WP:AGF and WP:NPA thank you. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, for the love of... you made a blanket assertion about everyone on this board. You failed to AGF from the get-go by proclaiming everyone on this board as closed minded & wanting to swarm AfDs. You keep making that assertion. Get it through your skull that this is not the case. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Blockinblox, you've A) mockingly asserted "QED" when your debate technique was pointed out to be flawed, B) insinuated no one here uses logic, when your comments are not based in logic, and C) apparently expect others to be civil, while you are allowed to make any insinuations you wish. It's no wonder your views are being dismissed. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no, no - you are STILL blatantly mischaracterizing my words and arguments like some kind of professional spin doctor, by running every single thing I say through your own filter of reinterpretation (when I can, will and DO speak for myself thank you) constantly setting up strawmen in the process that in no way reflect my actual position. It is becoming tedious, but you leave me with no choice but to come here one more time and try to explain to you what I have been saying one more time, and hopefully you will not misinterpret it.   You see, the logical fallacy I am pointing out here is what we call "AD HOMINEM".  It is a technique often used by those who aren't too logical, for distracting attention and creating a sideshow from the substance of the question at hand.  Now the question at hand here, you see, is not "Do we wish we could give Blockinblox and Dmcq a smack on the butt for questioning the utility of this board".  No, the question at hand here, that we are supposed to be considering, is "Would it be sensible to ask posters here to kindly let those who have contributed to the articles have a heads up when we are talking about their work."  Get it yet?  Because if not, I will gladly explain for ya it one mo' 'gain.  Blockinblox (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be sensible to ask posters here to kindly let those who have contributed to the articles have a heads up when we are talking about their work? ... the answer to that is: "Quite often, No, it would not be sensible". One of the goals of this page to get outside input on an article, from people who are familiar with the relevant policies, but have not contributed to the page and thus have no axe to grind in the debates that are taking place there. Input that can be taken back to the article and discussed there. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, finally someone gave me an on-topic explanation, thanks! Of course all the potential of what you said is IMO exactly why this page should receive much more attention from many more editors, not fewer, if it is supposed to serve that kind of important role. Blockinblox (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understood your statements quite well, Blockinblox. And now, you're just projecting. You've been setting up strawmen this whole time (ie. this board is "THE closed 'smoking room' where the 'old boys' decide what the common people are or are not supposed to believe.") I call you out for it, and supposedly I'm the one putting spin on your words? Rich. Also, you have been making ad hominem statements, with your "those who aren't too logical" statements. Quit trying to claim the moral high ground while smearing everyone else. We've already debated the question about adding a notice to the board. You're just digging the hole deeper by being an absolute jerk to anyone who doesn't agree with you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As this conversation with HandThatFeeds is not proving to be productive to the question at hand, I shall henceforth be confining my replies to those of a less magisterial character. Blockinblox (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although the request itself is somewhat innocuous, the rationale provided for it is based in extreme bad faith, e.g., "Husbands should let wives know what time they will be coming home from work" sounds like a basic courtesy and a reasonable request, albeit an unnecessary one, since many people do it already. But if the rationale given for the request is "Since all husbands are wife beaters, the advance notification can help wives avoid a potential beating" then most would agree that such a request was ill formed and based on an unfounded generalization. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well have a look at what I think is your most recent notification of article to this noticeboard at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_29 ending with 'needs trimming'. Did you inform the article on their talk page? Did you even discuss the article on its page? I count you as a very reasonable editor despite your accusation of extreme bad faith against me but you didn't do this unnecessary thing of discussing things with editors there first or informing them that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "'Did you inform the article on their talk page", articles aren't living things. I don think there was any active editors on the page to inform, just a load of cruft that built up over the years. But that's besides the point, the page had issues with undue weight/fringe with notable events being mixed with non-notable speculation etc, the post at FTN attracted other editors to the article who then helped deal with some of the undue weight issues. The issues with the particular article were pretty straightforward and it was subsequently improved. It seems like the system works... IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support If a discussion is likely to result in alterations in an article, then at least a notification on the talk page for interested editors is only courtesy. Indeed, for some alterations, one is called upon to notify the active editors on their talk pages - merges and deletions. And just because - allegedly, I'm not taking sides in this - the proposer may be doing so due to negative experiences (justified or not) relating to this page is immaterial. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is material about the original proposer is that in suggesting that there is a decision-making process that takes place on FTN and is then implemented upon pages against the will of the contributors, Dmcq has created a straw man, which straw man you have just successfully slain. If there is to be a discussion about alterations to an article, why on earth would you want it to take place on FTN, and not on the relevant page's Talk page? So let's leave a note saying, 'Hey everybody, while any significant change to a page is supposed to be discussed on its Talk page, someone mentioned this page somewhere else, so everybody go discuss it there rather than where it is supposed to be discussed and where anyone with a vested interest is already following it.'  Without the false-conspiracy by the participants of FTN that has served as its explicit primary rationale, the proposal is not just unnecessary, it is counterproductive. Every detailed discussion of page content that happens on FTN is a failure of the system, not a success.  Agricolae (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Allens, why should this be done for discussions at this board and not at other similar boards, eg wikiproject talk pages where both editors and articles are often discussed? That's what bothers me most about this proposal, it singles out this board. I don't think it's a particularly good idea in any case, but if it is important here it's important at a lot of other boards where it isn't being proposed. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The various noticeboards are about different things and do different things. One could have a longer list of recommended actions for all of them but it is better to have specific advice. For instance if you look at WP:NPOVN you'll find people asking for advice or help and normally they have already discussed the matter at the article. They are not requesting that articles be radically altered or deleted, they want them developed. And the editors on the noticeboards are interested in developing articles too rather than eliminating them. They say "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result.". The results aren't always posted but the advice is straightforward and sensible and waht they say is good for the noticeboard. But here often even straightforward request here like  you find things like "The article on Creative visualization makes use of some highly suspect sources. I'm not sure that this is suitable for an AFD since it refers to a not uncommon topic in the new-age belief-system. Is there anything else we can do to get this cleaned up a bit? " Note the first thought of AfD and the call to revise the article. And there's no discussion or notice on the article talk page. Dmcq (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor was there any discussion here. A single contribution from a single editor to which nobody even responded is insufficient justification for labeling this noticeboard as uniquely in need of being 'fixed'?  Agricolae (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just showing it as a simple example without lots of extra wording of what this noticeboard is about. Same as which was a complaint about something being bizarre. My attitude to something like that is why did someone put something strange in?, is it something reasonably notable and the article is just missing citations? In fact the information was extremely notable but in the wrong place, it was at the basis of a theory of the world for a couple of thousand years. This noticeboard is not about developing interesting articles about the notable things in topics but in deleting topics or putting in great swathes about why they are wrong. I can point to lots where the discussion has gone on if you like and have done before but these are just ones on this current page to show what the board is in aid of. 10:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "extremely" but you'll notice that after you mentioned the previous, cited inclusion, there was no further discussion or change. If someone in the article in question had raised a complaint etc., it would have been argued out there instead of here, and then I might have notified you to join in that discussion and not this. Yes, sometimes discussions do go on here, and BTW, this particular discussion, as I think a couple of other people have mentioned, is also in the wrong place (it should be in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard). But the point of this noticeboard, as I won't be the first to say, is not to provide a centralized point of discussion; it is to serve as a centralized point for people who are interested in dealing with fringe theory issues to be made aware of possibly problematic articles. It seems to me that you implicitly object to such a group of people in the first place. Mangoe (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting to this noticeboard as such. I am not against people getting some quiet advice about fringe without the other editors from an article butting in. I am not against people going immediately to the talk page of a mentioned article. I am against long discussions amongst people who are interested mainly in removing stuff without informing the editors of an article. What I was trying to show here with simple examples that people have a big interest in removing stuff, like another comment in yet another discussion below says when their AfD failed because of the evidence of notability "I've become more convinced that the issues current issues with the article are potentially solvable and the deletion isn't the only option." That is a big difference between this noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard and that's why I wanted some extra advice at the top. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And no editor of an article can ever tell when an AfD has been started, of course. Seriously, AfDs find hidden evidence of notability regularly, which then has to be evaluated. sometimes it turns out the evidence is good, sometimes, people are just trying to find something - anything - that will justify keeping an article. But either way, AfD is a method of getting widespread discussion.  86.** IP (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has been brought to the OR noticeboard a few times and I've contributed there. You can see the latest discussion at NORN. Have a good read of it anybody who cares and consider whether instead it is people are just trying to find something - anything - that will justify deleting an article and whether WP:LAME is right to list it in its deletion wars? I see this editor is trying to get people from here to charge forth yet again about something to do with that below saying there is something wrong with an article about climate change deniers mostly having stuff about climate change denial. Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This noticeboard is frequently being used in ways that are close to canvassing, or a project board, as opposed to being a dispute-resolution helper. There are at several examples of this on the talk-page right now. When we consider boards such as BLPN, ORN, RSN etc. then the discussions are directed at specific problems, and at solving these at the board, with the additional bonus of getting a few extra eyes/editors to involve themselves. This is not the case with this board - a look down the discussions active right now, show that people do not go here to resolve an issue, but instead to call to arms . Blatant example is the one by 86.** calling for people to watchlist a specific article with no metion at all of any problems, or giving any rationale for editors to do so... which translates into direct canvassing of likeminded editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you must know, there's been some edits I consider problematic on State of Fear recently, but they appeared to be in good faith, so I saw no reason to draw undue attention to them unless it continued. Of course, you could have asked, instead of deciding WP:AGF doesn't apply to you, but then, after you claimed that WMC ha the right to make unfounded accusations against me, while throwing a fit I used a rude word, I know you have a vendetta against me already, so I shouldn't be surprised. 86.** IP (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry 86.** you failed to understand my problem with your particlar post. It has nothing to do with whether the article really needs help or not. It is the way it was done. It is the way of doing it, that is the problem, not whether or not i agree with you on problems or not. Do drop the Ad hominems please. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to engage with you further, since I honestly don't value your opinion after the incident mentioned and dozens of similar. If someone independent thinks it an issue, fine, but I don't really care what you think, since your judgement is inevitably "Anyone attacking 86 is right, 86 is wrong"86.** IP (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Setting aside whether or not a post saying 'this article could use some extra eyes' is canvasing, there is a bigger problem here. First we were told the header needed to be changed because of a cabal, which the change wouldn't have addressed.  Then we needed the change because of failure of notification on an AfD, which it wouldn't have addressed.  Now we need it because of canvassing, which the change wouldn't address.  Really, folks, there needs to be something more than I don't like this noticeboard to justify a change.  There has to be some actual connection between what you find fault with and the proposed solution. This isn't a referendum on the noticeboard itself. Agricolae (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, i actually do like the fact that we have this noticeboard, what i find problematic is the "concealed" nature and the way that it is used. Most of these aspects can be ameliorated by being open about raising issues here. In most cases when you comment on BLPN or any of the other boards, it is common courtesy to notify the editors (or the talkpage) about raising the issue - the same should be the case with this board. It is also a dual benefit... Ie. Both the article and the board would win by this - some editors will stay around and help (on both). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I must be just slow, because I fail to see how a complaint about 86* having said, "Can people add this to their watchlist?", and receiving no response and engendering no discussion is in any way addressed by the statement being proposed, which suggests notification in the case of discussions that have gone on for more than a day or are proposing changes to a page, neither of which applies. Canvasing by definition is not intended to engender discussion at the location canvased (else by definition it isn't canvasing). How do accusations of canvasing justify a change in something having nothing to do with canvasing?   Again, you think there is a problem with the way issues are raised here, but the proposal has nothing to do with the way issues are raised, but what happens long (a day) after they have been raised.  "I don't like the way this board is used" is only a legitimate reason when the proposed remedy addresses the misuse, and the examples you have given of misuse are not so addressed.  As to being 'concealed', no attempt is being made to conceal anything (only an idiot would try to conceal something by posting it openly to a public forum).  Agricolae (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking a board to put some article on their watchlist is very close to canvassing, and is one example of the use of this board that isn't particularly productive - it solves no problems. Other examples have already been given in the RfC discussions. If this board, as i infer from the discussions above, is supposed to be an editorial help in dispute resolution, rather than a wiki-project trying to police articles, then the board should have such a notification system. And i also think that such a notification system automagically will have the added benefit of actually steering the board towards this purpose. By engaging editors that actually work on fringe articles, to also engage in helping other articles and this board. As for your last point - i deliberately put conceal in scare-quotes, since it is not hidden by other than obscurity, and it is the obscurity that the notifications are supposed to help with. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me what 86* was canvasing for? Looks to me like 86* was trying to bring more openness to the page in question, rather than it being 'concealed' - for it to be less obscured, but that can't be it because then it would be a good thing, right?  There does seem to be some confusion about what the function of this board is.  As defined at the top of the page (rather than infer it, go look for yourself): 1) Editors may seek advice on whether or not a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience); 2) Questions related to articles on fringe theories may be answered here; 3) Report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories.  It would seem that #3 is exactly what you are characterizing as 'canvasing', as 'policing'.  If you don't think this is appropriate, the solution is to propose it be removed from the purview of the noticeboard, not to promote a proposal to add a suggestion that if one does 'canvas', and if this unexpectedly leads to a discussion, and if that discussion ends up lasting for more than a day, then one should think about telling people, with the hope that goodness and light will break out in this dank evil place and nobody will canvas any more. It is like having a problem with the way a maitre d' seats people at a restaurant and addressing it with the proposal that a waiter should think about including an after-dinner mint when bringing your desert. Agricolae (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Double standard?
I note that Dmcq has not practiced what he preaches... he neglected to leave a courtesy notice about this current RFC discussion at the talk page for WP:FRINGE, which is exactly the sort of thing he is complaining about, and thinks should be done. That policy page is, after all, where many editors who would be "interested" in this discussion are likely to be found. Personally, I don't think it is needed (the editors there do tend to follow this page), but it does show that his concern is selective. He wants everyone else to do something he does not think to do himself. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I put the RfC on the list for people interested in policy RfCs as directed at WP:RfC and as you say I assumed everyone directly interested in WP:FRINGE would have this page on their watchlist. What would you say about me advertising this on the Village Pump as well?, if I had put it on the talk page of FRINGE I would have put it on a few other places like that too. Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * After putting down Blockinblox for his reliance on fallacies, it'd be pretty hypocritical of me not to point this out as a tu quoque argument. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Tu_quoque. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I put this on the appropriate RfC lists for people interested in such things as directed by WP:RfC. You did not put an author with seven books listed in their article on the deletions list for authors at Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) as prompted by WP:AfD and said about it "It's perfectly acceptable to inform people on the FTN noticeboard as this is a way of centrally informing people (it's the primary board for dealing with undue and fringe material), it is not canvassing, the board isn't partisan, it simply informs a large group of interested editors (you can add FTN to your watchlist and be one of these interested editors). It's not put on other boards because there are no other relevant boards except maybe BLPN". You didn't inform BLPN either. Since in this case you seem instead to think that the lists given in WP:RfC are inadequate I shall go ahead and list this in WT:FRINGE, WT:NPOV, Wp:NPOVN and WP:VPP as well. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the Bernie Siegel to any boards, FTN or other, or lists etc (with lists I was not sure of the mechanism for doing so). I don't see why you are criticizing me for not adding something which is optional and is not listed in the WP:AFD instructions from what I can see. So please stop inferring stuff from something which I didn't even bring to this board and has no relation to this RfC. I also didn't comment by saying your listing was inadequate, as it happens I do not have an issue with it, I was pointing out that the argument is not always fallacious, it seems once again you are being WP:POINTY by going over the top to make a point by posting on tonnes of boards. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * An uninvolved editor at the AfD said it looked like canvassing with 86.** IP immediately sticking it on the FTN and neither of you doing anything about informing anyone else, and that was your reply. For the advice for AfDs see AFD. For the advice for an RfC see RfC. Now I have informed more people like you said you accuse me of being WP:POINTY. Which of the FRINGE NPOV NPOVN or VPP notifications are over the top? Dmcq (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A person may have thought it was canvassing but that is irrelevant as it was not canvassing. If you wish to accuse someone of canvassing without substantiating it take it to ANI or else I suggest you drop the issue. In what world is someone who was involved in the AfD discussion and who voted "uninvolved"? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This "No problem with posting on the Fringe Theories NB, lots of concern with posting only on the Fringe Theories NB which targets a specific group of editors, which defines canvassing. I've posted on the BLP/NB and RS/NB. I have no attachment to this article at all, but this should be dealt with properly" is what I mean by uninvolved here. It isn't as strong as what WP:UNINVOLVED for an admin means but it hardly qualifies as someone with a strong interest one way or the other. Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Have now added a notification at WT:WikiProject Rational Skepticism as well, seems a reasonable source of interest. Perhaps I should add to the Astrology, Occult and suchlike project talk pages too? Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, IRWolfie-, I just don't see this fitting that example. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What? You disagree with a fellow FTN Cabal Member? Have you lost your connection to Our Hive Mind? : ) -LuckyLouie (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Could anyone kindly give me an explanation as to the origin of the usage of the term "FRINGE"?
 * Would I be incorrect in assuming that it is derived from the 70s phrase "LUNATIC FRINGE"?
 * Would I be incorrect in assuming that the term was originally a disparaging one?
 * Would I be incorrect in assuming that choice of such a term incorporates an inherent Point-of-View? I.E. it is highly subjective?
 * Would I be incorrect to state that, in any major controversy where people are roughly divided 50-50 into two opposing camps, one can usually find people on BOTH sides each loudly accusing the other side of being the "FRINGE", or "LUNATIC FRINGE"?
 * Thank you in advance for your explanations, they will help me to understand what's supposed to be going on here. Blockinblox (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, a discussion questioning the basis of a Wikipedia guideline is best held on the Talk page of that guideline, in this case Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, BLockinblox's dislike of FTN go back over 3 years, see User talk:Blockinblox. An old edit summary of his/hers: "Wikipedia's ominous, behind-the scenes "fringe" project is watching!" Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there's nothing happening over there and all the discussion is taking place here, so now I really feel like the Turkish Astronomer... But to continue, it seems the word FRINGE is at best a synonym for margin, but if we were to call this WP:MARGIN it might seem to some like what goes on here is all about marginalizing. And of course there are no margins on a globe, only on a flat view of the world.Blockinblox (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to get the word "fringe" redefined on Wikipedia, the WP:FRINGE guideline page is the logical place to start. This Noticeboard cannot change policy guidelines. As for this RfC, I had no idea this issue was a three year old battle. I'm not sure you can put an entire noticeboard on trial. If you wish to call attention to the conduct of individual users, you might try taking your case to AN/I or maybe pursue a request for arbitration where you can provide diffs of exactly who did what. Otherwise, it's just blowing off steam in front of an audience. It may feel therapeutic, but do it long enough and people will tend to get pissed off. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not too surprised you would want to rummage for comments I made when I was four years younger, but that's okay - I have nothing to hide from anyone. I was actually only looking for an explanation and answers to the specific questions I have posed (as long as we are discussing the true purpose of FTN), as I stated up front - but once again, splendid job of redefining my intentions for me. Still rather not answer those questions that are too tough, but at least if we can't see them, then maybe they'll go away because therefore they can't see us, eh? But, if I manage to expose this process to a few more open minded people, then I will have considered my efforts a success, right? Blockinblox (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Policy RfC?
How is this a policy RfC? This is a specific proposal for just one noticeboard - which is one of the reasons I object to it as it singles this board out in a way I don't see as reasonable as there are many similar boards where articles and editors are discussed without notification. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained why above and I don't think a long list of things so every single different noticeboard is covered without distinguishing between them is a good idea. There is no reason anyone should feel offended for being asked to consider notifying people if something major about an article they are interested in is going on. People stick articles on their watchlist ifthey are interested and putting a note on the talk page is the normal way of informing such editors. As WP:RfC says "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input". If the people interested in policy and registered as being willing to give advcie on RfCs aren't a good target for an RfC about something like this then who exactly is? Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way I did look around for some policy or guidelines about noticeboards but did not find any. Perhaps such a policy or guideline would be reasonable if people really feel that putting something into an individual noticeboard is picking on them personally. It isn't the sort of thing that naturally occurs to me, I tend to just consider how something would improve the articles. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On the business of 'Double standards' which Blueboard accused me of in the previous section, I just put the RfC on a couple of lists for people interested in RfCs rather than stuck notices everywhere I thought that there were people with an interest in this as I felt that I really ought to be notifying projects like Astrology as well if I put in special notices to FRINGE and rational scepticism, but if I did that there would be immediate accusations of canvassing which I could see the point of too. So the easiest way was just to inform the straightforward ones WP:RfC prompted. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close
It's a bit obvious that consensus is firmly against this proposal and at this point the discussion is mostly argumentative. Is there support for an early close? S Æ don talk 08:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I believe I suggested this a couple of days ago, before the discussion derailed again. WegianWarrior (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is obviously not going to be implemented in this manner. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The conclusion isn't in doubt, and this is only causing more strife. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The pixel to usefulness ratio is approaching infinity. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose What's the big hurry? The debate is still active, two of the four supports came in the last two days. It is hardly a case of WP:SNOW. I must admit I have felt the issues were not being dealt with properly and the aggro was over the top, but I normally try to avoid complaints as they take up time. I guess some place like ANI is the right place to go if you feel there is too much heat and too little light, perhaps some admin could issue a warning and quiet the discussion down. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As of now there is 13 !votes against and 4 !votes for... by your logic, should we simply let this circus run until there is more !votes in support than in opposition? Sounds almost pointy to me... WegianWarrior (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was saying was that most of the opposes came in very quickly and were probably from this noticeboard. RfCs are for also soliciting outside advice, as it says at the start of WP:RfC 'Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input'. Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I support it too, I was just waiting until everyone went hoarse. K2709 (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Pointless. 86.** IP (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I was going to boldly close but then I realized I have no idea how to close an RFC, can someone who knows how to do so do so? S Æ don talk  22:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about reading WP:RfC? Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about not being condescending? Since you obviously know how to do it why not help enforce consensus by doing so? S Æ don talk  23:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * how in the world does someone "enforce" consensus? (Note: this is more or less a facetious question, to those who are "irony impaired") — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 00:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was already stated how; by closing the RfC. (also facetious) IRWolfie- (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support There doesn't seem to be any consensus for a change and this discussion has passed its sell-by date. Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't a reasonable 'sell-by' date have been waited for? I don't see any need to wait the full period of the RfC but I'd have thought that if by tomorrow there wasn't any more input that would be fine for checking so you can do it with my support then. However don't you think there is something just even slightly thought provoking about proposing an early close while people were still contributing on a request for outside comments about a proposal that the noticeboard try a bit harder to get some outside input from interested editors when discussing things at length or calling for action. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. First of all, this RfC is malformed. It's on the wrong page. Secondly, an AN thread on the same topic was just closed, with a finding of no action being required against the noticeboard. Thirdly, it's been two weeks since you began this, and have only served to stifle any productive discussion by randomly attacking people. Any productive discussion will need to happen after some time, begun by someone who's not throwing random false accusations of fake wrongdoing everywhere. 86.** IP (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support close on April 1, as the responses indicate no consensus in favor of the proposal at this time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway: Support since there's really nothing going on here other than statements that contradict each other (at best) and some name calling. This obviously seems like the wrong venue for this sort of question (in hindsight), although I think that the central question is still worth addressing (in a much more general way, and hopefully with a much more constructive tone). — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
The article documents the claims of conspiracy proponents, but this gives them undue weight since they are a fringe position among historians. The article needs more balance. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually seems to be a pretty good catalogue of conspiracy theories. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll need to explain your concern a bit more clearly. Are you saying the entire article is undue weight? And Wikipedia is not concerned about "balance," but about maintaining a neutral point of view. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I only skimmed it, but the article only seems to explain the fringe viewpoints. I don't see where mainstream viewpoints are explained.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They're in there (search the phrase "Warren Commission" on the page), although not to the extent of section-by-section explanations such as seen in Moon landing conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, take a look at Oswald's marksmanship section, for example. There's a one sentence explanation of the Warrent Commission's finding and then a 5 sentence explanation of the conspiracy viewpoint.  The History Channel (or maybe Science or Discovery Channel) ran a two hour documentary where they had a sharp shooter fire off 3 accurate shots in the amount of time that that Oswald did.  Things like that should be explained in the article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find an 'official' link for the documentary, but here's a blog post about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy view (originated from author Craig Roberts in a book called 'Kill Zone') in the "Oswald's marksmanship" section is cited to conspiracy website called "Strike the root.com", definitely not a WP:RS. The best thing to do would be to find a more reliable secondary source for Robert's view, summarize it rather than employ dramatic quotes, and attribute it suitably (e.g. "According to author Craig Roberts..."). The way it's written now the conspiracy view sounds factual and somewhat conclusive. So, yes, there are some problem areas in the article. I think they could be resolved with better sourcing and more dispassionate writing rather than adding a bunch of rebuttal material. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reclaiming History almost certainly passes muster and is an excellent source for anybody wishing to debunk madcap Kennedy theories. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found reliable sources to improve the Oswald's marksmanship section to better explain the fringe view in relation to the main view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi has the exact references to the section in the Warren Comission which points out that Oswald was indeed a marines sharp-shooter and that other marksmen working for the Warren Commission were able to duplicate and improve over Oswald's performance using mobile targets. Not relevant I know, I guess I'm just geeking out on it all. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with those who believe that the article needs lots of work. There are too many assertions presented as fact and too many sources that are self-published or border on self-published (i.e. websites of prominent conspiracy theorists). If anyone cares to check my edit history in the article, they will see that I have attempted to start various sections with the official Warren Commission findings followed by the divergent views of conspiracy theorists, expressed in accordance with WP:RSOPINION (i.e. with attribution to clarify what is opinion). On this, could I get some more feedback as to whether the published works of conspiracy theorists considered reliable sources for their opinions? Location (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Writing neutral articles about fringe topics is very difficult. We need to be careful not to turn the article into a litany of "he said/she said" claims and debunkings.  Our primary job in such articles is to describe to our readers what it is that the conspiracy theorists believe... and while it is appropriate to also discuss what mainstream sources say about those beliefs, it is not our job to convince our readers that those beliefs are either true or untrue.  Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ehn. Yes, and no. Our job is to describe the CT's beliefs, but also to point out when it contradicts known facts or scientific reality. For things like the CIA-killed-Kennedy theory, there's not really anything to support or dispute it. Others, like claiming the Zapruder film was faked/altered are pretty clearly wrong. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 04:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical Elements in Platonic Solids
In the article platonic solid there's a rather bizarre final column in the table under combinitorial properties. I'm sure that some esoteric traiditon somewhere may have associated the solids with these "elements", however I fail to see the mathematical relevance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It was uncited, and the article on tetrahedron for instance didn't mention it at all, so I yanked it. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal from the maths section. I think that table was probably general and moved there. However it is not uncited, the full business is given in the history section and alluded to in the lead. It is from Plato's Timaeus, the chap who the solids were named after and there has been lots about that in other places. A search of the article or use of google can find or fix things like this fairly easily. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Iberogast
Not sure what to make of this: It's an mostly unsourced medical article about a herbalism topic which claims to be able to cure Irritable Bowel Syndrome and dyspepsia, however the references suggest that this formulation has only been studied on rats. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The MMID listing shows references to clinical studies, e.g., one cited in this article reviewing Gastroesophageal reflux disease treatments. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Per MEDRS - this is basically an advert. I've proposed deletion. 86.** IP (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

New Testament Christian Churches of America
Eyes needed. New user trying to POV push. Thanks! Be— —Critical 05:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The user appears to be trying to edit war, since it is a user being disruptive I would recommend bringing it to ANI if he continues to refuse to try and reach a consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

William A. Tiller
William A. Tiller, this page appears to be describing a relatively unknown physicist whose research seems to have only been cited in WP:FRINGE sources. Does not appear to be notable. I'm considering AFD prposal. Is this appropriate? --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The existence of many mainstream criticisms can help establish notability. Check if he meets WP:ACADEMIC. For the moment I've removed the Energy material as it seems undue as it is based purely on primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/William A. Tiller‎ 86.** IP (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since he's theoretically notable (but there still are no good sources found), I've stubbified. Watchlist this for now. 86.** IP (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Ghost Cop
This overly credulous article (which accepts the author's word that he consults on cold cases) couled use a skeptical eye or two. Phiwum (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The author didn't actually claim anything about cold cases, the information just wasn't in the source, so I assume it was just OR. I've tidied the article up and removed the copyright violation that was present; some text was directly copied from a (poor) source. The sourcing is generally pretty poor, it's possible he isn't notable but I haven't done a full search yet. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked google news, including the archives. I have friends with more coverage than him. Hell, I get slightly more coverage. 86.** IP (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it looks like the author may have been paid to write it. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Expewikiwriter and WP:AN. 86.** IP (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Osteopathy
Osteopathy seems to be very light on critical opinions and appears to repesent the issue as far more main-stream than this editor thought it was. Anyone have opinions on the article? 110.175.198.4 (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There might indeed be a NPOV issue here. As I understand the issue, mainstream medicine does not recognize the pholosophical principles of osteopathy. Osteopathy is considered to be a form of alternative medicine whose efficiacy has yet to be proven. I'd say that the article leads heavily towards a pro-osteopathy POV. I think the article would benefit from some reliable critical sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that osteopathic medicine in the United States has essentially evolved into a variety of mainstream medicine, with some schools and hospitals attached to major public universities, and (as that article notes) little continued use of osteopathic manipulative medicine. This may vary from country to country, as the existing osteopathy article and its sub-articles indicate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye. There's a definite America/Everywhere else divide on this one; it might be best to have a disambiguation page. 86.** IP (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not the case in the UK. It is regulated however I've heard GPs dismiss it as little more than an "expensive massage". Perhaps then I might say that the article probably shows the subject in a mainly US-centric bias. --Salimfadhley (talk)
 * I personally think that the divide is so major - In the U.S. there's very little difference from a G.P., in other parts of the world, it's a variant on quacky chiropractic cures - that it'll need some major care to neither belittle the more-or-less mainstream status in the U.S. (and Canada?), nor to make them sound too mainstream elsewhere.
 * Basically, around the turn of the 20th century, Osteopaths in America decided to enter the medical mainstream, gave up, so far as I'm aware, all the quackery, and are just trained in giving a good massage as well, which is arguably not necessarily that bad of thing. Elsewhere... not so much. 86.** IP (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jumping on the bandwagon, osteopaths in the US are basically doctors whose profession have a somewhat embarassing history of unscientific medicine (not in Canada, I think here they're "closer to their roots" so to speak). Their sole distinction from mainstream practitioners now is a slightly greater emphasis on manipulation of joints, bones and muscles.  Outside of the US they're very, very different from MDs, probably closer to chiropractors or naturopaths.  Might be worth having two pages, but definitely worth having a strong distinction between the US and the rest of the world.  Have fun sourcing that though  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In case anyone didn't notice the bluelink above, there is already a separate article entitled Osteopathic medicine in the United States.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

State of Fear‎
Can people add this to their watchlist? 86.** IP (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does not seem to be so bad. Do you have a spesific concern? --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to go into it too much, since they're pretty obviously done in good faith, but there's been a few questionable edits of late which had the effect of stripping criticism, now reverted, and it'd be good to have a few more eyes, in case they continue. 86.** IP (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Amit Goswami
Is this fellow notable? 86.** IP (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He appears to be one of the more prominent quantum flapdoodleologists - which probably means yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, something needs done with ther page, which limits criticism solely to external links. 86.** IP (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to see a pattern here: A number of otherwise non-notable scientists who become quantum-woo promotors. Their claim to notability is based on publications (mainly in their early life which are largely irrelivant to their current occupation), and a brief appearance in "What the Bleep". --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Monarch programming
Says it's a scientific method originated by a "dark priest of Babylonian cabal of the Illuminati", but the subject doesn't appear to be notable in any reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be trimming back the external links section; even a claim like that is almost enough to get it speedied. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Onuphrius
This article on a forest hermit contained a dubious claim about a gender change which was referenced to a photographer's blog and to a church website which is completely inaccessible. I've yanked it due to a complete absence of book hits, but if someone can find a legitimate hagiographic source I'm willing to reconsider. Anyway this was tagged as LGBT so there's likely to be pushback. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre denial
The article deals with fringe theories by denialists of the event, yet I feel that the article does not comply with WP:FRINGE by providing undue weight to these views. A large number of the sources were added from a previously deleted article, which was written by User:Arimasa aka Arimasa Kubo, someone who runs a denialist website in real life. Furthermore, a disproportionate number of the material derive from one single denialist, Shudo Higashinakano, who was successfully sued for libel over the event, even thought there are numerous schools of thought in Japan regarding the massacre. The "photographic anaylsis" section is the most troublesome, as it borderlines WP:OR.--PCPP (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nisim International
The usual cosmetics woo. But it was written by a paid editor (same one as wrote the Ghost Cop article above), so it may be best to judge notability carefully first. 86.** IP (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Iberogast again
It's been unprodded, since aparently one can't advertise products that have been around a while. So, I suppose the question is: is this salvageable, or shall we go to AfD? 86.** IP (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've applied my magic de-puffing powder to it, and reduced it to an encyclopaedic article - which is to say not much at all, after removing unsourced claims that it does anything useful, a list of ingredients that tells you nothing, and a huge collection of links to the manufacturer. Whether an AfD is merited I'll leave to others to judge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The last cite was also being incorrectly used (it is a search engine result). I have removed it, it appears to have been placed to give the impression that it has been validated; I don't know if it has or not but this source is not the correct one to show that. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed the unsourced medical claim. AfD is the best way to go. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it appears that this product is both notable and clinically effective [], and that ample sourcing exists for an article on it. Retracting my call for AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting messages claiming that this is proven to work, from human trials (in obscure natural health journals in German), and thus cannot be considered a fringe theory, but instead must be considered proven to work. Can someone with access to the necessary journals do a review? 86.** IP (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * While the analysis was over a relatively small number of pooled individuals (196 Iberogast, 592 total), it seems fine for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Kashmir
Editor adding fringe material here with dubious sources and dubious English. I've reverted twice, more being added, would like some help sourcing this properly. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mundane astrology
I think that at some point in the past this page had a WP:PARITY section or at the very least had a statement or two pointing out that astrology is not based in fact. At this point the page lacks any sort of criticism and presents astrology as if it were real. Might it be worth integrating the scientific evaluation section from the main astrology article? 24.9.28.228 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That would mean, if you are correct, that the Astrology article on Wikipedia and any related topics on Wikipedia would have to be destroyed because it presents Astrology "as if it were real?" If 'astrology' is not based in fact then what you are saying here is to destroy all the Wikipedia pages, even on fictional characters because they are not real? SEE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White. Of course, this is ridiculous because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I suggest if you are interested in an Parity article that you write one where you can state your case that Astrology is not real or based in fact. On Wikipedia, the Astrology article is real enough and is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Otherwise, your view on the page is entirely POV.Eagle Eye 22:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't appropriate for an encyclopedia and there's no reason not to have an article on it. Snow White is referred to as a fictional character and so it's ok, if Snow White were referred to as an actual person then we would have a problem.  The mundane astrology article presents astrology as if it were a real physical phenomenon and that's the issue. Saedon (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly, it looks to me to be nothing but a POV-fork of our existing Astrology article, with all of the criticism taken out: It should probably go for AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just what I was thinking. Would support delete if proposed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I considered an AFD as well but thought that maybe there actually was a difference between mundane and regular astrology. Going over it now I agree with ATG and would support as well. Saedon (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could argue that it is a subtopic: 'Western' astrology as applied to natural events, politics etc - but any policy-reflecting subtopic would have to follow Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience, and not present it as factual. If there are sources which can demonstrate that this is a genuine subtopic within astrology, we might do better to stubify the article, removing any claims to effectiveness, and other unsourced material (e.g. the 'Planets and areas of life' section, which lacks any inline sourcing), and balancing it by adding the appropriate material on pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll support either option. I don't care that much about this page, it barely gets any editing traffic and it just happened to be that I noticed a blog being used as a source by an editor who didn't seem to get the problem, but that issue seems over so I'm not gonna get too involved past this point. Saedon (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While the current article isn't great I think the article is salvageable. Whilst there are sourcing and OR issues I think these can be resolved by the removal of the relevant sections and a tightening up of the sourcing. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose the question is whether it's useful to salvage it - if the subject only has minor differences with standard astrology, we should merge; otherwise we're just making maintenance twice as difficult with no reader benefit. 86.** IP (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I could see how the page could be condensed into a single paragraph and merged into astrology. Should I request a merger?  S Æ don talk  22:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an AfD already in progress: []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks, didn't see that. S Æ don talk  22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For those not watching the AfD, it just closed with a finding of merge to Astrology. Anyone a little more expert at Astrology want to tackle that? 86.** IP (talk)
 * History_of_astrology is the more appropriate target, so I merged the material to there, with expansion encouraged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster
There are a number of estimations regarding the deaths resulting from the disaster. The WHO puts the number at 4,000 and is probably the most official account. The lead also includes estimates from a few Green and anti-nuclear groups that have releases reports estimating 25-200 thousand deaths. A recent Russian publication was translated in the New York Academy of Sciences. It was not peer reviewed by them and was just a straight translation. This publication has put the total deaths from the disaster at 985 000, a figure much higher than any previous estimates. It's methodology has been criticised by many scientists. Whether to include this in the lead has been discussed at the talk page and it has been described as Fringe by some participants. Nuclear is not my area of expertise so someone with more knowledge in this area can help decide how much weight this article should be given in the article, in particularly the lead. AIR corn (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Link to New York Academy of Sciences translation pdf
 * Some of the criticism
 * A positive review
 * The book also has its own Wikipedia article Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

Articles for deletion/Amit Goswami‎
For those interested. 86.** IP (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had been checking topics associated with the What the Bleep Do We Know!? movie. This topic seems to be a WP:FRINGE nexus. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/William A. Tiller (2nd nomination)
For those interested. 86.** IP (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The admin User:David_Eppstein closed it as speedy keep. He appears to have ignored that the arguments are actually substantially different in this AfD and is also ignoring my question on his talk page User_talk:David_Eppstein. He appears to have also decided to involve himself in the article now as well. I reverted a bold addition and created a talk page section outling my concern but User:David_Eppstein has reverted this and has stated on his own talk page that he will not discuss it further . It seems it will be necessary to take it to DRV since the arguments raised are substantially different from the first AfD so I don't see how speedy keep applies. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think DE did right in his close. The  keep was speedy because it came 1 week after an almost unanimous keep AfD.   This is a repeated  attempt to remove an article on someone who is a notable physicist because of his admittedly weird views on the paranormal. Weird though they are, it does not make less notable in his primary profession. I would expect a very similar rapid result at Deletion review. If an AfD were started 6 months from now, which does not require their permission, and would be a more reasonable course than deletion review,   I cannot imagine any other close than   keep.  DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll hold off the deletion review then, but it seems that the arguments were different. In the first AfD the lack of sources to make an article with was not commented on. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Nominator's statement from first nomination: "No good sources; he doesn't seem to reach basic standards of notability". Nominator's statement from second nomination: "... there don't seem to be sources for William A. Tiller ... Notability requires verifiable evidence". Looks like identical arguments to me. But, as several editors have said, if you are convinced there is a difference then DRV is the place to make your case. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States
People with to much time and little patience with superstition and the like may want to visit Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States. While I don't debate the validity of the category as such, many articles in it seem to be placed there without any support for it in the actual article, e.g. Boston Athenæum and USS Olympia (C-6). If the subject isn't notable for being reportedly haunted, and that aspect isn't discussed in the articlen then it shouldn't be in this category either.

Probably the same can be done with similar cats for other countries of course... Fram (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to assess the problem, I went through the Ns. Half of them needed removed. Wouldn't surprise me if this is representative. Agricolae (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been through some of the others: not as bad as half, but probably a quarter to a third. A large chunk of these seem to have been added by a single user in July-August 2011. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ...or maybe a couple of users. Take a look here starting on November 19. Some of these are OK; many are not. Also some sourcing to dubious fringey sites, which I haven't attempted to deal with on this pass. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

On using TV series for justifying these claims
Please consider Reliable sources/Noticeboard for discussion of a TV show as an authority on hauntings. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
a little worried that there seems to be an effort to remove the graphic showing most climate scientists agree global warming is happening from an article that's 95% quotes from climate change deniers. 86.** IP (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This page has long been a source of concern for me, since by it's very framing it gives undue weight to what is a minority view within climate science. The article gives very little impression of the standing or importance of these individuals within the science of climatology. Furthermore any finding this page would hardly be given the impression that these dissenters were a tiny minority within climatology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like there are significant questions on the article talk page about the accuracy and reliability of the chart, and that this is an attempt to bypass the usual content dispute resolution process through forum shopping. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sacred geometry
Anyone interested in this topic? Needs references, cleaning up, possibly expansion. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis
The AAH is still getting considerable traffic from new accounts. The latest issue, and one that should be addressed with more outside input, is the inclusion of a long laundry list of alleged "supporting claims" for the hypothesis. I recently first reorganized the material to juxtapose claims with rebuttals, then outright removed  The problems with including this list at all are two-fold: The thought process by proponents appears to be "we should tell both sides and let the reader decide". I think this is illegitimate, unduly promoting a viewpoint that is explicitly stated as not widely accepted by most scholars, ,. It produces a longer, sprawling, almost unreadable article with most of the content taking the form of "proponents say this but critics point out that they are wrong because of this, this, this, this and this." A short article that spends most of its time on history and reception rather than an ugly and ultimately zero-sum discussion seems far, far more appropriate. Many of the accounts supporting the idea are new, some focus almost solely on this article and very few appear to appreciate our content policies and guidelines such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Further community input would be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, it takes up a massive amount of space in the article, about 24,000 characters (see the diff here). This is far too much for a theory that's essentially dismissed by the paleoanthropological community.
 * Second, it takes the form of an ugly back-and-forth. Initially the list was separated into a "pro" and much longer "con" section (an approach discouraged by MOS:STRUCTURE).  The net result is three-fold; those issues that have actually attracted the attention of scholars are pretty thoroughly rebutted; those issue that are not rebutted (because real scientists have better things to do) linger and give undue weight to the idea that the AAH actually has merit (when really it's just ignored); and third, there is a lot of incentive for people to use primary sources that explicitly don't discuss the AAH to rebut the claims (see for instance, citations 1 and 2, 45, 46 and 47 in the pre-trimmed version).
 * The AAH is getting considerable traffic from several accounts, some old some new. What WLU refers to as the "long laundry list" has been present in the article literally for years, until arbitrarily removed by him 14:33, 28 March 2012, that is, two days ago. The list contains arguments that have been advanced in support of the AAH, together with rebuttals. Nobody objects to reasonable reorganisation of this material, but WLU has decided it must be omitted altogether.
 * He tells us that " 'we should tell both sides and let the reader decide'... is illegitimate, unduly promoting a viewpoint that is explicitly stated as not widely accepted". This is quite funny, as it amounts to an admission that he has lost the argument. In fact there are plenty of good reasons why the AAH is not accepted, and of course they must be presented. Rebuttals can hardly be presented, however, if there is no credible statement of what they are intended to rebut. WLU's choice of "a short article that spends most of its time on history and reception" would mean that anyone who came across the AAH elsewhere and turned to wikipedia for enlightenment would conclude that the mainstream attitude was blind unreasoning hostility. Thus WLU's overt POV-pushing on this issue would have exactly the opposite effect to what he intends. If I merely wanted to advance support for the AAH (which I don't) I'd be happy to let WLU have his way. But I rather wish to defend the principle of NPOV on wikipedia, wherever that leads, so I'm asking for support on that basis. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Longevity never argues for continued presence, and I have been complaining about that list for a very long time February 2012, August 2010, September 2009.
 * The reasons why the AAH is rejected is presented, just not at the detail of individual features. It's comparative anatomy, there are many explanations for the appearance of specific traits (most are better accepted than "aquatic adaptation"), all traits must be explained twice (i.e. lacks parsimony), Morgan's status as an outsider, and more.  There's actually many, many reasons why the AAH isn't accepted, but right now, in this version, they are presented quite generally.
 * If the page reads as hostile then the solution is rewording; it's not to go into incredible detail on each claim-counterclaim. Pages like creationism and intelligent design don't look like the index to creationist claims on talk.origins, and they shouldn't.  The AAH page shouldn't look like Jim Moore's Sink or Swim page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that the AAH has been rejected by science is not supported by the relevant literature, and certainly the claim that there are better explanations for how humans evolved is just empty rhetoric unless those explanations can be pointed to or at least articulated. Of course the AAH is not universally accepted, but that does not mean it has no support or that it should be compared with Creationism. Hypotheses remain valid until data, observation or experiment weaken their claims. The AAH remains a valid scientific hypothesis (despite the shrill protests of some editors). In fact Australia’s most respected expert on human evolution, Colin Groves, professor of biological anthropology at Australia’s leading university (ANU), is on record as stating that the idea has a sophistication that requires it to be considered within the wider range of theories on human evolution. Phillip Tobias, perhaps the most respected expert on human evolution in the world, has also supported the idea being taken seriously and has recently contributed to a book on the subject which also included contributions from Elaine Morgan, Marc Verhaegen, Michael Crawford, and many other experts from leading and well respected institutions from all over the world (including the American Museum of Natural History). Incredibly, this book has been deemed an unreliable source (because it was not peer reviewed – but what book is?) by the very same editor who then insisted that polemic websites and unreferenced, unacademic and un-peer-reviewed blogs were reliable sources (because they were critical of the AAH). In other words, this accusation of extreme fringe (and a comparison to Creationism) is being used to stack the cards against the AAH, so that readers are unlikely to have an unbiased view of it. I haven’t seen anyone argue that criticism of the AAH should not be included in the article, but the idea that the article should paint the hypothesis in the very worst light goes against the very principles of Wikipedia I would have thought. A good starting point for balance in this article would be to include reference to the most recent scholarly work, and to get rid of the web-blogs and polemic websites. The claim of fringe science is unsupported by the relevant data (there is no universally accepted alternative to the AAH) and therefore we should instead relay to readers what has been written in reliable sources both for and against the AAH. Simple, no?Yloopx (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In its current form the page reads as utterly hostile. WLU says "There's actually many, many reasons why the AAH isn't accepted, but right now, in this version, they are presented quite generally". The reasons are not actually being credibly presented at all. There's just a procession of adverse comments, much of it unsourced, or from assorted scientists and quasi-scientists, many failing the criteria for WP:RS. The reader is deprived of the most elementary information as to what AAH advocates base their case on, such as bipedalism, skin and breath control. If I came to it as a completely uninformed reader, I'd recognise it as a hatchet job, feel disappointed that wikipedia had again fallen victim to the thought police, and go and buy Morgan's books so as to find out what the case was. The sad thing about such frenzied POV-pushing is that it's so counter-productive. Readers of any intelligence recognise a rant when they see one. It's wikipedia itself that's the loser. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What adverse comments are unsourced? Keeping in mind the lead doesn't require sources, so I'm specifically asking about unsourced comments in the body.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph "The hypothesis", there's "but generally the evidence provided for the AAH is equally well accounted for by land-based adaptations without needing to posit an aquatic phase of human development", where "equally well" is probably an exaggeration of the views even of the most determined of the critics. For nearly all the adaptations concerned there is no single agreed alternative theory. Critics can honestly say that they're not convinced by AAH, but they can't honestly say that they've united on a better story. The official line can be summed up as "we don't know", which may well be the right answer to give now, but it leaves the door to AAH open.
 * By "quasi-scientists" I particularly meant scientists with no qualifications in relevant disciplines, such as Ellen White, who freely admits in her paper to knowing next to nothing about the AAH itself. And Jim Moore obviously.
 * And by "failing the criteria for WP:RS" I meant failing the criteria for WP:RS. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When WLU above says "If the page reads as hostile then the solution is rewording", is he going to assist in doing that, or cooperate with others who wish to do so? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with WLU. Rhetoric about "balance" and "fairness" is always advanced as a reason to give cranks, quacks and loonies a soapbox to stand on and proclaim their nonsense all the louder. It's fallacious reasoning, since ignoring obvious total crap is already the fair and balanced thing to do, per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  06:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So you agree with gutting the article with the comment removing most of the specific claims and rebuttals leaving only general theoretical issues, so it says practically nothing about what the hypothesis claimed but has a whole lot on people saying in general they don't think it is right with no details. Why do people keep trying to remove articles like this altogether instead of trying to develop them? The article does not now say anything of any substance about why anybody would have considered it in the first place. That is just simply wrong for something calling itself an encyclopaedia. The aquatic ape hypothesis is notable. It should be described properly. That is primary. That it is not mainstream and the reasons for it not being accepted generally are secondary. Fringe is a guideline, not a policy, NPOV is the policy of which fringe is a part of undue. How is it reasonable as far as undue is concerned to remove practically every single thing that a notable topic was about except its title and just report that a whole lot of people who disagree with it? Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a series of claims and rebuttals sounds like a poor way to structure an article. The article already has a description of the hypothesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad structure is a reason to try and structure better, not to delete whole-scale. As far as I can see the article does not list a single thing the hypothesis was supposed to explain. At least Conservapedia give some details about Relativity even if they say it has been repeatedly contradicted by experiment. And amazingly they actually give more details about what the aquatic ape hypothesis was about in three short paragraphs than we do in the whole article we have. I think the attitude here towards things people don't like is extremely harmful to Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have put my ideas about this sort of thing at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion currently ongoing on the AAT's Talk page concerning how to improve it. Given how strongly you feel about the presentation of the Aquatic Ape Theory on Wikipedia, perhaps it would behoove you to participate in that discussion, rather than discussions here or elsewhere that are not likely to improve the article. Agricolae (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern was with the environment for editing, not that particular article which anyway is not one I'm particularly interested in. Why should I try building on a swamp instead of trying to drain it? Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You appear to be offering unconstructive criticism. You haven't given a solid suggestion of what you think should be done. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Develop cited and notable content rather than deleting it. Please lay off the 'you' thanks. Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fringe theories should be suppressed (by which I assume you mean "don't describe the theory in detail"). That's why they're fringe theories. Wikipedia shouldn't be making fringe theories appear more prominent, popular, or unjustly persecuted, we should be representing them as non-accepted. Most of the focus should be on cultural, historical and societal aspects, since fringe theories by definition lack mainstream support and accepted factual content. The notable parts of fringe theories are the cultural impacts, not their flawed factual contents. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that aquatic ape hypothesis article has had any details well and truly suppressed. Your conception of an encyclopaedia differs considerably from mine. Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think wikipedia should make a case for a theory? How much detail should we include for a theory, particularly when the last line of the lead of the article pretty much has to be "but most scientists do not accept the theory"?  I see 24,000 characters describing nitty-gritty claims of a non-accepted hypothesis as a waste of time and a form of undue weight because even if every claim has a counter-claim, the overall impression is that there is a lot of support and debate for the idea.  That's false in the case of the AAH, since there is almost no debate within the appropriate scholarly community.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) The question of whether this theory is notable seems independent of the question of whether it is correct. If we are to have an article on the theory at all, it would be perverse not to give some account what the theory actually says. An accurate and objective summary of a theory is not, in itself, endorsement. We should of course also report what its status is within current mainstream science. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How do we deal with a theory that is notable (i.e. popular attention) but seen as largely incorrect? Isn't that what WP:FRINGE is meant to do?  Also, the theory is there (it says that the AAH is about water being a driver of human evolution), it's the lines of evidence that (allegedly, but don't actually) support the theory that are now missing.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cusop Dingle is exactly right. Let us assume that the mainstream is of the opinion that a given theory is total and utter fiction... OK... so let us structure the article the way we do for articles about works of fiction... here is how we typically structure such articles:
 * After a brief introduction, one the central sections of such articles is usually a solid summary or outline of the basic plot of the work. The better articles are fairly thorough... and yet also avoid going into exhaustive plot detail (no need to get bogged down in trivia).  The article then moves on to a new section to discuss how the work of fiction was received by literary critics.
 * We can (and should) use the same structure in articles about notable Fringe theories... first we should give a solid "plot" summary (a broad outline of what proponents of the theory say)... we should be thorough, but avoid getting bogged down in trivia and detail... and then we should move on to discussing what the critics say about it.
 * Remember that our goal is to explain 1) what the theory is and 2) how it was received... in that order.  It is not our job to convince the reader that the theory is accurate, nor is it our job to convince the reader that the theory is inaccurate.  We let others (our sources) do that.   Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I find WLU's views difficult to understand here. Of course we should describe a fringe theory if it is notable enough to be included here. If the theory is not of the batshit-looney variety of fringe, then this should include those arguments that have been advanced to support it. We have to understand why people have found arguments plausible - even those that have been completely disproven. After all we can't effectively include rebuttals unless we know what is being rebutted. This is - or should be - what we do with obsolete theories such as phlogiston, miasma and Luminiferous aether. We should also look at the cultural context. For example we are told that the AA hypothesis is seen as "feminist", but learn next to nothing of why that is. Knowledge of details such as this helps to explain why some theories become popular with some groups, and why that might think their rejection is ideologically motivated. Paul B (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, when the theory is seen as wrong, isn't an accurate summary of necessity one that conveys how wrong the theory is? Isn't an appropriate article one in which the neutral reader leaves the page with a sense that the theory is unsupported?
 * Paul, I've expanded my comment above which hopefully makes things a bit clearer. The theory is simple, the degree of detail for the lines of evidence are a more complex question.  Part of my frustration is because I was generally the editor who had to deal with every new claim put onto the page.  Unlike phlogiston, miasma and aether, the AAH still has active proponents who keep moving the goalposts (as in "sure, you've debunked this point, but you didn't debunk this new one!!!) all without any change of opinion or further acceptance from the mainstream scientists.  I've suggested on the talk page instead a limited list of the more prominent claims (3-4 of them) hoping to build consensus that including a small number of rebutted claims is adequate but there is general agreement to prevent the list from expanding further (unless there's an indication it's gaining traction among mainstream scientists).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Koolakamba
This article on a legendary chimp-gorilla hybrid could use some attention from editors on this noticeboard. This might be a helpful source. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Shiatsu (again)
This article seems to have acquired an unsourced history and chronology (which seems to be peppered with POV US-centric trivia). The references are dismal, all but a few skeptical links fail WP:MEDRS. Most statements are not sufficiently referenced. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, this was also posted to NOR/N. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Problems with this article are mainly due to the disruptive influence of one single-subject editor who seems to be intent on using the article for advocacy. I wonder if FT/N readers might be willing to review the article history & talk pages and advise whether some other measures may now be warranted. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I must disagree on a minor point; I don't think the problem is a single editor, per se. What usually happens is that an advocate appears, makes a few fringey edits, perhaps advertises their own shiatsu business/method, then after getting reverted a few times they go away. 1-2 months later, some new advocate appears; rinse and repeat. bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Contrast shower
Just reverted a whole ton of addition of claims from alt-med providers and the like. Anyone want to see if we can do anything with the sources to back up the "it is claimed that" bits? Really, this article should've been deleted last AfD... 86.** IP (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Skumin syndrome
The "multiple issues" tag is well-used here. The article is nonsensical in several places, and seems to mix together reliable sources which may not support what they are being used to reference with some clearly non-rs fringe sources. I think it would particularly benefit from the attention of any editors with a medical background or Russian language skills. a13ean (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, Vitruvian Man in the background of Skumin's portrait is never a good sign. At the very least this needs to be reorganized, never mind the fringe issues. BTW the article on artificial heart valves is probably contaminated with this (judging from the references) and at any rate needs some brutal copyediting. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I spent a while trying to go through the original sources to see if there was anything worth keeping in an article. I've since given up and made an AfD.  I'll take a look at the artificial heart valves article next.  a13ean (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dvorak keyboard
Lots of promotion; isn't much of this debunked, e.g. ? 86.** IP (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ica Stones
Once again there is an attempt to use material from the creationist Don Patton (a diploma mill PhD) in this article. Not just the YouTube video, but the rest that looks cited actually comes from this self-published web page.. The IP address has ignored my post on their talk page. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the IP has replied at my talk page. The PhD is really irrelevant, as having a PhD in education wouldn't make him a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops again, the web page is Dennis Swift's, another creationist that we've discussed before I think at RSN. Self-published, not a reliable source. There's a reference to Charroux (mispelled) but no page number so it can't be verified and would have to be attributed if we actually knew what it says, but I don't think the IP has actually read the sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I added WP:PARITY and refs to the "Impact" section of the article if anyone would like to check my wording and make sure it sounds good. S Æ don talk 02:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Going down the rabbit hole
Instructions for play: Start at a mainstream Alternative medicine article. Open up the strangest-sounding and foreign-language "See also" links. Repeat as needed, but you'll usually find something awful within a few clicks. Continue digging until you lose faith in humanity.

There is a serious point to this: here's what I found, what do we do now? Unsure how to move forwards
 * Equine Shiatsu Seems awfully fringy, and I suspect it was mainly written to get in those external links. Prod, afd, or merge?
 * I just proposed deletion on this one. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Prodded
 * Tokujiro Namikoshi Founder of Shiatsu. No references.
 * Tui na Unreferenced fairly crap article. Notable?
 * Zen Shiatsu another unreferenced piece of crap povfork.
 * Meridian Shiatsu Unreferenced for the last year; I've prodded it.
 * Movement Shiatsu "Bill Palmer's published research into child development claims that the primitive actions through which infants learn to move and coordinate their body develop along the lines of the Six Divisions, which are traditional combinations of upper body and lower body meridians in Traditional Chinese Medicine" (prodded)
 * Tadashi Izawa Unreferenced biography. Prodded.

Looking at Tui na as our next point, we get to Naprapathy, and from there to one of the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia, Naprapathtreatments. Ugh. We also get Nihon Kaifuku Anma (prodded crap).

Varma Kalai... Getting pretty bad, with it being created BY THE GODS THEMSELVES.

Gua Sha... has a section on how it's important to learn the difference between scraping open your child's skin for medicine, and for child abuse, and how doctors must avoid crying abuse when people use this on their children. I'm done. 86.** IP (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Two can play at this game --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * George de la Warr
 * Postural Integration
 * Watsu (funny how Shiatsu seems to be another Fringe nexus!)
 * Breema a non-notable yoga variant
 * Metamorphic Technique a non-notable reflexology variant
 * Chromotherapy like aromatherapy but with colours! yay!
 * Colorpuncture an ultra-fringe combination of colour-therapy and accupuncture!

I found an easier way to play this game. Start with the "what links" page for a major alt-med article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I just did some cleanup in those links but keep em' coming. S Æ don talk 01:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Physical factors affecting microbial life
Over at the new article Physical factors affecting microbial life, is laudably creating a decent article with sections on exactly what the title of the article states. But curiously the first sentence states, "A large number of medical procedures aim to control or destroy microbial pathogens by the use of drugs or chemicals, whether allopathic or homeopathic." No further mention of homeopathy is made in the article, though it is possible he intends to expand on that (I don't see how, but that's another point). I initially removed the "allopathic or homeopathic" language as superfluous because the sentence originally stated this was an aim of conventional medical procedures, a word now purged from the lead, and was reverted. I tried again and was reverted again, this time being accused of provocative editing: diff. I don't see how homeopathy has anything to do with physical factors affecting microbial life. Rkitko (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article's editor seems very short tempered on this topic. I've tried to point him to policy pages. Paul B (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please confine discussions of this article to the article's talk page, so that interested parties can participate. Paul venter (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not try to confine discussions which are a legitimate use of this board for the function for which it was designed. Paul B (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Being that homeopathy doesn't actually kill microbial life (unless we're talking about microbial life that dies in water) I'd say there's no reason to mention it, especially if there's nothing mentioned about it later in the article (but it likely doesn't warrant any mention). The term "allopathic" shouldn't be used either as it is a POV term coined by the founder of homeopathy.  Not that this really matters since there's no point mentioning it if there's nothing to which to contrast it, but for future reference a better terminology is "science based medicine" or "evidence based medicine."
 * Also, this board exists specifically to solicit opinion on fringe topics so Rkitko made no mistake in bring this to a wider audience. S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  00:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the superb response, all. Your replies and engagement in a discussion with Paul V were much more than I had time to handle at that moment. My hope is that Paul V is now aware of the relevant policies and guidelines from your comments. Much appreciated! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ēostre
This article on a probably fictitious Germanic goddess is caught between claiming that there was such a goddess and the admission that it was probably all accidentally made up by Bede, with further assistance from Jacob Grimm. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Bennewitz
Did you know that "Air Force Counterintelligence" is behind a "disinformation campaign" to suppress the evidence of a UFO-related somethingorother? Neither did I! - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed some of the crap, I found a citation for some of the rest. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the page still need tags or is the problem fixed with what you removed? I don't see anything in particular that I would dispute, unless I'm missing something.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  00:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Much improved. Untagged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Leonora Piper
- An SPI edit-warring to marginalize mainstream view, add undue weight to fringe view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean WP:SPA. And watch out for 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I meant SPA. I was probably thinking of the other Sao Paulo IPs I'd seen making similar edits to other articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

World Healing Day
The main website for this seems to be. Some of it seems to be promoting Tai Chi. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggsting that Tai Chi is a fringe theory? How so? Is psychoanalysis also a fringe theory? Meditation? — GabeMc (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All three are within the scope of this board. And the article is simple promotion of an event and needs to be rewritten or deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was created by a now blocked spam account: User_talk:Worldtaichiday, I have wikified the content but I don't think it's notable (google doesn't give me anything, no google news either). I've prodded it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Biochemic cell salts
Biochemic cell salts - more pseudoscientific woo... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've AfD'd it. The ratio of warning tags to actual words of content was rapidly approaching parity, and without mainstream coverage or a WP:MEDRS on whether or not the stuff actually works, it's simply impossible to give it neutral, encyclopædic coverage. bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, this is not AfD material. I find the stub quite neutral, and though virtually lacking in citations, its content is not such that requires deletion. — GabeMc (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what leads to deletion, it was the lack of the existence of reliable sources that caused it to be deleted; there article had no potential of being reliably sourced ever. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of RSs that could have been used to improve the sourcing of the article. Look here. — GabeMc (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at these during the AfD, if you look at the individual books I think you will conclude that none are reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Manuka Honey
I'm concerned that some of the sources used are non WP:MEDRS compliant. FYI, This is an expensive type of honey which has been shown to display some antibacterial properties in in-vitro studies. As I understand things, Manuka Honey has not been shown effective against any medical condition, however it is often marketed by health-food shops as a cure-all. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks pretty balanced now after changes by Agricolae. Added to my watchlist since it appears to have a history of making undue medical claims IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * On a closer examination there are still major issues with the undue nature of text. I am looking at the studies and will refactor the text accordingly. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't even mention its most important property, which is its remarkable flavor. (That's OR, unfortunately.) Looie496 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree - it's really tasty stuff. It's such a shame that proponents resort to nonsensical claims concerning this delightful product. Speaking of nonsensical claims: Health effects of honey. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to fix the atrocious description of the science and some basic structure, not the UNDUE and MEDRS issues, per se. I did just add a little about the taste of it, but the sources aren't the best (one self-published, the other from someone calling themselves 'Crescent Dragonwagon').  Can I suggest we move this to the article's Talk page or someone will be yapping about us conspiring behind people's backs again?  Agricolae (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Root race
Root race article needs to be sorted out. It is presented as factual and there are no third party references, the concept is little known outside of Theosophy, so an overview or criticism will be hard to find. Martin Gardner did a couple of pages on the root race concept in his book on pseudoscience but that is about it. As it currently stands the Root race article is only using Theosophist sources mainly from Powell or Leadbeater. I noticed the root race concept is already discussed in detail on the Blavatsky article, so I was thinking a redirect. But any opinions needed. GreenUniverse (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: this article has now been replaced by a redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Geographical centre of Earth
This seems like a nonsense / crank idea: An article about finding the "centre of the earth" on a two dimensional map. Sure we can find the geometric centre of any 2d shape, but does this acquire new notability when applied to a map? I suspect not --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like original research due to the creator of the article. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to wonder... if you use a map that places North America on the right side instead of the left (so that the map centers on the Pacific, as opposed to the Atlantic... as seen here) won't the geographical "center of the earth" change? I would certainly assume it would, but I could be wrong. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is mathematically possible to identify a spot on the globe which minimizes the average surface distance to every land point, and I would imagine that said point is roughly where indicated. That said, the articles on the various centers of various countries and continents show a lot of disputation; the USA stands as one of the few undisputed cases. Also, most of the centers are actually centroids, and of necessity there is a second centroid on a globe opposite the usual case, because dividing "lines" are great circles. Anyway, given the degree of documentation for such centers in general, I don't think there is a problem with notability, but the Great Pyramid thing probably can be clipped out entirely as irrelevant fringiness. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (Edit-conflict)This is basically how we (human) defined the map (probably as per international date line?). So this centre will change as our defined map changes. There are bunch of such articles at Geographical centre. I would suggest keep only if it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Abhishikt (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The only mathematical sense I can make of the concept is the following: a probability measure (in this case the probability that a given surface point is on land) on a solid spherical and convex body (the earth) defines unambiguously a point in the interior of the sphere. That, however, is only marginally more meaningful than the article itself. Far more significantly all the references are either outdated, unreliable or self-published. The first reference is to a book written in the late 19th century by the Scottish astronomer royal who made statements about pyramidology that earned him a bad reputation amongst egyptologists. The second is to an article in a creationist blog which is not by the claimed author (the blog is run by the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas and discusses unpublished documents of the ICR). The rest concerns unreviewed claims of Holger Isenberg, who might or might not have some connection with the creator of the article. He appears to run a site called "Mars News."  So dubious mathematics and dubious sources. I do not see how the article can survive in any form whatsoever. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * By some "odd" coincidence, the main author of article happens to share the name of one of individuals who calculated point. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 13:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * With regard to the quality of the math, it doesn't matter. It could be complete nonsense as long as it's notable nonsense.  In this case, the original 1864 calculation may be notable, if it earned a notable person a bad reputation among his scholarly peers, but this might be a case where the converse of WP:ONEEVENT applies - that the calculation is only notable as it relates to the author and his career and not on its own.  All of them since then are not.  An ICR source talking about an ICR Technical monograph is not independent coverage.   A calculation that can only be found via the Way Back Machine is certainly not notable, and a calculation that has only been self published by a fringe author on his own web page doesn't qualify either, and the use of both are WP:OR violations.  That the author appears to be identical to the editor only adds {{WP:COI]] concern to an already hopeless scenario. Agricolae (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We'd be right to keep the article on this nonsense if it were notable nonsense, but check the sources the guy uses. Pure shit, top to bottom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * {{ec}} No, regarding the claimed "mathematical content": WP cannot publish nonsense mathematics, no matter how individual editors wikilawyer. But, regardless of that, the sources are the problem here. Mathsci (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia can. Wikipedia contains all kinds of nonsense - just look at all of the pages on astrology. Agricolae (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)  Just to amplify this, there is a town in Kansas that has been broadly reported in the national media as the Geographic center of the contiguous United States.  That this was determined by balancing a cardboard cutout of a two dimensional map on a pencil point and hence has little mathematical accuracy does not prevent its presentation as a cultural meme.  Agricolae (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed out the unreliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It also seems a bit arbitrary, the article even states that "Using a Pacific-centric map (more commonly used in Japan, China and Australia) moves the "center" off-center", so it's all a matter of choosing which map you choose and what you have on the left and right etc. I somehow doubt this is notable though I haven't checked. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't matter, unless you are using an actual map rather than plotting on the surface of a sphere - the answer to the question of the point or points representing the shortest distance from all points of land on the surface of a sphere should not change depending on how one chooses to represent that sphere in two dimensions. The claim that it does change suggests that the whole technique is flawed - certainly the unreferenced claim in the figure legend is flawed.  Agricolae (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What I gather from the article is that they are basically saying that in the european form of the map (presumably with some standard projection) used if you gave all the land equal weight, and then tried to balance it somewhere then it would balance at pyramid in Giza. I fail to see how this could possibly be notable. I suspect these sources will list historical opinions by different cultures of where the center of the world was believed to be but not actually say X is the location because of the assumptions needed. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if we get into historical notions, there is quite a body on that - Jerusalem, Mecca, etc. That could actually be a notable topic as a cultural concept, rather than a mathematical or modern geographical one. Agricolae (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that centrality as a metaphor for cultural importance sounds like a legitimate topic, however the discussion has convinced me that the mathematical and esoteric claims related to geographic centrality have no notability at all. Unless we have objections I'd like to move to AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am ambivalent - I suspect that the concept of a Geographic Center of the Earth (or World) has been written about enough to represent notability. A quick search reveals scholarly mention of the concept in Mayan cosmology, its placement in Athens by the Greeks, in Jerusalem and at Mecca (which were really more than metaphoric - the medievals believed that one or the other of these was the actual geographic center, such as seen in the classic T and O maps).  I also see the term being used to refer to the site of intersection of the prime meridian with the equator, and scientific analysis of the actual center (i.e. middle) of the earth with regard to magnetism and rotation.  I think this namespace could be home to a viable article, but the one it currently hosts isn't it. Agricolae (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The geographical center of North America is in North Dakota, but Lebanon Kansas is the geographical center of the lower 48 states. — GabeMc (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence the use of the word 'contiguous', but again, this is just where, when they made a cardboard cutout of a 2-dimensional map and placed it on a pointed object, it balanced. Agricolae (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Some new sources have been added to this article. It's recently been de-PRODed. This article seems to increasingly concern itself with esoteric aspects of egyptology. It's not about geometry at all! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Tiffany Johnson AFD or CSD?
This article was referred to me on my talk page by a concerned editor. It appears to concern a non-notable radio-paranormalist. I think it's sufficiently bad to be worthy of an AFD, however this might also be a candidate for speedy deletion since the links appear to be mostly nonsense. (One of them is a link to pokemon.com) --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like a CSD to me. — GabeMc (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fails notability, not to mention credibiity. Fringe nonsense at best, CSD-suitable. --Seduisant (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagged as CSD under A7, G11. Can try AfD if declined. --Seduisant (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted by Alexf. --Seduisant (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

David Juliano
Completey non notable paranormal researcher, has published nothing apart from one self published book. Can not find any references apart from his own website about him, article filled with original research and claims which are probably not true. GreenUniverse (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's scary (pun intended) is that this guy has gotten mentions in a number of Halloween-themed news stories over the years:


 * 1.Web Winners, The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 29, 2006 Sunday, BUSINESS; Pg. E06, 357 words, Reid Kanaley, Inquirer Columnist
 * 2.Virtual Haunts for Your Inner Goblin. The New York Times, October 30, 2003 Thursday, Section G; Column 3; Circuits; Pg. 3, 795 words, By LISA NAPOLI
 * 3.This one's a scream; Mantua asks whether cemetery sounds are supernatural. The Philadelphia Inquirer, NOVEMBER 28, 2004 Sunday JERSEY EDITION, SOUTH JERSEY & REGION; Pg. B03, 898 words, Wendy Ruderman INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
 * 4.In Pursuit of Spirits Doing Time in the Afterlife. The New York Times, October 29, 1999, Friday, Late Edition - Final, Section E; Part 2; Page 42; Column 1; Leisure/Weekend Desk, 2247 words, By MARGARET MITTELBACH and MICHAEL CREWDSON
 * 5.Looking into things that go bump in the night, South Jersey Ghost Research investigators are on call to check out region's wayward spirits. The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 28, 2002 Monday CITY-D EDITION, LOCAL NEWS; Pg. B04, 1194 words, Edward Colimore Inquirer Staff Writer
 * 6.Time for hayrides, haunted houses; There are many ways in South Jersey to get in the Halloween spirit - not all scary. The Philadelphia Inquirer, SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 Sunday N-CAMDEN EDITION, NEIGHBORS CAMDEN; Pg. CH01, 891 words, Jake Wagman INQUIRER SUBURBAN STAFF
 * 7.Home study course in spirit hunting is certifiable. Copley News Service, October 6, 2003 Monday, WASHINGTON WIRE; TODAY'S SCENE, 1984 words, Scott LaFee Copley News Service
 * 8.Jersey Devil: Masterpiece of Franklin's ghostwriting? Philadelphia Inquirer, October 31, 2005 Monday JERSEY EDITION, SOUTH JERSEY; Pg. B01, 817 words, By Frank Kummer; Inquirer Staff Writer
 * LuckyLouie (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a candidate for speedy deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems not - CSD refused. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've nominated this as an AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Polarity therapy
Appears to be a very minor variant of energy medicine: Claims that "Healing can be achieved through manipulation of complementary (or polarized) energies" - which sounds remarkably similar to what just about every energy medicine proponent claims. This looks like yet another candidate for merge into Energy Medicine. Would anybody care to offer a second opinion? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I proposed this article for deletion today: Articles_for_deletion/Polarity_therapy --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Commented at the AfD. Lots of sound and fury here, but I think it all signifies nothing. Moreschi (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance
Purports to describe a set of military countermeasures against bio-terrorism used from the 2nd World War onwards, however the sources seem to imply that this is a newer development. I'm slightly concerned that it might be a hoax. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to worry when a GBooks search gives exactly four hits, two of which are for the same document. GScholar gives exactly one hit out of Ft. Detrick. I think this is a synthetic term as I get no hits anywhere that deign to define this phrase. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur - this seems to have been a military neologism that never caught on. It might actually refer to a real concept. I'm sure modern armies take bio-terrorism seriously, however the attempt to show it as a historical military practice seems incredible to me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a classic Fringe Theory but it doesn't appear to have much traction in the West. The tidbit about the Russians searching for poisoned wells in WWII is followed by a bunch of passing mentions of epidemiological concerns in various obscure Eastern Europe docs. Could be a merge, but where I don't have a clue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's a foreign term which has been badly translated? Is there some kind of military history / technology wikiportal we could refer this whole thing to? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Military history might be one place. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden
A couple of dedicated SPA redlink accounts doggedly pursuing insertion of SELFPUB and non-notable material praising Ryden, lending credibility to her supposed ability to get messages from God, and puffing up the importance of her supporters - oblivious to the encyclopedia's requirement for independent secondary sources. See Talk:Vassula_Ryden and WP:ANI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

John F. Ashton
Regulars may wish to weigh in on and the related AfD. Article on a minor creationist, written mainly from the creationist viewpoint. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FTN stalker: As the article expander, I wouldn't mind another pair of eyes, although Hrafn has found it necessary to raise sudden and (often) easily dismissed objections to the article. Perhaps someone could straighten us both out about the proper application of policy to this debate. JJB 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is a complete nightmare and has been stuffed with terrible references. I think it has not been demonstrated that the references actually exist to create a decent article and WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF were not met. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it's already TLDR, but please read most of the AFD so that you can see where several prongs of AUTHOR have been met essentially unrebutted; sorry, but I don't know how to take your comment as more than a knee-jerk otherwise. PROF 3 also appears to be met and PROF 1 is still arguable. AFD is not about decent articles (that comes later), it's about WP:N. To argue that none of the criteria (also including GNG and BASIC) have been met requires dealing with each criterion separately, which nobody has done. JJB 22:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely TLDR. I've reviewed some of the sources which were attached to the article. None of them seemed particularly suitable. I've not got the patience to digest a seven-pronged article based on a novel meta-theory of cumulative notability. Feel free to simplify the argument for my benefit. Why not just show one or two reliable secondary sources which substantially cover this subject. I don't need to see seven convoluted arguments, just one or two good sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I said WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF have not been satisfied based on reading the AfD. WP:GNG has not been met either. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that this AFD has reached deadlock. JJB does not feel that it's his responsibility to try to present his case in a manner that other editors can easily understand, and I'm totally fine with that. I've invited our fellow editors to vote on whether to end the discussion. Do please weigh in as you see fit. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement about me is incorrect. JJB 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Update

 * The AfD ended as 'no consensus' and all scientific criticism of Ashton and his creationist views has been scrubbed from the article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems like JJB is back at it with his walls of text and obscuring arguments approach. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As advised, the scrubbing was done by User:David Eppstein, who has a different view of balance than you two (or I) do. I do invite editors to the RFC you placed at Talk:John F. Ashton. I do like to give my full view when you invite me to comment. Please feel free to demonstrate any obscuring arguments, as I am not in a mood to contend with very much right now. Interesting that I clicked here to respond to Hrafn and got to respond to two of you. JJB 16:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This page has been moved into JJB's userspace. You can find it here: User:John J. Bulten/John F. Ashton --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cold spot
Although the lead makes it clear the term is specific to the ghost busting crowd, the article descends into in-universe mode, e.g. the explanation of Why Cold Spots Form wraps fringe theories within fringe theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly you can't write "It is difficult to explain why ghosts cause cold spots" when there is absolutely no evidence that there are ghosts - or that there are actually cold spots as defined in the article - and even if there were, there is certainly no evidence that ghosts might be the cause - let alone what the mechanism for their formation might hypothetically be. This article needs to be heavily rewritten with a more encyclopedic view.  "People who claim that there are ghosts that cause cold spots find it difficult to explain why they do so.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by  SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yikes. The first sentence says it all: It is difficult to explain why ghosts cause cold spots. I removed the section as undue, both books were self-published. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The page appears to be full of self published content. See WP:LSP for a list of some self publishers. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Even the scientific statement in the lead saying this whole thing is WP:Complete bollocks is terrible synthesis -- probably because they couldn't find a scientist who could be bothered to state that cold spots (along with millions of other superstitions, urban myths etc) are bollocks. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed a fair bit of stuff, and deleted some repetition. More could go. I left an orphaned ref, but the article is hardly worse. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From a scientific perspective, the most directly important complaint is that a hypothetical entity that could create useful energy by reducing the temperature of the ambient air around itself would be in flagrant violation of the second law of thermodynamics. This isn't synthesis because the RS says that no process whatever is capable of doing what the paranormal investigators claim - and that obviously includes "ghosts". SteveBaker (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The synthesis is in that while the source says "no process whatever", it is not explicitly addressing the Cold Spot. An editor has linked it to the topic by making the connection that "no process whatever" includes the Cold Spot idea (as small as that leap is). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've heard two interpretive schools of thought on this. #1 is that once an article makes scientific claims that are in conflict with the mainstream, an explanation of how the fringe claim differs from the mainstream understanding of the topic is required by WP:FRINGE. #2 is that scientific claims that are in conflict with the mainstream but have not been addressed by the mainstream automatically fall below the minimum standard of notability and should be deleted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, what the source states is "1. No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work." & "2. No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body." (emphasis original) Given that neither cold spots nor the ghosts purported to produce them have ever been scientifically observed, it would not seem possible to state definitively that the former is the "sole result" of the latter. I therefore cannot see the source as even making a general statement on a set of phenomena that would clearly and unambiguously include the purported phenomenon of cold spots. It would seem highly likely that the purported phenomenon is too vague and poorly defined to be amenable to a rigorous thermodynamic debunking. 04:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Haunted house
Can someone take a look at the sources used in this section? It looks to me that it's using one pseudo-science to debunk another.

Creaking floor-boards, sure. CO Poisioning, seems plausible. ... But Ionizing radiation? EM Field Exposure? That can't be right.

The references for that section are all print sources. Judging by the titles of the references they're probably fringe publications, but I'm not familiar enough with them to say for sure.

APL (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good find, unreliable sources are being used to make rather dubious claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What you have done to the article is not helping, now theres no explanations left. Your right you are not familiar with the publications. The EM field exposure has been well documented by Michael Persinger and replicated by others, it is well documented how EM exposure can lead to hallucination and fault in brain activity. The other explanation that is currently held by researchers is that these "hauntings" are caused by known physical energies. No not "non-physical", we are talking here about known physical energies. As far as I can see there is nothing mystical or magical about this at all. GreenUniverse (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please. Cite reliable sources for claims not the unreliable sources that were being used. The claims of Telepathic communication from Michael Persinger are not well documented and are completely undue. Claims that they can cause hallucinations etc should be cited to reliable sources. FYI, you are constantly under "EM Exposure", i.e light. Also calling it physical energies implies that there are non-physical energies. I've also removed some of the primary sourced claims in Michael Persinger which were added to an unreliable journal and a self published source. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with using this. Or this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting this out. Please see my comments on the talk page of the Haunted House article. I am confused over this issue, lets say a notable parapsychologist publishes a book on hauntings and advocates a specific theory, then these sources are not reliable at all and can not be used? Take for example the book on poltergeists by Alan Gauld which discusses specific theories on hauntings, can we quote from that book, or there 100% has to be a third party source to mention his theories? GreenUniverse (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The EM Field stuff is back in the article. Referenced with this lovely document. APL (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the field well enough to judge whether mentioning a particular theory would give it undue weight... but, given the nature of the subject, if we are going to mention a particular theory we should attributed it (in the text) so readers know who says what. I have added such. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the stuff about Persinger has just been tagged again. The reason for this is that it is a primary source, I think some third party coverage is needed to back up his claims? Is that right? GreenUniverse (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is the stuff about Persinger a primary source? Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The material which begins "According to Michael Persinger..." is sourced to Michael Persinger. It is a primary source as the source given is Michael Persinger himself stating what he thinks. A secondary source would be a source that is not written by Persinger and which summarizes the original thought of the primary source. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not how Wikipedia defines "Primary". Secondary sources can contain author conclusions and thought and attributing a source to its author does not make the source Primary. (question: would I be correct in assuming that you are from a science background... if so, please note that Wikipedia uses the definitions of Primary and Secondary that are common in the Humanities and not the definitions of those terms common in the Sciences... this has caused confusion in the past so I thought I should point it out). Even if we use the scientific definition and consider the source Primary... Our policy is that Primary sources are allowed... as long as we are careful not to misuse them (please see WP:PSTS).  In this case we are not misusing the source.  I am not trying to say that the material should not be removed (I don't know enough about the topic to make that call)... just that you are using the wrong policy to justify removing it.  If Presinger is pseudo-scientific hokum, I would suggest that you look at WP:NPOV (and especially WP:UNDUE) as a more appropriate policy based justification for removal. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly. (I am doing a PhD in theoretical physics so you are correct with that) I will query at WP:OR to try and get a somewhat rigorous definition of primary, secondary etc for the future. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here we are, original research articles are considered primary: Reliable_source_examples Scientific journals are the best place to find primary-source articles about randomized experiments, including randomized controlled clinical trials in medicine. Also: Be careful of articles published in disreputable fields or disreputable journals. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem that User:APL and User:IRWolfie- are alluding to is that a "varying electromagnetic field" is an electromagnetic wave - which is what physicists call: "electromagnetic radiation". Which can be gamma rays, radio waves, visible light, infra-red, ultraviolet, microwaves and X-rays - and technically includes something a mundane as someone waving a magnet around or turning some source of electricity on or off!
 * So statements like "The EM field exposure has been well documented by Michael Persinger and replicated by others, it is well documented how EM exposure can lead to hallucination and fault in brain activity." have to be read with great care.
 * I don't doubt that this statement is true. If you stick someones' head into a microwave oven then, yes, there will certainly be some "fault in brain activity" as their brains are cooked.  We know that Photosensitive epilepsy can be caused by strobe lights, and one of the symptoms of that is a bunch of weird sensations that we might describe as a "hallucination".  The trouble is that while the statement is doubtless true - it's only germane to feelings of being haunted if those exact kinds of "varying EM fields" happen to be present in the house at sufficient energy to cause these effects.


 * In essence, the author of that paper is guilty of a serious synthesis - which should have been caught by peer reviewers and shot so full of holes that it have never been published. He's saying:


 * Brains are affected by varying EM fields.
 * If there is a varying EM field present, then this explains the feelings of haunting in that house.


 * The trouble is that not all varying EM fields produce these kinds of effect, we know that staring out of the window (and thereby exposing yourself to visible light - a "varying EM field") doesn't cause any damage or hallucination whatever. There is zero evidence presented in the paper that the very specific EM fields that these "researchers" are measuring are of the right intensity and frequency to have any measurable effect on the brains of their supposedly hallucinating subjects.  Which means that this entire paper is premium grade bullshit.


 * To use a simple analogy, it's like saying "People have been killed by machines with wheels in them" (like getting run over by a car or mangled in a horrible meat-grinder incident) - and from that deducing the statement: "Therefore we can explain this otherwise inexplicable death because there happened to be a hotwheels toy in the room". That explanation would be laughed at by any reasonable person - and that's why we're all laughing at this paper.


 * This source is pure pseudoscientific bunkum - the only question is: Under which Wikipedia guideline should it be excluded (or at least judiciously hedged and explained) so that our article no longer contains blatant untruths.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest everyone read WP:NPOV (and especially WP:Undue weight)... when dealing with fringe topics (such as ghosts), whether a source contains pseudoscientific bunkum may not matter as much as whether that bunkum represents a significant viewpoint. In other words... if enough of the people who are searching for a "scientific explanation" for hauntings believe Presinger's theory (and note that I said "if"), then to cover the topic accurately and with neutrality we should mention it (whether it is bunkum or not).  If, on the other hand, his theory represents the view of a tiny minority of those searching for a scientific explanation for hauntings, then we can omit it on the grounds that mentioning his theory at all gives it Undue Weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair play but have you read this though? French, C.C., Haque, U., Bunton-Stasyshyn, R., Davis, R.E. (2009). The “Haunt” Project: An attempt to build a “haunted” room by manipulating complex electromagnetic fields and infrasound. Cortex, 45, 619-629.

"Recent research has suggested that a number of environmental factors may be associated with a tendency for susceptible individuals to report mildly anomalous sensations typically associated with "haunted" locations, including a sense of presence, feeling dizzy, inexplicable smells, and so on. Factors that may be associated with such sensations include fluctuations in the electromagnetic field (EMF) and the presence of infrasound." Nothing controversial here, I see no reason why this shouldnt be included. Also see Ghostly magnetism explained GreenUniverse (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added the study by Chris French, it explains the fringe position and provides a study on it. I think this is a good compromise. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question round the billionth
Shakespeare Authorship Question has picked another suspiciously skilled and knowledgeable SPA today,. Possibly a sock, possibly not, but either way determinedly a proponent of the time-honoured principles of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Discretionary sanctions are in place so this could use some administrative eyes just in case he keeps refusing to get the message. Moreschi (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am gratified to have been described as 'skilled and knowledgeable'. Thank you.

Unlike [Moreschi] I have no dog in this fight. I support no particular authorship candidate but I feel the issue is important and some of the rhetorical techniques used (by all sides) are particularly unmeritorious. The tone of debate also, including certain comments to which I have been subjected today, leaves a very great deal to be desired!

This is not an SPA. This issue is the first that has prompted me to become involved in Wikipedia. I have contributed (briefly) to the debate today, observing all necessary protocols and principles. I was disappointed to have been greeted with discourtesy and disrespect.

Any attempts to persuade the editors with logic and reason, to suggest amendments and achieve consensus by conciliation, fell on deaf ears. I was instructed that I should take "take (my) complaints to any relevant board [Paul B]" which I found inconsistent with Wikipedia's underlying values and objectives.

Having said that, I have taken [Paul B] at his word and initiated a request for Mediation. This, in my humble opinion, raises significant issues for Wikipedia over the extent to which an active group, even representing as they do a majority position, may properly use their influence to suppress the referencing on Wikipedia of relevant, independent third-party material. For those of you reading this who may be wondering to which particular 'fringe' publication I might be referring, I will tell you - it is the New York Times.

If you wish to follow the case or participate in relevant debate then you will find further details [|here]. I have no intention of making any further attempts to edit the article in question until the mediation is resolved or the character of the editorial community that controls the article has changed.

Courtesy and a lack of profanity in any further exchanges would be very greatly appreciated.

wightknight 23:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunately one of those nasty WP:TIGERS corner cases. The problem, good sir, is that it is actually impossible not to have a dog in the fight on SAQ. Either you follow the mainstream consensus (the Stratfordians), or you follow the fringe theorists (the rest). Now, of course, one could also be undecided on the issue, but that is also not the mainstream academic position and it is precisely that mainstream academic position that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect. Neutrality here is entirely false. As Dbachmann used to put it, we do not write Penguin via argument between penguins and non-penguins, and this is in many ways exactly the same problem. Moreschi (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's impressive that such a new editor found this board so quickly. It's also striking that the method of argument replicates that of so many previous editors:
 * The demand for ritualised politeness so formal that it would have impressed the court of Louis VIV.
 * The instant wounded moral outrage at anything that can be considered un-PC (i this case the wholly unwarranted pieties about the the analogies to the Holocaust article and the eyes-rolled-up-to-heaven pronouncements about "courtesy and lack of profanity"). The finest example of that was user:Smatprt's instant moral outrage when I said he was "blind" to some issue - because I was belittling and denigrating the unsighted community, including his unsighted friend.
 * The attritional mode of argument - endless repetition of the same points and claims to be guided by WP policies and systems, to which florid deference is shown. Talk space is filled with the same points repeatedly in an attempt to wear down opposition in way that cannot be 'faulted' because of visibly rhetorical deference to policies.


 * The disingenuous nature of this approach is all too obvious to experienced editors in this area -- and the agenda is equally clear: mix up mainstream attribution studies with the fringe theories in order to make the latter seem like a reasonable extension of the former. Responses on the talk page may well seem curt, but that is because this is a familiar and very very often repeated pattern/tactic. As WP:FLAT says "At the present time, Wikipedia does not have an effective means to address superficially polite but tendentious, long-term, fringe advocacy." Paul B (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@[Moreschi] Thank you for your more constructive response on this issue.

My 'personal opinion' for what it is worth, is that the issue of who was the principal author of the Shakespeare canon should be determined by the same standards of academic rigour as any similar question of literary history. From my limited, but growing, review of the relevant evidence, it appears that no particular side is able to deliver a 'knockout blow' and there is an increasing number of agnostics who are interested to see more, and more rigorous, academic work undertaken. The recent document produced by the Shakespeare Authorship Trust provides good evidence of the existence of the debate, although not necessarily the quality of the arguments employed in that debate.

This is where I feel the article in question is faced with something of a dilemma. It is either a page which proposes to weigh to a nicety the various theories in support of the authorship candidates, in which case Stratford Shakespeare must rank first and the others beneath him will appear more or less preposterous, in turn (or not according to one's particular perspective and prejudices). But that process itself gives credibility to the Question, which it seems is antithetical to the Stratfordian position.

However, [Paul B] today stated that "this article is precisely about the debate between "Stratfordians or non-Stratfordians" in which case the anti-Stratfordian position (and in this I concede that there is an argument that the agnostic viewpoint may also be viewed as anti-Stratfordian, although I do not necessarily accept that the rationale of that interpretation should prevail) is more than a "fringe theory". Indeed, if the article is about the argument between the Stratfordians and the non-Stratfordians as [Paul B] says, then it demands for its very existence the vital and thriving form of its very nemesis.  The one cannot exist without the other.

So there you have it, a rhetorical dilemma, which may explain part of the great difficulty that this page has been experiencing.

Other solutions naturally present, but I would just say that it would be unwise to make assumptions about the credibility or good faith of any author without first making full and proper enquiry of all the available evidence. But then, I suppose that is exactly my point.

wightknight 00:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@ [Paul B] WP:FLAT is not a justification to be rude. I presume that by Louis VIV you meant Louis XIV?

As a point of information, I came across this page by chance when researching Wikipedia's policies and definitions of 'fringe theories'. It was serendipity, no more no less. I'm sure there must be an appropriate conspiracy to explain the coincidence. However, if your concern is to talk about me outside my knowledge then I am sure the internet is sufficiently vast to afford you that opportunity.

Respectfully, simply because someone holds a different view to you does not mean that you can suggest that their arguments are disingenuous. Very respectfully, your post is substantially off point. I have set out my position and I have substantiated with referenced material and a logical argument. I have no agenda other than to see the Shakespeare Authorship Question represented properly on Wikipedia. If you wish to engage with the argument then kindly do so on its terms.

I apologise for being polite. It is an unfortunate consequence of long habituation to the exercise of consideration towards others.

wightknight 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a well known WP:FRINGE issue that is under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, see WP:ARBSAQ. Actionable proposals, with suitable sources, should be made at the article talk page. There is no need to spread the issue to two noticeboards since there has been no response (other than changing the subject) to the explanations at the article talk. Wikipedia is not a forum for people to debate who wrote Shakespeare's works. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you begin here. All the answers to your questions can be found multiple times in the 27 pages of archived discussions. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)