Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 32

Robert O. Becker
In the Robert O. Becker article someone is trying to add lots of undue, unsourced and OR material. Comments etc welcomed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Esoteric astrology
Theres no third party reliable sources on this article, the references consist of Theosophist authors only and a look through the internet reveals that the concept of esoteric astrology has not been covered by many, is the topic notable enough to have its own page? GreenUniverse (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Major source credibility issues here, starting with the claim by Alan Leo that Blavatsky wrote on the subject. A bit difficult seeing as how she had been dead for a couple of decades. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Googling shows this is referred to in some survey books on astrology, though I couldn't tell you how a good a sources they are. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I taged it for merger. Blavatsky's notions might merit a sentence or paragraph in astrology.Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

John F. Ashton, Non WP:MEDRS sources in a book-review, claims concerning the antiaging effects of chocolate
John F. Ashton is a living food-scientist and young-earth creationist. This short paragraph describes a book he published. It's taken from a section which is about his mainstream work, rather than his creationism advocacy.


 * Ashton's book A Chocolate a Day, coauthored with his daughter-in-law Suzy Ashton, claims that a single chocolate bar contains more antioxidants than six apples and has a stronger anti-aging effect than red wine,

The cited sources seem to be WP:RS for the content of Ashton's book but probably not WP:MEDRS for the claims being made.

For example, The notion that red wine has an anti-aging effect is a fringe view that's often expressed in popular media. Does it make any sense to compare the life prolonging effects of chocolate to another substance which has not been proven to prolong life? Ashton has almost certainly claimed this, however I think we need to find a way to show that these views are not regarded as mainstream amongst nutritionists. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh, what a mess. Suggestion: I would remove any mention of red wine, and basically cut that whole chocolate paragraph to something like "Ashton co-authored two books, the first with his daughter-in-law Suzy Ashton and the second with Lily Stojanovska, extolling what he believes to be the health benefits of consuming chocolate. (ref)(ref)" I would avoid any specifics about the chocolate discussion unless it is specifically addressed by a MEDRS compliant secondary source that can place it in context. As this is a popular book rather than a scientific research publication, we should be focusing on its reception by the public through book reviews rather than debating the scientific merits of the contents. Yobol (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion of this same question on the article's talk page. I agree - the focus of the discussion is wrong. This was in part my own fault. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC on pseudoscience section in lede of astrology
I have started an RFC on the pseudoscience section of the lede of astrology where I have proposed new wording. Your comments are appreciated at Talk:Astrology. Thanks. S Æ don talk 22:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Saedon has unfortunately done more than simply proposed new wording; he has edit warred to try to force through a POV version of the lead. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong forum to discuss Saedon's behavior. We should all be concerned by the original paragraph: Statements such as "astrology may bear a superficial resemblance to science" seem to be self-evidently false. Astrology has not resembled science since the Enlightenment! --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rather than try and point out faults in others I would suggest you look back on your own comments, some of which appear to be uncivil such as accusing someone of making "Blathering posts" etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Salimfadhley, I agree that astrology is no longer a subject that can be described as a science, but as the accompanying reference and the National Science Board article it leads to demonstrates, a very significant proportion of the public are under the impression that it is. That is the reason why the label 'pseudo-science' has been given to astrology. If astrology didn't bear some kind of superficial resemblence to science it would not be able to be defined as a "pseudo-science". The original paragraph summarises this correctly. What would be self-evidently false (or indeed very worrying) would be to suggest that the scientific community engages in testing of the subject whilst not taking the subject seriously.  --   Zac   Δ talk! 14:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's possible that astrology might have been miscategorised. Given that we both agree it does not resemble science it might be better to categorize it as a form of esoteric belief or possibly divination. I would normally use the word pseudoscience to describe things which engage with an apparently scientific process e.g. Steorn. I cannot think of any sense in which astrology resembles science - superficial or otherwise.
 * As far as I am aware there is little or no testing of the concepts of Astrology, however there may have been research into the subject by mythologists. In other words scientists do not take-seriously the notion of a causal relationship between star-movements and mundane or human events. The subject of why people believe this and how the belief has evolved has been the subject of extensive study. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You said: "I would normally use the word pseudoscience to describe things which engage with an apparently scientific process". That's a profound and important misunderstanding of what the word means.  May I recommend the Wiktionary definition (which agrees with most other mainstream dictionaries): "Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method." - it specifically applies to things like astrology that profess to provide a science-like explanation - but do none of the serious experimentation, math, etc that goes along with the scientific method. SteveBaker (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the reliable sources characterize it as pseudoscience then so should we, to do otherwise is to engage in original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A thought - I think the section of the lede under discussion would be improved if it more clearly noted the contrast between historical views of astrology (until around 1600 astrology was considered a legitimate branch of science by western scientists, one that was indistinct from astronomy and influencing other branches of science like medicine), and modern views of astrology (that it is a pseudoscience at best, and perhaps not even that). It might also help if the lede noted who disagrees with the mainstream scientific view (ie who objects to the label "pseudoscience").  I am not suggesting that we present astrology as being "legitimate"... merely that we could do a better job of neutrally informing the reader as to who says what, and in what context they say it. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that around 1600, few (if any) of the things that were then called "science" were following "the scientific method". Saying that "astrology used to be a science" is misleading to a modern reader because the meaning of the word "science" has changed since the 1600's when a contemporary writer might well have placed astrology in with the other "sciences".  Our articles Scientific method and History of scientific method clearly explain that our current understanding of what constitutes "science" didn't form until the late 17th or early 18th century.  That's why astrology ceased to be considered a science - it wasn't that astrology, or our understanding of the universe changed - it's that the very definition of what a "science" is changed as the ideas behind the scientific method began to form with the formation of the Royal Society in the 1650's.  Using the modern meaning of the word "science", we have to say that astrology could never, at any time have been considered to be a science.  Since we don't write Wikipedia using archaic meanings for common words, we should not describe astrology as ever having been a science without carefully hedging that language with some statement of the meaning of the word.  Astrology is properly called a "pseudoscience" because that's the word we use to describe ideas that profess to provide testable scientific predictions without following the scientific method. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Steve wrote. "astrology used to be a science" is not completely wrong, but too many WP-reader will simply misunderstand it. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Leon Cowden
Subject claims to have recorded the first live conversation between the living and the spirit world. Also says his band has achieved cult status with their vast internet following. Maybe I'm missing something but they both sound like non-notable fringe theories to me. It's up for AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Check out the editing histories of the four largest contributors to the article: User:321stop, User:212dream (Huh! Similar name!), User:82.7.114.193 and User:194.168.255.76. Each of those accounts has done almost nothing but edit articles where Cowden is mentioned.  User:212dream added a claim that Cowden attended Fort Gibson Public Schools - which isn't something that's mentioned in any of Cowden's public bios.  I smell WP:COI and WP:SOCK.  That's not necessarily grounds for AfD - but it's a gigantic red-flag. SteveBaker (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Society for Interdisciplinary Studies


The article on this WP:FRINGE organisation is rather badly sourced, largely accepts it at its own self-assessment, and does little to establish notability. Is it simply an under-written piece on a notable piece of woo, or is it beyond saving? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see reason to merge it elsewhere, but see the following section. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Catastrophism
This is related to the article discussed immediately above. My fringey sense tingles reading this, because "catastrophism" is also a code word for Velikovsky's ideas. I am highly doubtful that the paradigm shift it presents actually obtains in real geophysical research. Any other opinions? Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-Velikovskian catastrophism can be considered a superseded theory. Catastrophism vs. gradualism was a running argument among geologists and biologists in the 19th century.  The dispute which was settled by adopting components of both theories in the Uniformitarianism_(science) theory.  The uniformitarian article gives a much better account of the historical context than catastrophism.  While the topic deserves its own article, the Velikovsky stuff - which is textbook fringe - can be deleted or merged into his main article.  Skinwalker (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Velikovsky stuff should be merged into Immanuel Velikovsky if it's not there in enough depth already...which I think it is. The historical version might one day need it's own article - but to be honest (as you say) the coverage in Uniformitarianism (science) is already better than the catastrophism article.  So the only effect that the catastrophism article has is to conflate and confuse between the historical version and the Velikovsky version - which might be fun and games for the pro-Velifovsky fraternity - but it's not true and it's unsupported by WP:RS.  I'd support an WP:AfD on this one. SteveBaker (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer something in the order of a disambiguation page (either formally arranged as one, or in text form doing the same thing) - a statement that the term can refer to two distinct concepts, the historical one (with a link to Uniformitarianism) or alternatively to the recent woo, linking to Velikovsky, and leave it at that. People interested in either form may use this search term, so there needs to be some kind of page, and a simple redirect one way or the other is not up to the task.  This way people get where they want to go with one extra click, but are also clearly told that the two aren't flavors of the same thing. Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I like that idea! Thanks!  Dab the concept to subsections of the two existing articles that cover the idea better anyway. SteveBaker (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Mound builder (people)
I removed some 50% of the article on Mound builder (people) which was devoted to fringe theories and grossly violating WP:UNDUE. Some additional voices and eyes would be useful, especially as it may be okay to add a limited amount of the material removed back into the article.



128.59.171.10 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a section of cited material explaining various debunked theories of the last 200 years to explain the Mound builders. Please do not remove it again. This is not what WP:FRINGE is about. It is not promoting any of those debunked theories as the "TRUTH", merely noting them and explaining them.  He  iro  20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that this doesn't appear to be a WP:FRINGE issue. I'm nervous about some of the unreferenced claims though - those don't look like they'd be hard to find references for.  (eg The article says "Lafcadio Hearn suggested that..." - so surely we know in which book or journal this person made that suggestion?).  If it is even slightly difficult to find references for them then it's highly likely that they are either not notable or not reliable sources of information.   Incidentally, from a formatting perspective, I don't like the many headings that contain links to other articles.  The correct way to do that is have the text in the heading un-linked and to use the  or  templates immediately after the heading to refer the reader to the parent article. SteveBaker (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All of that seems fine with me, and probably needs doing. I dont have time to hunt down references right now for the uncited stuff, but it does need doing..  He  iro  21:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the links from sections headers you mentioned.  He  iro  21:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I got bored and searched the Lafcadio Hearn one: Hearn, Lafcadio. "The Mound Builders". The Commercial, Cincinnati. April 24, 1876, also ref'd in: Kenneth L. Feder. Frauds, Myths, And Mysteries - Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. Central Connecticut State Univ. McGraw Hill. at p. 154. (PDF) --92.6.200.56 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Added them. One less uncited bit I guess. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not read a real book? Your copy of 2666 is still unopened. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hasn't got any pictures. ;-) –92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the citation. I know the majority of the uncited stuff in that section is basically accurate, or else I would have removed it long ago myself. I tend to concentrate more on expanding and creating articles about the actual cultures that get lumped as "mound builders" rather than concentrating on this article about an outdated and debunked racial stereotype. Unfortunately, way too many archaeological site articles here on wiki link to this article, rather than to an article about specific archaeological cultures that are connected to said sites.  He  iro  00:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Masreliez
FYI, there's an AFD open for this article - which should really have been called "Masreliez (family)". The notion that this family is important in Swedish art-history seems to be a fringe view unsupported by significant coverage in mainstream sources.

The article concerns a group of people, some of whom may be individually notable in Swedish visual and performing arts. I'm not convinced that the family is notable in itself. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter
A group of rural Kentuckians claim they fought off an attack by extraterrestrials, but when police arrived they found nothing. Yet to read the article you'd think beings from outer space were the cause, or at least, something otherworldly and mysterious. Like many of our UFO articles, this one is slanted toward credulous interpretations rather than a dispassionate reporting of claims. Much of the article is spent on trying to connect several unrelated events. Undue weight is given to describing claims in the most graphic and sensational way possible. Parsimonious explanations are buried at the end of the article and positioned as an afterthought, or alternatives to the extraterrestrial/mystery default view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the article, as written, violates Wiki's neutrality policy, as it features virtually no detailed and referenced skeptical arguments or explanations for the event (except for two tiny bullets listed at the very bottom of the article). I know that skeptic/debunker Joe Nickell investigated the case and argued that it was caused by owls or some other type of bird; certainly his explanation deserves mention, and in some detail if the article can be found. Also, as you noted the article is very poorly-written in that its points don't connect smoothly and the article is a disjointed series of paragraphs. The article needs to be rewritten to include the pertinent facts of the case (with references), followed by the most common skeptical explanation(s) and/or rebuttals (if available). Just my two cents. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You can tell there's something amiss with an article when an authoritative "overview" of the subject is given in Wikipedia's voice but written from a UFOlogy point of view. I will get around to fixing it one of these days. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, I think I've identified at least part of the problem. Somewhere along the line, Jerome Clark became the go-to guy for people writing much of WP's UFO-related content. While it may be true that Clark's writings are often more objective than many UFOlogists, his 'objectivity' spans a very wide range - from mildly skeptical to uncritically accepting - and his reporting can lapse into the well-worn Fortean storytelling technique of closing off all evidentiary doors except those leading to the conclusion that something mysterious is afoot. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that Jerome Clark shouldn’t be the only source, or main source, used in UFO articles, then I agree. If you mean that the problem with some Wiki UFO articles is that they are obviously biased for one side and feature no discussion of multiple views, then I agree. And that doesn’t even get into the fact that some UFO articles are poorly written with numerous typos, disjointed paragraphs with no point, etc.

However, if you mean that UFO articles should be reduced to little more than stubs that provide few details of the event and make no attempt to mention multiple points of view then I would disagree. You said that Clark is biased, but what about UFO debunkers such as Philip Klass and Robert Sheaffer? I’m curious as to what you think an ideal Wiki UFO article would contain, assuming you’re in favor of even having such articles.70.145.229.162 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe in including all notable points of view in an article when they have been covered by reliable and independent sources. Points that have not been discussed in independent sources don't have the notability required by our policies and should not be given space in articles. In the case of UFO articles, many do end up as stubs since once the dubious sources like "Above Top Secret" and "Alien Evidence" etc. are removed only a handful of reliable sources remain. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If UFO articles are destined to be nothing more than stubs, then what is the rationale for even having such articles on Wiki? As another poster noted in a discussion of UFO articles, the reason most people read a Wiki UFO article is to learn about the incident, and that includes more than a few bare details making up, in some cases, less than a paragraph. I am well aware of Wiki's guidelines for notability and reliability, yet I have found that some people (both skeptic and believer) seem to have a highly personal and subjective view of what constitutes a reliable UFO source, regardless of the Wiki guidelines. Again, if a UFO article can never be anything other than a stub, with a few bare details and little else, then I fail to see the reasoning for keeping such articles and not simply deleting them, as a general reader will find little of use in the article.70.145.229.162 (talk)
 * I don't think all UFO articles end up as stubs, just the ones that lack reliable independent sources. And I'm not sure what you mean about the "rationale for even having such articles on Wiki". I think a few bare details that are very reliably sourced are much more useful than a collection of speculations and rumors gathered from dubious "ufo expert" sources far and wide. For those who seek the latter, Google Search already exists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say all UFO articles, just that you noted that some do, and the impression I get is that those articles will remain nothing more than stubs because the sources that could expand said articles don't measure up to some editor's personal opinions of what is credible, not what Wiki says is credible or notable. As for the "rationale", that seems pretty obvious - a "few bare details" that don't provide any substantive discussion of the incident seems rather worthless, imo. As for "dubious ufo expert" sources, that seems to be the root of the problem, as personal opinions often override anything objective. I would say, for instance, that there is a clear difference (using Wiki standards) between the credibility of people like J. Allen Hynek, a credentialed scientist who worked with Project Blue Book for over 20 years, or a Jerome Clark, and an Art Bell or Steven Greer. It seems to me, however, that all too often all such writers are lumped together as "dubious ufo experts" and labeled inappropriate sources, regardless of their legitimacy or credibility - and that the reason for doing so has less to do with Wiki guidelines than with the personal bias of the editor. The "google sources" comment has no bearing, because the articles are already listed on Wikipedia. The question is what to include in them - or whether they are notable enough to be included at all.70.145.229.162 (talk)
 * This source appears to have a good summary: . IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Continental drift
This discussion may be of interest: Talk:Fringe_theory. Continental drift is a bad example of a fringe theory that became mainstream because the suggested mechanisms were all rejected in favour of a completely different mechanism: plate tectonics. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Porter Roberts
Any thoughts on a merge and redirect of Bruce Porter Roberts to Gemstone File? There is some verifiable information about Roberts (searching combinations of "Bruce Roberts", "Gemstone File", and "Skeleton Key"), but I'm not sure there is enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Per this source, little is known of him except that he died of a tumor. Thanks! Location (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to some academic sources, there is doubt Roberts even existed. The source for the Bruce Porter Roberts article is a conspiracy book itself. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good find. I've boldly redirected to Gemstone File. Location (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Process oriented psychology
This is a theory or belief system developed by one person, Arnold Mindell. It is studied by students at Arnold Mindell's Process Work Centre in Portland where there has been an investigation into that organisation's academic standards and the master's degree they offer in Process Work. Arnold Mindell may have a PhD in psychology but he is reported in the local Portland press as not being licensed as a psychologist in Oregon. This may be why he does not us the title 'Process orientated psychology' in the US (http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-285-dream_academy.html). Arnold Mindell and Process Work are not notable, and people checking their validity may rely on the wikipedia entry. It is not a theory taught in psychology departments in institutions or universities other than Mindell's own which has been criticised as functioning as a visa scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotMindell (talk • contribs)


 * Wow! What an impressive list of 18 references!  Oh...wait...twelve of those are by that one guy...and one is by his wife...and three more are just conference notices with no actual content...and one more is for some kind of unspecified document that doesn't show up anywhere on an online search so I can't read it online or buy it - and the last one doesn't actually mention the subject or back up the claim it's tagged against - but I'm sure that hardly matters.
 * So - no acceptable references, no demonstration of notability, no secondary sources, decidedly WP:FRINGE. Most of the editing is by single-use IP accounts and people like User:Diogenes who self-identifies as an author in this area.  Possibly this is all just one guy pushing his books.  Sounds like an WP:AfD to me. SteveBaker (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was very promotional and the non-lede content was completely primary sourced, I've stubified it as a result into something workable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No skepticism against meat-puppy recruiters?
I have been trying to submit research information in Robert O. Becker, but this work has been consistently disrupted by deletions. After one of these ("explained" with merely the label "undue"), the deletionist IRWolfie- (who fails to see the significance of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH) reported my submission(s) here on this noticeboard.

This would have been a valid invitation to cooperation if it had contained an explanation like: "Can anybody explain what is undue about Becker's research on stimulating regrowth after an amputation or bone fracture, and what the due methods for such stimulation would be?". But no such explanation was given, nor requested. The "explanation" was implicit, from the context: The Fringe theories Noticeboard. (Becker worked with conventional physiology, combined with conventional physics. Nothing fringe here.)

The following day Salimfadhley, active on Fringe Noticeboard, arrived at Robert O. Becker, and started by posting a Notability tag - after IRWolfie- so conveniently had weakened the article's notability information by e.g. slashing away the last 21 of the 33 peer-reviewed papers for which Becker was the first author - unlisting e.g. three articles printed in Nature. (And IRWolfie- placed an Undue Weight tag on the few science description sentences remaining - without explaining this in Talk.)

Conclusion: The POV-based disruptive editing was attempted reinforced through the recruiting of a meat-puppet. When such deletionism effectively scares away those willing and able to write for Wikipedia, discussions in quite large forums are called for. (An undisrupted version of the article is on Wikinfo.org.) OlavN (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edits were to add lots of unsourced and original research material to the article i.e it was undue. This is the noticeboard to deal with undue material and fringe theories. I've already explained that large lists of papers in the article don't help with notability: Talk:Robert_O._Becker. The wikipedia article is in a better condition than the wikinfo one. I take accusations of meat puppetry and "annihilation" of an article  very seriously. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The research material was sourced from Becker's books and articles. No original research from me. Posting on this noticeboard (without explaining) implies branding Becker as Fringe and invites to POV-based action. Annihilation refers to the way The Body Electric was demolished.  Compare with the actions of the building inspector in WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. OlavN (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything in Wikipedia is "under construction". DONTDEMOLISH is an essay about not deleting stub articles on notable topics.  It is not intended as an excuse for putting poorly researched, nonnotable, or unreferenced content into an article.  (To follow the house analogy, if the support beams are no good, the inspector is right to insist that they be pulled out. Even if the rest of the house is unfinished.)
 * As a point of interest, the Body Electric article has been recreated here : The Body Electric (book)
 * APL (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He appears to have re-created a duplicate article with a different name to avoid editors disagreeing with the content after the prevous article was redirected: The_Body_Electric. Rather than discussing it, it appears he has decided to duplicate the article without warning or notifying anyone. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the book to Articles_for_deletion/The_Body_Electric_(book). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael David Weiss needs gutting
I hope someone here's willing to give this the time it warrants; the article, though short, has a serious "KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT" undertone and is rather badly sourced. I'm not really sure where to begin; I'd probably be too heavy-handed. J Milburn (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone look at Puncture (film) also? Does adequately support "Some health care professionals have alleged that the UN and WHO, out of fear that public discussion of this issue will prompt Africans to refuse needle immunization and other important treatments, have moved to suppress this information.[9]"? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the film is the actual source of the claim, so it really doesn't matter that an advocacy group is being used; it's a big WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT violation. My Sunday morning before church suggests that everything should be merged into the film, as I cannot find anything out about this guy that isn't a film review. Not that I'm sure about that, as Michael Weiss is an incredibly common name for a lawyer and even Michael David Weiss produces multiple lawyer hits. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * puncture-the-movie.com is self published and should not be used (especially when more reliable sources exist). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiverse contains questionable content
I went to the Multiverse article expecting it to be about the fascinating theory that physicists have developed in recent years. And it does cover that. But it also appears to be a coatrack with a lot of WP:OR. It covers Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, etc., and includes sentences such as this: "Many religions include an afterlife existence in realms, such as heavens and hells, which may be very different from the observable universe." Maybe there should be a split, with one article titled "Multiverse (physics)" and another titled "List of multiple universe hypotheses" or something. It appears that many of the sources don't explicitly use the term "multiverse" but are included if they talk about multiple worlds, etc. A section with a long quote by Ouspensky seems to have nothing to do with multiverse. Eager to know what you think. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I merged the content with Multiverse_%28religion%29, it's all OR/poorly sourced but it's as bad quality as the Multiverse (religion) article so I don't think I am making it worse. I'll give people a chance to source it before I trim away the unsourced OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perfect. Thanks! I didn't realize that article existed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bell's theorem
is repeatedly adding fringe material about Bell's to that page. Another user reported this at the Physics wikiproject page, but I thought it would also be appropriate here. a13ean (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ogdoadic Tradition
Found this at ANI, along with Llewellyn Worldwide. Both fringe, both promotional. Just starting to look at Ogdoadic, maybe an AfD candidate. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's a genuine subject. It may need work, but Ordo Aurum Solis looks like it needs more attention (note it Llewellyn sources, by the way). Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Llewellyn Worldwide is owned by Carl Weschcke, a former "grand master" of Ordo Aurum Solis, so none of the sources at Ordo Aurum Solis are independent (not to mention that the books are all written by other former grand masters of the order). --92.4.177.142 (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Llewellyn needs some serious work, but it's a notable topic. They're by far and away the largest and most well-known New Age & occult publisher. I'd be deeply surprised if sources couldn't be found for it. And thank you for raising this here. I didn't realize this was the right place for this kind of fringe. I thought it was more a pseudoscience place. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think any of them should be deleted, just made more NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The supposed "Ogdoadic Tradition" is considered "fringe" (at best) even among other esoteric or magical Orders. I propose, given that all of the Llewellyn publications are essentially unreliable on this topic, that unless a non-Llewellyn reference can be found the article should be deleted.  ~Autumnal Monk~  talk 11:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bikram Yoga
There are some very fringe-sounding, possibly non WP:MEDRS claims in this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Typical detox claims. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Essentially, anything that claims detoxification benefits is automatically WP:FRINGE because the entire concept of these poorly described (and likely, mythical) "toxins" is not in mainstream science. SteveBaker (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bell's Theorem
Comments on Talk:Bell's_theorem will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Gordon Novel
Created (or rather re-created, a version was deleted last year as A3 but had earlier been very similar to this version) just a few minutes ago, it could use a closer look. A first glance shows some unsourced material. I don't know anything about this person so am asking others to take a look. IRWolfie, you'll recognise this. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, this guy DID get press coverage as a witness during the 1967 Jim Garrison investigation. But based on the sources given, his 'connections' to other world events are either conspiracy theories, wishful thinking, or puffery. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I vaguely remember the article from before but I thought speedy had been applied. It contains a bit of synthesis and OR, I'll try work on it and see where it goes. The section New York World's Fair seems a bit out of place and may be about a different person. Note that this appears to be a BLP article as well, unsourced or dubiously sourced material should be removed immediately. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This source seems to connect the New York World's fair so perhaps that piece is ok. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That source is hilarious. Conspiracy. Antigravity. Free energy. Time travel. Alien cover up. Is there anything this guy won't say? He could keep FTN busy for months. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dedicated account is rebuilding the article after unreliably-sourced material was removed. A few fringe conspiracy books/websites are being mixed in with more reliable sources, and there also seems to be some amount of WP:COATRACKing going on, with Novel being used as a starting point to promote the idea of wider conspiracies and connections (i.e. Novell was involved with A, and A was involved with B, and B was involved with C). The article could benefit with a general look-over by some fresh eyes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Western esotericism: real or made up by Victorians?
This article has no inline cites and to me reads as the fringe/occultish version of how we have this stuff now, as evidenced by the huge gap between the ancients and moderns. I think it could be argued that this is a spurious term, though I've had a very hard time getting "this is not a term-of-art" deletions to go through. Could I get some other opinions here? Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a legitimate academic term, e.g. . --92.4.177.142 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I admit I've seen it sometimes used apparently interchangably with Esotericism in general, but there does seem to be, date I say, a fairly common "Western" variation. Having said that, I do think that the article, as it stands, seems to need serious work. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the term (and concept) was made up by Victorians (the term first emerges at the same time as the appearance of various theosophical initiate societies, in the 19th century. My guess is that it was coined by such groups to distinguish what they were doing from previous forms of esotericism).  I could be wrong in that... but whoever coined it, it seems to have been was a handy enough term that it has become a legitimate term of art used in academia today.
 * That said, I do agree that the article needs more in the way of in-line sourcing. The article falls under several wikiprojects... I am sure they can help improve it if you bring the concern to their attention. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, is there any real point in having another article, Western esotericism studies? --92.4.177.142 (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No... merge the two articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Materialization (paranormal)
"Materialization could be caused by quantum-mechanical spin changes, coming from structure-coupled electromagnetic fields (see Patrick Linker)" was added here. Seems like a non notable fringe theory to me, but others may want to review it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed this material, as well as a link to Linker.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dudeism
Did you know that Dudeism is a "world religion", founded in the year 2005 by an expat journalist in Thailand named Oliver Benjamin, on his internet website? And that it is inspired by a Jeff Bridges character in the 1998 film "The Big Lebowski"?

No, neither did I, until someone just now started adding a few too many paragraphs on it, into our established article explaining the Hippie Movement, which of course triggers my "undue weight" meter. The proposition that this "Dudeism" is any kind of significant or notable phenomenon, would naturally involve the claim that it now has over 100 thousand ordained priests worldwide, as a CNN lifestyle columnist apparently reported last February. All I can gather from looking the religion's website, is that it is pretty obviously a joke or parody religion, which is also affirmed in the same CNN column, yet wikipedia at the moment seems to be treating this like a serious, bona fide religion. Hence the fringe report. What is best? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think joke religions are generally considered "fringe" - Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn and Church of the SubGenius are not generally considered "fringe". We don't impose the rules of WP:FRINGE onto them. SteveBaker (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the difference is, all of those are )correctly) being treated as joke religions. This one, so far, isn't being treated as a joke religion, although it needs to be. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources referring to it as a parody religion would be useful to making the needed modifications to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of sources: and  refer to it as a "mock religion", which I believe are sufficient to cite it as such in the article lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, LuckyLouie, those should do it. I'll add those sources in where appropriate. As long as they're not trying to have it both ways - i.e. simultaneously not a joke religion, but yet still exempt from fringe questions along with other joke religions. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Curiously, what questions would those be? Not being all aggressive here, but I think this hinges on what one considers a religion. If you are of the mind that Zen Buddhism is not a religion then Dudeism would not be either, but the same would be true the other way around. I would say Dudeism is a philosophy, the same way Buddhism, Taoism and parts of Hinduism are philosophy, and as those fall into the gray area of religion so does Dudeism. --RevGMS (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Unsurprisingly, we're seeing that the Church of the Latter Day Dude website promotes itself as a "real religion", not a parody, as well as a serious philosophy. The only enumeration of adherents, is the number of people worldwide who have filled out a "free" online ordination form to become a Dudeist priest, which they reckon as high as 150,000.  I guess that's notable enough for its own article, but not sure how much due weight should be given it in articles like Hippie. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I may be a wee bit biased here, but I find it relevant, hippies are Dudeism's biggest demographic. It is free, no one has to spend anything to be part of the community, and it is a quickly growing community. There is a documentary in the works by Italian film maker Thomas Fazi, two books in print the Dude De Ching and The Abide Guide. I am aware of a piece Nightline filed about Dudeism, not sure if or when they are planning to air it, VW featured Dudeism and Oliver in a commercial of theirs run in European theaters. Then there is the community its self, with an active forum with 5,000 plus members and a face book page with 61,000 likes. It may just be my opinion, but I think Dudeism is both notable and a legacy of the hippie movement. Not trying to pee on any one's rug here, and in regards to wikipedia I admit there are many wiser fellows than myself. Quickly about me, just thought I would give it a go at editing here, thought of it before finally deciding to go for it. I am also a displaced Colbert forum member who has lots of time on his hands since they shut down the Colbert Nation at Comedy Central. So there's my two cents, thanks for reading this. Peace.--RevGMS (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad al-Hasan al-Yamani
Raised this at BLPN also. Claims to have discovered "the Will of the Prophet Muhammed". Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Gyorgi Paál and dark energy
Since October, a number of articles have been edited to claim priority for the discovery of dark energy for the Hungarian astronomer György Paál‎. The claim is that Paál‎ first detected the presence of dark energy and determined that omega-lambda = 2/3. These claims are problematic in several ways. From the point of view of Wikipedia policy: they cite only primary sources, the papers by Paál et al. themselves; they depend on original synthesis to connect these papers with dark energy as we know it; and they give undue weight to Paál's work. From the point of view of physics: although Paál may have gotten the right value for omega-lambda, he did not derive it from anything that mainstream cosmology would consider valid evidence for dark energy. Instead, he based his calculations about claims of periodic quasar redshifts that are essentially a fringe topic today and not supported by modern data sets. I would appreciate it if others would take a look at my edits and keep an eye out for anything similar. The articles in question: dark energy; cosmological constant; accelerating universe; list of multiple discoveries‎; György Paál‎. --Amble (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Saltville, Virginia
Edited to make correct the article titled Saltville, Virginia, only to have it changed back to reflect conjecture today. Scientific fact, There is no proof that Spaniards were ever at Saltville as claimed in article  or that the Chisca Indian ever lived in the area. Confirmed by Virginia Division of Archaeology. Statements in article are unverified claims and/ or wild guesses. Rockhead56 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is really a matter for WP:FRINGE. The reference for this fact is a secondary source (the Roanoke Times) which seems to be a respectable paper.  It says that the original work was published in the Smithfield Review and cited in the Library of Virginia's "Virginia Memory" Web site.  If others are disputing the fact then both sides of the dispute should be mentioned under conditions of WP:NPOV.  So now we have primary, secondary and tertiary sources for this claim.  I don't see any evidence that the vast majority of mainstream historians disagree - which is what it would take to make this a "Fringe" topic.  This may be a matter of historical debate - but it's not "Fringe". SteveBaker (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not fringe. The most probable location of Maniatique being at Saltville was proposed on several grounds by Beck in 1997. Since then several other scholars have concurred with the evidence, but nobody has disputed it, said "this is fringe" or anything like it. But I reverted your edit there the other day for other reasons as well, like the way your insertion began with the phrase "Editors note:" followed by your unsourced rebuttal ... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion really belongs on the Saltville, Virginia talk page where other/future editors of this article can find and discuss the matter. SteveBaker (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rockhead does have a point. The Roanoke Times is not really an ideal source for reporting on scientific/scholarly claims, and even this says simply that "He [Glanville] was even able to pinpoint Saltville as the likely location of the murderous raid by conquistadors on an Indian village called Maniatique". Other sources say the village was "near" Saltville . In other words, it's not established fact, which the Saltville, Virginia article seems to say it is. Nor does the article suggest that there is a consensus in favour of his theories. Indeed, it seems to imply they were being ignored because they were considered fringe. "For a while, he wondered if his work was being ignored by the historical academic establishment. Perhaps his assertions that the Spanish set foot in Virginia before the English interfered too forcibly with the commonwealth's accepted historical narrative. But in the past couple of years, many of Virginia's most notable historians have come to regard Glanville's research as valid and significant. 'He's onto something,' said Peter Wallenstein..." So, we have the idea that his theories were "ignored", followed by the claim that his work is "valid" and he may be "onto something". Again, it's not presented as accepted fact, but a new and perhaps still non-mainstream view. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are primary (Smithfield Review), secondary (Virginia Division of Archaeology) and tertiary (Roanoke Times and Library of Virginia's Web site) sources for this claim. Sure, it might not be true, and it's probably disputed - but that doesn't make it "fringe". SteveBaker (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the general view that the Spanish did a bit of burning and plundering in the area seems to be fairly mainstream and uncontroversial, if still not undisputed. Having looked at this in more detail now, the "fringe" aspect seems to be the campaign by Glanville (a retired chemist who has taken up local history) to have commemorative plaques put up at the supposed exact sites of events such as the "First Battle of Saltville". It's his claim to have identified these sites that's of dubious historical value - and may be "fringe". Glanville actually seems to be wildly exaggerating the shocking radicalism of the basic claim in order to suggest that mainstream historians are coming round to accept views they never seem to have found particularly startling or radical at all, as if that justified his rather more speculative claims about the exact sites of events. Anyway, I've commented further on the Saltville Talk page. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a better scholarly link than the Roanoke Times in the main article Chisca, as well as the Robin Beck paper I linked above, which was well before Glanville, but isn't discussed by the Roanoke newspaper, which indeed wasn't the best source. But still hardly fringe. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Glanville is piggybacking on Beck's research while trying to promote himself as the person with the radical new theories that the "establishment" is being forced to come round to. But the two are not saying the same thing - not quite anyway. Paul B (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note there is a high school mentioned as an archaeological site in Beck, with a cite to an earlier 1992 paper by other archaeologists, but it is actually the Chilhowie High School, just down the road from Saltville, rather than the Saltville HS. Some slight confusion that might need straightening out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't access that one. The link does not work for me. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can access it now for some reason. The article seems to refer to speculation that the Chilhowie High School site might have been the centre of a settlement, but that seems to be all. Paul B (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Esau
User Dilek2 has been adding a fringe theory that the Ottoman Turks are descended from Esau.. This editor has also posted this theory to several other pages and claimed the Orghuz Turks are descended from Uz (son of Aram)  At no point has Dilek2 provided even the most unreliable of sources to support any of this. Edward321 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true, then this isn't a matter for WP:FRINGE - it's WP:NOR and WP:RS that need to be wielded against this editor. SteveBaker (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream media source presenting minority version
The mainstream German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has in a report by one of its senior reporters on the Houla massacre presented an account of the May 25 events that supports the claims of the Syrian government and thus contradicts the opinion of mainstream media in general. There is discussion on the talk page on whether or not to allow the FAZ article into the article. One principal contributor to the article has asserted that it should not be included, citing it to be a fringe position, and that it shouldn't be used unless other mainstream media in turn report on it. I'm not sure if this demand for coverage by more mainstream media for a source that is already mainstream, presenting an obvious minority viewpoint, represents a good understanding of WP:FRINGE. I'm therefore asking for clarity on the issue. There might be other relevant considerations from a WP:FRINGE point-of-view besides the one I'm inquiring specifically about. __meco (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Cross allegations of "fringe" seem to be common in international or global political disputes. What is "mainstream" in Russian or Chinese media, may not be at all "mainstream" in the German, Belgian or Canadian media, for instance.  It worries me to think we may be seeing an increased tendency to use "fringe" as an opportunity for wikipedia to weigh in for one government or its media versus another's. From a neutral standpoint, we should use varied sources to explain and attribute what all the significant viewpoints are on such an international controversy or dispute without making an endorsement of any of these sources, taking a stand, or marginalizing any of them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Judging from the discussion in the talk page this is really under the purview of Reliable sources/Noticeboard. At any rate I too am hesitant to use the term "fringe" to encompass minority versions of recent events; when we're talking fringe history we should be talking long-established viewpoints, not counting accounts in last month's newspapers. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm the contributor meco's talking about, and if I misused the term "fringe theory", I apologize. I've actually stated 3-4 times in that thread that I agree that the FAZ report should be included in some form, including in the post meco's citing; I'm not sure why meco claims the opposite here. I merely meant to point out that the FAZ report, which has only been reproduced by one other reliable source, should be given little weight compared to the thousands of reliable sources that give credence to the UN report instead. I'll use a phrase like "extreme minority" in the future instead. =) Khazar2 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology
Some of you may be interested in this.

50.74.135.246 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - it's a pretty clear case of WP:SYNTH. SteveBaker (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The section was restored by another editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hidden character stone
Hoax, joke? Source 1 (not a RS) suggests it might be the equivalent of an April Fool's joke. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the original English article it apparently came from: http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-5-31/29172.html, and the Chinese article it was translated from: http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/5/5/26/n934027.htm.  Equazcion  ( talk )  08:39, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why people don't simply assume that the rock fell, split, and then someone came along and carved the words into it? Seems like mundane graffiti is by far the most reasonable explanation.  Are we missing some detail in the story here?  SteveBaker (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

John Major Jenkins
Article about a writer on the horrible Mayan doom this year, I've removed some puffery in the lead but needs work. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Marcus  Qwertyus   05:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note this sock puppet which made changes to articles mentioned here: Contributor_copyright_investigations/GreenUniverse. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hindu astrologist Ravinder Kumar Soni
Anyone want to have a go at this one? Some very dubious sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Deletion is the route to go. I get no hits but social networking and us. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads up
Don't know how long I'll be allowed to stick around with the WP:RANDY police, but I made some midnight raids today I thought you all should know about:

1) Cold fusion. A wired.com source is being used to claim that DARPA is secretly funding cold fusion through SRI International and Michael McKubre in particular. It may be true that McKubre received some money laundered through the DARPA funding scheme, but wired.co.uk is not a reliable source to expose this and the DARPA document the cold fusion proponents want to cite seems to simply not say anything of the sort. There is this game being played of trying to "legitimize" cold fusion research by claiming quiet funding by the likes of NASA, the US Defense Dept, etc, but these claims are usually dubiously sourced and seem to be mostly soapboxing. Still, expect some pushback and anger from the dedicated cold fusion advocates on that one.

2) Masreliez. Search the archives for more on this one.
 * I AFD'd this one. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

3) Plasma cosmology. An organized campaign has happened off-site to try to commandeer this article. Poor sourcing seems to be par for the course. I commented on User talk:Art Carlson's page about my major concerns on this one. Keeping an eye on it would be good and also the fringe physics proponents who are most active there lately.

4) Fractal cosmology. Could use even more clean-up than I gave it. The end of greatness is more-or-less observed and, though there are some who don't believe this, it is a pretty damning falsification of this proposal. One can look at the maps of the cosmos themselves for more on this.

5) Fringe theory: I see a lot of action there, but kept out. Keep up the good work, folks. Educators everywhere thank you for your diligence.
 * I reverted one recent unhelpful edit, however the article does not appear to be in such bad shape. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All the best,

209.2.217.151 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

SA / VanishedUser314159

 * I think there is sufficient evidence to assume the IP is a SOCK of SA / VanishedUser314159. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think an IP is a sock puppet the best place to take this is: WP:SPI. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also think IP 209.2.217.151 is a sock puppet. And IP 50.74.135.246 is carrying on in a very similar way, so I have reported them both as sock puppets of ScienceApologist at Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The IP is now blocked as a IP sock of SA / VanishedUser314159 --POVbrigand (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy
This is attracting SPAs. See WP:NPOV and this thread at DRN to see one of them. A new one has just arrived. If you look at the talk page, you can see I've been removing some bad sources, got rid of the quoteboxes which were pov (probably everyway, we shouldn't have any pov in any direction), and have removed a section on Punt that besides being badly sourced didn't actually discuss the history of the controversy.

Note please the bright yellow banner when you edit and the note at the top of the article page - this is not an article about the controversy, it is an article about the history of the controversy although editors too frequently ignore this. I'm sure it needs more work to make it truly NPOV. SPAs of course can make it almost impossible to keep that way. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems to be one of the most common repeat offenders here. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See - IP, again, adding 'European' to "scholarly consensus", and white/darkened to caucasian. The Diop stuff would be ok if it was oriented towards the history of the debate, which it might be (in a rush), and the Petrie/Budge stuff is a slight problem. Budge seems to have simply been wrong but I can't find a source discussing him, and I think Petrie belongs in the Dynastic race section.  The problem is with few to no other editors involved, SPAs can take over. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Diop's positions may take a good deal of unpicking. I did some work on his biography, and dug out a good source on his studies in the 1940s-1950s. But most stuff written about him claims him for more simplistic positions than he actually took, and that's both the pro and the anti. Bernal similar. Bernal's first volume of Black Athena has a detailed history of the debate from C18 through to C20, and I have been wondering whether it might just be considered reliable. It was the ancient history that was so heavily criticised (but also has defenders). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this article is under probation per Arbcom, we already know it is a troublesome article where disputes may occur. A brand-new IP editor,, has been adding controversial material with no discussion. In my opinion it is reasonable to issue two months of semiprotection. If re-adds his own material again before getting consensus on the talk page, he might be blocked. The Arbcom probation allows any uninvolved admin to issue a topic ban if needed. In my opinion, we are not yet at the point where topic bans are necessary, but we could be there soon if the new editors don't show willingness to follow consensus. SirShawn has already been notified under WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the potential copyright violations from the article from the banned sockpuppet GreenUniverse. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Biology and political orientation?
I have been told that this is a suitable forum for an alert about the encyclopedic quality of Biology and political orientation. The page is currently supported by a single political project (and no scientific project). Personally, I wish to refrain from involvement, following unfortunate interaction elsewhere with a prominent member of that supporting project. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That article looks truly crap and needs substantial work or AfD. The sourcing for medical claims is truly rubbish. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh... I think once you cut all the non-WP:MEDRS out not much will be left, maybe delete and merge to a subsection in another article, but it's unclear where the best home for it would be. a13ean (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a medical article so WP:MEDRS does not apply. It is a subject with a considerable amount of recent research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's published in a political science journal. How is that a reputable source for biology in any way. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A political science journal can of course publish political science research incorporating neuroscience and genetic views just as it can publish political science research incorporating sociological or social psychology views. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes they can, but that doesn't answer his question. There is an increased likelihood of unreliability when a journal steps outside its reviewers' areas of expertise into an area for which they have only a superficial understanding. They tend to let through material that 'sounds good' because they aren't familiar enough to evaluate it critically.  Agricolae (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Holy carp! Yeah, this is definitely an AfD waiting to happen. SteveBaker (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any evidence for any scientific misconduct or is this just speculations? The article cites many different peer-reviewed studies in many different journals. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has speculated that scientific misconduct took place, and it is somewhat inflammatory to inject such loaded accusations into this discussion. Agricolae (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the paper is that the research was not done (and could not be done) using the techniques of political science (Polling, historical research, statistical analysis...whatever). The hypothesis can only be meaningfully tested by gene sequencing, DNA testing, examining family trees - with appropriate controls for nature-versus-nurture, etc.  The political scientists who edit and review political science journals are simply not equipped to judge whether those techniques were correctly performed and reported.  It's neither reliably sourced nor notable...so it doesn't warrant having a Wikipedia article.  Hence AfD ASAP. SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Put it another way: We require "peer review" for reliable sources in journals. This research wasn't reviewed by the peers of the biologists who did the work - it was reviewed by other people who were not their peers.  Without peer-reviewed papers, this article fails to justify its' own existence. SteveBaker (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are objecting to a single paper when there are numerous in the article. Here is a secondary review on the subject in a psychology journal: . Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (multi-ec)The topic may seem weird, but there is a substantial amount of mainstream scientific research on it. I personally wouldn't take it very seriously unless there were twin studies (because environment plays such a big role here), but I do think there are sufficient sources to justify an article. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The heritability study was twin study. As noted in the secondary review there are numerous articles using various methods on this subject. It is a rapidly growing research area.Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to remove references from political science journals - then remove unreferenced controversial facts (which is nearly every statement made in the article) - then see whether what's left is noteworthy. Let me put it another way: We require "peer review" for reliable sources in journals.  This research wasn't reviewed by the peers of the biologists who did the work, those could only be other biologists in similar areas of expertise.  It was actually reviewed by other people who were not their peers.  Without peer-reviewed papers, this article fails to justify its' own existence. SteveBaker (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the policy stating that political science journals are not reliable sources for political science subjects? How do you know that the political science journal did not include experts on heritability among the reviewers? Again, you are objecting to single study when the article cites numerous. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not just a political science subject - it is making specific claims about biology. It doesn't simply get absolved of the standards to which biology is held because it is biology applied to political science. Agricolae (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is published in one of the most influential political science journals and has hundreds of citations. The scientific community has seen it as very important. Where is it stated that political science are not allowed to study biological influences? Inter-disciplinary fields like political science by definition uses methods from different fields. Why should Wikipedia automatically declare such an influential peer-reviewed article as invalid when the scientific community has not? Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again with the straw-man. Nobody said that political scientists can't study biological influences.  There is no possible reading of what I wrote that could lead to that conclusion.  (What I said is that they don't get a free pass on the biology when they do.) Such over-the-top rhetorical gamesmanship is unhelpful to the discussion.  Agricolae (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously they do not get a free pass. Neither is their research automatically invalid. Today there are many studies by political scientists using biological methods. Biologists are also studying how biology and politics and interact. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not automatically invalid, but automatically suspect. Biological claims made in non-biological journals are inherently more suspect than biological claims made in biological journals (just as political science claims made in biology journals are more suspect than those made in political science journals.) That is just how it works. As to it being obvious that it doesn't get a free pass, you keep harping on the fact that this paper is political science, and evaluating it based on its reception among political scientists, but that is only half the story. Agricolae (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that this topic is under discretionary sanctions, of which Academica Orientalis under the alternative account Miradre has been previously topic banned for a 3 month period. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should the topic be under any discretionary sanctions? Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It deals with evolutionary psychology (a topic which you were banned from for 3 months) by Arbitration enforcement, where it appears it was deemed to be closely enough related to the Race & Intelligence arbitration ruling. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Evolutionary psychology in general is not under any discretionary sanctions and I have not ever been topic banned from it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not according to this, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive96. You appealed your block under discretionary sanctions here saying that it was outside the remit. The block was not modified. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I was topic banned for argued edit warring and blocked for argued editing articles of articles involved in the R&I controversy. Not for editing evolutionary psychology articles in general. After this I have avoided R&I articles except talk page comments and will continue to do so. I would prefer that you would use factual arguments regarding the discussed article rather than use what seems to be unrelated ad hominem against me. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've put it up for AfD, the article is unsalvageable. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the link for the AfD: Articles for deletion/Biology and political orientation SteveBaker (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings and its friends and relations
The article ethereal beings is up for deletion as (in User:AndyTheGrump's assessment) "One Big Pile of Synthesis and Original Research". I would agree that something drastic needs to be done, though I'm more inclined to merge and prune the bejesus out of it. Anyway, the ancillary issue is that there are a lot of terms for immaterial beings, both by genus and as overall classes, and the latter are really quite a mess. Spirit lacks references but is basically sane, and on the other hand we have horrible messes like this one, and non-physical entity, and I haven't chased about the reset of the general articles. There are also questionable genus articles like Daemon (classical mythology), which I'm pretty sure is a more or less made-up modern term. The whole set of articles needs at least a once-over to deal with the most egregious cases. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I understand your remark about daemon being a "made-up modern term". I do see that Daemon (classical mythology) appears to take as its premise the work of a living academic whose Wikipedia article confers the somewhat unusual distinction of having presided over multiple academic eras. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing sonething, but I don't see Burkert used as a reference in the article. Also, if you look at demon, it's apparent that there's a certain content forking going on, as there is no clear line between a demon and a dæmon. They both come from the same Greek root, so when one goes back into the classical era they are indistinguishable; indeed, there's no great distinction in meaning between the Greek and the Latin "spirit". Mangoe (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I follow you now. Agreed. Burkert seems to dominate the first paragraph of the Description, entering with a lengthy quotation straight after Plato's Symposium. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

BaBar_experiment
This is terrible fringe, some scientists bluntly claim the Standard Model is flawed.

The experiment has obviously not been replicated, thus it is not RS. It is not published in peer reviewed journals, although they claim they will submitted it to Physical Review Letters. Let's just hope the editors of that journal set their priorities right and toss this crackpot theory right out, no need to peer review something silly like that. Why can't some scientists set up a petition to stop this, in Italy recently such nonsense ("Piezonuclear fission") was successfully stopped that way by governmental intervention.

A further clue is that this experiment is named after a children's book

I doubt that this article passes the notability test, so we could consider an AfD. But while it is still here, we should really tone down the soapboxing and sensationalist wording in this article and depict this for what it is: an erroneous and futile attempt of some "scientists" to rewrite the standard model.

The "Notable events" section is violating WP:NOTNEWS, and also not RS. It's only a bunch of self published press releases.

The "Institutions involved" section is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR and is an attempt to push notability by association.

We'd better do this quickly before some scam artists picks this up, but expect some pushback and anger from the advocates on this one.

--POVbrigand (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is apparent that your reasoning for bringing this here is purely disruptive and WP:POINTY. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is obvious fringe, because it is not accepted theory and this is the fringe noticeboard.
 * This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
 * Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here.
 * The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that proper balance is maintained.
 * Please explain why you think this is disruptive ? --POVbrigand (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At first I thought this might have been the result of some confusion, but now I realize that it's just trolling. a13ean (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the other members of the board might also want to share their thoughts on whether this is a fringe theory or not. The experiment is not replicated and so far no peer reviewed papers are published. So that's fringe as far as I understand. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The results were (or were going to be) submitted to a journal last month, and are across science news websites. Clearly they aren't going to be published yet in only a month. There is nothing fringe about this in any way, this is as mainstream as it gets. It is obvious that you are also aware of this. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No a team of 500 scientists is not mainstream. Just pick up your favorite physics text book to read what is mainstream. This is new unverified non-peer reviewed experimental claims. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence ! A couple of newsy items will not suddenly make this mainstream. Believe me, I have been working long enough on a fringe topic to know one when I see one. btw, I have reread my original comment and I agree that there are parts that I could and should have written differently --POVbrigand (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * List of journal papers published by the BaBar team:, mostly in peer-reviewed journals. I also took your advice by glancing at an introductory textbook on particle physics  and found several prominent mentions of the BaBar experiment.  Here's another one  that specifically mentions flavor physics at BaBar as an avenue to find physics beyond the standard model.  In fact, I doubt you will find any general textbook on particle physics from the past 10 years that doesn't devote some space to physics beyond the standard model, and most of them will mention BaBar.  Your attempt to ridicule WP:FRINGE backfires by showing how utterly trivial it is most of the time to distinguish developments in real science from fringe claims while guided by bedrock Wikipedia policies and outside sources.  --Amble (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice list, doesn't mean a lot. Many fringe stuff managed to get through peer review. Only the last non-peer reviewed paper is the extraordinary claim and that one is not yet replicated, but in Japan they are working on a replication "Belle". But even a replication wouldn't mean it will become mainstream overnight. Surely there are textbooks that mentioning this effort, that doesn't mean it is mainstream. Plenty of textbooks also mention the Fleischman-Pons experiment for example.
 * I am not ridiculing WP:FRINGE at all, so I don't see anything backfiring at me. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a hard time believing that you honestly believe WP:FRINGE applies here, because it is so easy to show that this is not remotely a fringe topic.. The huge number of peer-reviewed papers, prominent mention in textbooks as mainstream science, etc. clearly demonstrate this.  Plenty of textbooks mention Pons and Fleischman as an example of pathological science.  None do for BaBar.  If you think the recent analysis showing a 3.4-sigma discrepancy from the standard model prediction is too new to be sourced well, you could make that argument, but that's completely different from calling BaBar a fringe experiment, which is what you originally posted above.  Moving the goalposts in this way also leads me to doubt that you're presenting an argument you sincerely believe.  --Amble (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether this is fringe or not - but in a sense, it doesn't matter. The article is pretty good about saying that this isn't settled science.  If there is "mainstream" criticism of it, then we should be sure to adhere to WP:WEIGHT - but aside from that, I don't see a problem with this.  We should keep an eye on the news - see if there is independent verification and/or peer-reviewed publication - or whether there are widely expressed criticisms that need to be mentioned in the article.  SteveBaker (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above a Japanese "Belle" experiment for replication is underway, but even a replication doesn't mean it becomes mainstream. Otherwise I see it the same way as you. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The project is investigating an aspect of an established phenomenon in physics with an almost half-century history and for which a Noble Prize has been awarded. Unless obsolete, which this is not, then as IRW says you can't get much more mainstream.  Applying a Jacobellis test is not sufficient justification for labeling science as fringe.  Likewise, the absence of a peer-reviewed publication is a possible basis to challenge verifiability and notability, but does not reflect whether it is fringe or not: many mainstream scientists have unpublished mainstream data - that may make it non-notable and unverifiable, but does not automatically make it fringe, nor does publication automatically turn fringe into mainstream (e.g. water memory). Agricolae (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, I think this falls under WP:Fringe "4. Alternative theoretical formulations". It is not mainstream, this is new. I trust that these scientists use the scientific method and that their results truly indicate something remarkable. But as long as it is not replicated, nor peer reviewed this is fringe. When there is no plausible theory presented for these experimental results this is fringe. To paraphrase Huizenga: ""Furthermore, if the claimed measurement is not in line with the conventional theory, one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring." --POVbrigand (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no "alternative theoretical formulation" because there's no theoretical formulation at all. What you're talking about (when you're not suggesting that BaBar as a whole is somehow a fringe project) is an experimental result. --Amble (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * POVb, is there some larger point you're trying to make? You're usually pretty reasonable, but to argue that a large, collaborative project at SLAC is "fringe" is so utterly bizarre that I can't help but wonder if there's an unspoken subtext. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (I was thinking the exact same thing!) SteveBaker (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To declare something cannot possibly be fringe just because "a large collaborative project" came up with it is also bizarre. It would make mainstream out of any extraordinary claim that comes out of a well funded project and it would dismiss as fringe anything extraordinary that comes out of a shoestring budget funded project. The level of budgeting is not the indicator to decide what is to be believed, or is it ? Are the funding agencies defining what is mainstream ?
 * But if it is true that it is now a mainstream fact that the standard model is flawed, than how can we judge any other claim that is not in line with the standard model ? It would be bizarre to argue that a claim is fringe because it is in conflict with the standard model and at the same time argue that it is mainstream accepted that the standard model is flawed.
 * Just read my original comment as a "thesis" that I like to discuss. Surely it is obvious to the editors who know me that I deliberately used wording that I encountered here on WP. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course he is. POVbrigand has repeatedly argued that fringe theories should be treated with more "respect", as it were. It's being going on for as long as my glass of Evian can remember. This section is pure WP:POINT. 'Oh Looook, we can argue that a BIG INTERNATIONAL scientific project if fringe; doesn't that tell you that the whole concept of 'fringe' theories is arbitrary and unfair?' Paul B (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * boring rhetoric --POVbrigand (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Infantile phrase making. Please do something productive. Paul B (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * POVB - did you actually read what it says, in full? "Other things usually SHOULD NOT be called pseudoscience on Wikipedia: 4. Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are NOT pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process." (emphasis added)  You are right that this applies (sort of, but see Amble above) and it means the opposite of what you are saying. As  to your point about a theoretical model, for the first 90+ years that we used aspirin as an analgesic, we had no plausible theory about how it did so.  That doesn't mean that aspirin being an analgesic was fringe until the late 1990s. Peer review is not the sole determinant of fringe (again, think water memory).  It is one indication of acceptance by the scientific community, but not a foolproof nor lone way of assessing that.  As to your Huizenga paraphrase, if one result is at odds with the conventional theory, then one must suspect experimental error.  If respected scientists have been reporting solid data at odds with a conventional theory for 50 years, then you have to suspect that the conventional theory is wrong.  If a Nobel prize has been awarded for the discovery that reality is at odds with the conventional theory, then the scientific community has accepted that the conventional theory is wrong, and it isn't the conventional theory anymore. Agricolae (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When something is fringe it does not mean it is also pseudoscience. I am not arguing that this BaBar experiment is pseudoscience, my goodness no. I think this BaBar experiment is good science with a fringe outcome. For some reason everyone here seems to accept the fringe outcome as mainstream. I have seen other good science with fringe outcomes, where editors will use some of the same silly rhetoric that I used (and worse !) to keep "physics subjects free of trash."
 * Regarding the theoretical model. I agree with you, but it seems that the scientific method doesn't. If there is no theory, then it is not falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is dismissed as pseudoscience.
 * "If respected scientists have been reporting solid data at odds with a conventional theory for 50 years, then you have to suspect that the conventional theory is wrong." Not necessarily so, if you have a preconception that something is crackpot, you can simply resort to discrediting the scientists, discrediting the reports, the papers, discrediting the "advocates", discrediting the publishing journals, ridicule, mock, bagatellize, ignore. And even take pride in doing so. I have seen many fine examples of that behaviour here on WP. cheers --POVbrigand (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this further demonstrates the WP:POINTY nature of bringing this here. If you continue to disrupt this board WP:RFC/USER or similar is the next step. Also, this most likely falls under pseudoscience sanctions broadly interpreted. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTPOINTY Important note: A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it. As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which he or she does not really agree with, for the purpose of discrediting a policy or interpretation thereof.
 * Please be so kind and tell us which edits are pointy. Thank you --POVbrigand (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I presume that this accusation is because some people here believe that you put forward this article on a seemingly "normal" scientific project as "fringe" in an effort to weaken the WP:FRINGE guidelines to the point where they might someday be dismissed - which it is pretty clear is something you'd like to happen. Hence this note might be broadly construed as an effort by you to make edits that you don't really agree with in order to make a broader point about the WP:FRINGE guidelines.  It's pretty obvious to absolutely everyone (yourself included, I'm sure) that Ba-Bar isn't remotely on the level of (say) Homeopathy or Indigo children - and doesn't need to be subject to the stringent rules that we place true fringe theories under.  So I guess I understand why the WP:POINTY accusation is being levelled at you - although it's not an accusation I would have made.  Rather, I'm just puzzled as to why a normally level-headed person such as yourself would suddenly make this utterly incomprehensible request. SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you assume I am level-headed (which I am), then why do you assume I would like to see the fringe guidelines dismissed ? (which I don't). I don't want to weaken any guideline or subvert policies. My request was mostly tongue-in-cheek, I honestly didn't anticipate that people would take it for face value. As you explain below, I agree that I am arguing the "fringe hypothesis". I do not think the whole BaBar is fringe, but that their latest claim ("standard model is flawed") is currently indistinguishable from what is regularly understood here as fringe. But you make good points below, so I'll continue there. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Then I think I have to agree with User:IRWolfie- - your post to this noticeboard is WP:POINTY - you provoked a discussion, seemingly seeking to make the BaBar experiment page fall under WP:FRINGE - not because you believed it truly was fringe - but to make a "tongue-in-cheek" point about the WP:FRINGE guideline as a whole. That is absolutely WP:POINTY - and an egregious waste of everyone's time here.  If you have a problem with the guideline - then just come out and say it without causing all of this grief over something that even you don't believe is problematic.  SteveBaker (talk)


 * I do not have a problem with the guidelines ! I wanted to highlight that the BaBar claim "standard model is flawed" is currently fringe, but can I go with your wording "fringe hypothesis". I will take your advice and will not use tongue-in-cheek arguments anymore. Sorry, but I really thought it would be obvious. And it is WP:NOTPOINTY --POVbrigand (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that this work is not a "theory" at all - it's still a "hypothesis". They've followed the scientific method correctly:


 * Hypothesis: We can advance understanding of the disparity between antimatter and matter by measuring the CP violation.
 * Experiment: Do something complicated with gigantic and expensive machines - then measure the outcome.
 * Result: Weird things going on that seem to violate the standard model.
 * New Hypothesis: OMG! The standard model might be wrong!!
 * Publication: (coming soon, we promise)
 * Replication: The "Belle" experiment...soon.

At no point have they claimed to have established a new "theory". They are simply saying that they did an experiment and the result appears to be (subject to verification) contrary to the predictions of the standard model. This is the way science advances!

Contrast that with other WP:FRINGE stuff - in just about every other case, the "theory" came first (think Hydrinos or Homeopathy) and the hypothesis/experiment stuff that should have preceded it simply never happened. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream rejects it out of hand.

You might successfully argue that this is a "fringe hypothesis". But they aren't claiming any kind of new "theory" - in the intended sense of Scientific theory. Since there is no new theory it can't possibly be a "fringe theory". Right now, it's a poorly understood, unexplained, not yet properly validated experiment with an uncertain outcome.

The comparison with Fleishmann & Pons is a good one. Initially, the FP experiment was just like this one - a hypothesis and an unvalidated experiment. Then the experiment was reproduced by third parties - and the anomalous readings were elegantly explained using nothing more than mainstream theory. Up to that point, this was not a fringe theory - after this point, it was merely a slightly poorly done experiment. But subsequently, a bunch of people rejected the mainstream explanation and insisted that something real was happening and started pushing out claims for actual new theories. That's why we now talk of cold fusion as "A fringe theory" with good justification.

As to the "BaBar" name being a clear indication that this is fringe - that's just ridiculous mud-slinging. It's called BaBar because the particle that figures centrally in the experiment is the anti-particle of the B meson - which is written as a B with a bar over the top of it and pronounced "B bar" in conversation. Choosing Babar the elephant as a mascot is just a little light humor of the kind you see throughout the scientific world - it's no indication of a lack of seriousness in the project itself. Recall that Homo floresiensis is nicknamed "The Hobbit" after the children's book - and the seminal paper by Alpher, Bethe and Gamow on the origins of the universe is almost always referred to as the "αβγ paper" because it's humorous.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read my naming argument with lots of salt. They can call their experiment whatever they like and it doesn't indicate anything regarding the scientific quality of work.


 * I like your scientific method list above. But it would also mean that as long as you are presenting a (fringe) hypothesis you are not yet truly fringe. For LENR there are a multitude of fringe hypotheses so the comparison of BaBar with Fleischmann-Pons is surely a good one. To many LENR is "a poorly understood, unexplained, not yet properly validated experiment with an uncertain outcome." It is only partly true that some "anomalous readings were elegantly explained using nothing more than mainstream theory.", because many other thoroughly performed experiments yielded anomalous readings that simply could not be explained by using the mainstream theory = identical situation as BaBar currently is in. So that last category experimental replications brings LENR back to the same level as BaBar currently is: Result = Weird things going on that seem to violate the standard model.


 * The main idea I have for bringing this topic up is that when the BaBar experiment is true and replicated successfully, than many other past claims that were dismissed for being in conflict with the standard model need to be reassessed. That reassessment is of course not something we will do here on WP, it will be done outside. But in the meantime it would be good if we can stop being so hostile towards anything that is in conflict with this shaky standard model. It seems the jury is still out. I wanted to bring this "heads up" to this noticeboard and I really think there is nothing wrong with that. AGF. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And you've been shown abundantly that it's extremely easy to see why BaBar is not fringe, and cold fusion is fringe, when you are guided by Wikipedia policies and reliable outside sources. That should be the conclusion of your little experiment. --Amble (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Fringe" is in the eye of the beholder - that's always been my take, up front. But sometimes, lurking and reading this board is even more entertaining than reading minutes from the Soviet Presidium trying to collectively declare what the 'Kurgan hypothesis' really means...!  ROFL!!!  Blockinblox (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You might be right about "in the eye of the beholder" - but the definition in the lede of WP:FRINGE is reasonably clear-cut: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". I suppose that one's interpretation of "broadly" might be tough to pin down in some fields - but for almost everything we actually do label as clearly "fringe", it's pretty darned obvious even to advocates for the idea.  But the guideline isn't supposed to be a "bright line" definition.  In borderline cases, we may not be able to definitively say "This is a fringe theory" but that's OK because the rules that WP:FRINGE imposes are nothing unique to fringe theories.  Mostly it says that we shouldn't give undue weight to minority-held views in a field and reminds us that WP:UNDUE and WP:RS are important and that the neutral point of view is the mainstream POV, not that of an extreme minority.  It also describes what is and is not a pseudo-science and demands that sources for articles specifically about pseudosciences should be referenced in the main by mainstream sources.  But that too is really only a reminder of what WP:UNDUE and WP:RS are already telling us.  For topics that are only borderline - maybe psychoanalysis or string-theory (both of which have been labelled "pseudoscientific" due to lack of experimental evidence, but are more or less mainstream) - we simply use WP:UNDUE and WP:RS just as we would in any other article about a mainstream science topic and there is simply no need to "label" things like that either way. SteveBaker (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But in the meantime it would be good if we can stop being so hostile towards anything that is in conflict with this shaky standard model is clearly aimed at promoting a further agenda unrelated to the BaBar experiment. That is, this discussion was opened purely to be a proxy for another point. I have opened a request at arbitration enforcement: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK - I've added my comment over there. I guess we're done here though, the clear consensus is that BaBar experiment doesn't come under the purview of WP:FRINGE right now (although it might in the future).  That doesn't change the fact that Cold fusion still does. SteveBaker (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program warming up again
A SPA is sticking in a bunch of stuff from a conspiracy site; at least, that's what it looks like at first glance. I'm going to revert out soon so other monitors may be needed. Mangoe (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree - I now have it on my watchlist. SteveBaker (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Cosmos and Psyche
This article appears to be missing mainstream balance and makes it look like Astrology has demonstrated predictive power. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yikes, that's quite awful a real problem. A quick web search failed to turn up even a single review critically evaluating the book's claims (positively or negatively).  Many of the reviewers / readers seem very impressed by the volume of evidence presented, but of course that doesn't tell us much.  There are also a number of positive reviews of the book as literature and as personal philosophy.  It's not inappropriate to include these, as they form an important part of the critical reception of the book.  However, the complete lack of any source evaluating its factual claims leaves a huge gap in the article, and the positive literary reviews easily give the impression that the factual claims have also been weighed and accepted.  My reading of WP:FRINGE is that, in the absence of secondary sources critically evaluating the author's claims, the article should not attempt to go into those claims in any detail.  The sources that would allow us to describe them in a balanced way simply do not exist.  The article can still describe the book's contents and an overview of the author's ideas.  I think a good rule of thumb is that the article should describe the contents of the book in about as much detail as reflected in existing secondary sources appropriate to the topic.  Since we do have reviews describing Cosmos and Psyche as a work of literature and astrology, we can go into some detail on those subjects.  But since we don't have any secondary sources to determine e.g. whether the author's claims about correlations between culture and planetary alignments are statistically meaningful, there's not much we can or should say about this subject.  As for the critical reception section, I think it's enough to add an introduction making it clear that the section concerns the book's reception as literature.  --Amble (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I should say that I don't mean to criticize the editor who has written the article. Looking through the article history, I can see that the primary author is making a good effort to present the material in a fair and neutral manner, and it seems to reflect the sources pretty well.  The fundamental issue is in the lack of balance in the available sources themselves.  --Amble (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like fringe sources are being used where it is dubious to do so, I saw one published by the Anthroposophical movement. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove large sections of well-referenced material from the article simply because you don't like the opinions being expressed. The article describes peoples opinions, noting that they are their opinions. It does not claim that astrology is valid. Your removal of sections of well-referenced material has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Accordingly, I am reverting your edits. You seem to be on some type of ideological mission to remove material with which you disagree. That type of attitude is extremely unfortunate and harmful to the Wikipedia project. Please stop removing well-referenced material from the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have given reasoning in my edit summaries and on the talk page, I suggest you read them. The material is clearly inadequate for claiming that Tarnas' view is informed by quantum physics. The views of Louise Danielle Palmer of Spirituality & Health magazine don't have due weight for how compelling a case is made by Tarnas. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source cited is reliable for the opinion of the author. It was presented as the opinion of the author. I am sorry that you think that you need to spoon-feed readers, removing the authors opinions which you deem harmful to their well-being. Wikipedia policy allows for the neutral documentation of the published reaction to Tarnas' book. Your removal of large sections of well-referenced text are contrary to Wikipedia policy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is already filled with the different opinons of individuals. Firstly, you had not mentioned mentioned who the individuals were (i.e astrologers etc), and thus the text was misleading, secondly the article is already full of quotes and opinions, but what the quote from Sean M. Kelly is being used is to suggest there is in fact evidence for astrology when this is clearly misleading: Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but --- according to your highly implausible personal spin on Wikipedia policy --- we can't add that back in as Kelly's opinion because you object to who published Kelly's book. That's your claim, right? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with these differing opinions is not that they are poorly referenced as opinions that those people hold. Sure, there are a bunch of random people with opinions.  But that's true of almost any subject.  The issue here is one of WP:WEIGHT.  The mainstream view is the one that Wikipedia must give prominence to in such articles...that's a requirement of WP:FRINGE.  So if you fill the article with perfectly well sourced claims from a bunch of fringe supporters without giving considerably more space over to stating the mainstream view (which, evidently, is that this is all a bunch of nonsense) - then you're giving undue weight to those individuals.  That's not allowed here - no matter how well referenced.  So at the very least, you should pick the most common fringe views, back them up with a couple of choice quotes (which you'll doubtless be able to reference) - and devote the majority of the article to stating the mainstream view. SteveBaker (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the article, Anthroposophy is a social-religious-philosophical movement that include certain ideas that could be considered fringe. Such a source could be a valid source of information for the reception of the book as a work of religious-philosophical-spiritualism.  Most likely not as a source of critical evaluation of Tarnas's attempt to provide historical evidence for his ideas.  Have you discussed with the primary author of the article?  It looks like he's working to write the article in a balanced way and taking feedback in a constructive way, e.g. from your talk page comment.  --Amble (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Anthroposophy sources would only be acceptable for WP:ABOUTSELF descriptions in related articles due to reliable sourcing issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a self-published source, it is a reliable source for the opinion of the author on the subject of the article. Your edits have no basis in Wikipedia policy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check your text again. You aren't using it for the opinions of the author. You are stating it in the wikipedia tone: Tarnas' view is informed by developments in quantum physics, postmodern philosophy and Jungian psychology. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I say that Kelly thinks that Tarnas' view is informed by quantum physics? If not, please cite the Wikipedia policy that you imagine gives you personal veto power over Kelly's words. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Kelly is not a reliable source for what ideas are informed by quantum physics. Only experts in quantum mechanics are reliable enough to offer such opinions. 24.215.188.24 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC) banned sockpuppet. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I also note that the critical reception (WSJ and John Heron) do not have any of the large quotes etc and only small mentions while positive reception in fringe publications has large quotes, this is clearly unbalanced. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So expend the sections on the critical material! Improve the article! Help out a little! or is your role limited to being a self-appointed religious inquisitor? Maybe you should come up with some sort of rating system according to how much each author agrees with your personal philosophy, and you can remove well-referenced sections of articles based on that. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a legitimate issue in that the book claims to present empirical evidence for astrology. That's not a matter of personal philosophy or religious inquisition, and it's not always possible to fix it by expanding the article, since there may not be any reliable sources that critically evaluate the author's claims.  I'm not arguing for or against specific edits, but IRWolfie has a valid concern about the article.  --Amble (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. And it's not acceptable to write an article that's stuffed full of fringe quotes and demand that other authors fix the balance problem for you by adding lots of mainstream opinion.  It's certainly necessary to maintain the balance of the article - but one perfectly valid way to do that is to prune the undue weight by removing the less notable quotations.  If anything, the fault lies in the person who unbalanced the article by putting in all of that undue weight in the first place.  That's a clear violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT that should never have happened in the first place. SteveBaker (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should any positive material about books like this be allowed at all? If anything which supports the author is fringe, then we could just have a hard-and-fast rule that no positive material about astrology will be allowed. That would make things much simpler for everyone. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that I've taken the over-aggressiveness of Goethean here and on the article to WQA. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note the related article Archetypal_astrology which I have put up for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also this article Archetypal_cosmology which appears to claim the existence of the new paradigm sciences that with Jungian Psychology help to outline a new mythic worldview. No indication at all about the mainstream view or acceptance is given in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like another candidate for AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put it up for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another related article linked from Archetypal Cosmology which has major content issues Stanislav Grof. I couldn't find any sources per WP:GNG so I put it up for AfD. It's possible I missed some sources though if someone wants to try and improve it and also find mainstream reception to put the fringe views into perspective. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems if you work back from citations of his work there is indeed coverage in secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Transhumanism and related articles
Regulars may remember that there is a series of articles on transhumanism, a philosophical approach which touches on fringe theories in several ways. (Just to make life interesting, so do some of the philosophies that oppose it.) There are many articles in the series (a portal in fact), but I was advised to concentrate cleanup efforts on the main transhumanism article. It had been promoted to FA in 2006, so I put it into FA review, and after some months in review it has been demoted. It would be really good if we could once more have many eyes on the main article and the series. My attempts at improvement are systematically reverted.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To be fair, what you haven't mentioned here is that regular editors of these articles (myself included) have had varying levels of un-success trying to discuss your concerns about these articles. I myself have previously pointed out that the people being drawn in from WP:FTN by posts like this seem to have taken little to no time to familiarize themselves with the subject matter and sources used (kinda a significant issue considering the depth of the articles versus the sweeping changes suggested), as well as the policies of WP:FTN seem to be being misinterpreted/misapplied in several regards.
 * While I an other editors that frequent these articles are more than glad to have new constructive editors, it is extremely frustrating to deal with editors not familiar with the material, quoting parts of WP:FTN that do not apply to the situation, and have sweeping "I don't like this" or "this should be changed" comments without offering up solutions/alternatives for discussion. WP:Bold still applies, even on articles that we would really prefer you would discuss the changes with first.
 * Short version: If you have an issue with a section of an article, please be specific about where/what issues, your rational on the matter (and if you are going to cite Wiki-Policies, please have them be relevant), and have at least some suggestion as to how/what things should be changed to.  Anything else just becomes too much of a headache when dealing with floods of incoming editors from noticeboards. Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Short version. The article needs a complete rewrite to remove the pro-transhumanism bias. James Hughes is over-used - I suggest that most material sourced to him be removed. Scholarly critiques of the perspective must not be grouped together and categorised with trite put-downs. Non-scholarly critiques should not be bunged in as straw men to make transhumanism seem more sensible. I can deal with this stuff, or you can, but the article must comply with WP:NPOV. It might be better to stub it right down and start again. Other articles in the series have similar problems. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so let me put this straight out: "scrap the whole article" is not constructive input. If you wish to sandbox up a new version with input from people then you are welcome to get started, but simply trying to make a demand/request like that is kinda nuts.  You have to narrow things down from "I want everything changed", because so far no one is making a solid enough argument to convince anyone to put that kind of effort into things.  On specific points: James Hughes is directly mentioned 3 times and his work is cited 6 times (out of 130 references), so your claim of "overused" seems to have very little weight.  As for your issue of references you believe have different weight being combined together, you're really going to have to be more specific than that in an article of this size and with as many sources involved. Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nuke and start from scratch" is constructive when that is the most logical solution. For example when a group of fringe proponents attempt to own a series of articles as a walled garden. In the meantime see my more specific proposals on the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * From previous experience I've found when making the smallest change that I was pretty much reverted instantly, so it looks like it will be fairly hard to improve. There is also a lot of synthesis in the article (as I mentioned at FA review). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, IRWolfie, please do not make claims that you have followed proper etiquette and decorum in regards to your edits. There have been months and months of dancing around in the talk pages (as well as periodic "call the cavalry" postings, of which this one could be considered close but nothing in compared to the past).  I will be blunt; when I state that individuals have been vastly misinterpreting WP:Fringe and other guidelines, I do have you in mind.  So please, while I consider that you believe you are acting in everyone's best interests, I and other editors have tried to discuss matters with you at length with no real success; do not be disingenuous with your claims of "smallest changes".
 * As for "nuke and start from scratch": No.  Just no.  At no point in time have you provided any claims indicating that this would be the "most logical solution."  Personal hangups on a handful of individuals referenced, a handful of citations and a few choice wordings would seem to be the exact opposite of a reason to torch an article of this size and merit. Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ica stones
A really stupid edit war over this, with editors trying to insert something not in the article but claiming it is in the article, aided by a 'new' SPA who might be the IP who tries to put pov material in it who in turn just might be another editor. Nothing in the article says the government considers these national treasures yet even an experienced editor is trying to put this in the lead. See the talk page also. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems rather a bizarre thing for someone to edit war over. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm the "experienced editor" mentioned above, but my motives are there misinterpreted. Please do read the talk page. I can't speak for any other editor, but the long-running problem I have is the rigidity of Dougweller's position. In brief, there are old stones (and in this context, "old" only necessarily means pre-1930). Dougweller has admitted this on the talk page, and the sources in use and all available evidence support it, but Dougweller is adamant that this fact should not be admitted in the article. The article thus contains statements that on any reasonable interpretation are untruths or at best half-truths. If the article adopted a more defensible position, I would be happy indeed to co-operate with Dougweller and others in defending it (though there would then be less attacks anyway). As it is, I find the stonewalling by Dougweller and a few others to be highly frustrating. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources are required for that sort of claim. In particular, reliable sources which don't need to be synthesized to the topic would be specifically required. These don't appear to exist. What I do see on the talk page is some rather dubious sources being put forward. Also, I don't see a direct connection to the current issue of inserting the particular unsourced text mentioned into the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think there are pre-1930 stones, SamuelTheGhost? Have you read it in a source? If the source is in Spanish, it should still be fine for use in the article if it meets our reliability criteria. If you post a link here, I and many others will be able to read it. If it's not online, post the full bibliographic reference. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No I haven't got any secret source. If I had I would have immediately made it known, obviously. I'm basing what I say on the best sources we have, namely Carroll and Coppens. If you think that they're not good enough, the article should be AfD'd, but if we accept them we can't cherry-pick. Coppens has "Cabrera’s private museum includes a collection of stones belonging to his father – Bolivia Cabrera, a Spanish aristocrat – gathered from the fields of the family plantation in the late 1930s." and later on "discoveries of engraved stones in the Ica region go back to Spanish records of the mid-15th century". Carroll has "It is quite possible for the engraved stones, if authentic, to have a simple anthropological origin. An alternative explanation – not considered by Cabrera or others – is that the engravings are votive renderings by the tribe’s shaman ..." and " ...it is difficult to believe that they are all – estimates run to 50,000 pieces – made by one poor, uneducated farmer. No independent study has been made, if only to separate any possibly authentic artifacts from the fakes." All I am asking is that the article's content should reflect these sources. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The material recently inserted into the lead (and that you replaced after it was removed) claimed that these stones (not generalised stones from Ica) are considered a national treasure. Nothing in the article supports this. This article is not about stones in general from the Ica area, it is about a set of stones that show humans riding dinosaurs, fighting dinosaurs, doing heart transplants, etc. The BBC program on these showed a spread from the New York Times which was the source for the heart transplant engravings. Neither Coppens nor Carroll is a reliable source for the archaeology of the area. Wikipedia should not be suggesting that these specific stones with the sort of engravings I've mentioned are authentic. And yes, we can use sources for one thing and yet say they are unreliable for something else. Or else we can't use Coppens at all, for instance, as Coppens is not exactly the example of a reliable source. As far as the source of the stones, yes, his father had a collection gathered from the fields. None of those are claimed to be these engraved stones. The story of these stones as described by Coppens starts with a gift on one stone to Cabrera, which he believed had an engraving on it of a long extinct fish. Then 2 collectors sold him 341 stones for about £30. After that, Basilo Uschuya (the forger) sells him more stones, with Cabrera estimating he had over 11,000 stones including star maps and humans in flying machines. He promotes these and along come von Daniken and Charroux and they become famous among the fringe. Cabrera's speculation gets a lot nuttier (space ports, Gliptolithic          Man with psychic energies who could influence celestial events, etc) and he also  "claims he was shown a cave in which the cache of stones had remained hidden for millions of years." No one else of course has seen this cave. The BBC films Basilo Uschuya  showing how he forged them. von Daniken himself says some of the stones are fakes and even, according to Coppens, "has also cast doubt on the origins           of the entire collection".
 * This article is not about Cabrero father's collection, it is about a set of stones that are claimed to have scenes from millions of years ago. I have been arguing that we shouldn't confuse the issue, or worse let make suggestions we can't actually back from sources, that stones such as those in Boliva Cabrero's collection might also have dinosaurs on them, or that any stones (if we found a source) found in colonial days might have had dinosaurs on them (or transplants, etc). As the archaeologist Ken Feder wrote  in his Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology, "The Ica Stones clearly are not the most sophisticated of the archaeological hoaxes discussed in this book, but they certainly rank up there as the most preposterous. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The key to the disagreement is "we shouldn't confuse the issue". If the issue is in any way confused or ambiguous, as it is, perhaps our words ought to reflect that uncertainty. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems like a pretty simple case - when you search for the term "Ica Stones" online - all it turns up are the modern stones - which it's pretty clear are fakes. There isn't any reliable source for the existence of older stones (dating back before the discovery and popularization of dinosaurs in, say, Victorian times) that have any surprising or unusual images on them.  So that's it - an open-and-shut case.  If more sources come along then we can say more about them - if not, then the mainstream story is that these are relatively recent fakes - and it's all over.  Really, I don't understand why SamuelTheGhost is still arguing about it.  If there are sources, then let us see them - if not, give it up, Dougweller is correct.  So Show Me The Sources or put down the stick and step back from the deceased equine. SteveBaker (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people seem to have a problem with understanding plain English. SteveBaker says "There isn't any reliable source for the existence of older stones ... that have any surprising or unusual images on them." As I have never suggested that there are, (nor do I believe that there are), it would be helpful if SteveBaker removed his pantomime horse and beat it elsewhere. But when he says "Really, I don't understand", that bit is right. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article's talk page as well as the posts above, you will see that attacking those who disagree with him is a trait of SamuelTheGhost. One of his edit summaries in the article said ""obsessive denial that any of the stones are ancient", and now he's attacking another editor. This doesn't help. As for his statement that old means pre-1930, there is no evidence that any of the fantastically engrave stones are that old, they were all acquired long after 1930 according to the sources we have so far as I can recall. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if there are no sources to attest to the surprising fact that STG claims - then it doesn't get into the article - period. If he continues to insist on putting that into the article in the teeth of consensus and contrary to Wikipedia policy about the need for WP:RS for controversial claims - then that's a clear case of disruptive editing, which when combined with his overly aggressive tone should result in a WP:ANI discussion - with the likely result being some kind of block or editing restrictions.  So again, my advice to STG is to back away and put down the stick or face sanctions by WP:ANI per the recommendations in DISRUPT.  Only three outcomes are possible here: STG needs to either (a) come up with some reliable sources, (b) give it up and move on or (c) expect serious repercussions.  Either way, this behavior cannot be allowed to continue. SteveBaker (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya
I am relatively new to Wikipedia and trying to learn all of the etiquettes etc...I have tried to address the Bias in the Ahmadiyya page but unfortunately I believe that people motivated by bias are seeking to keep a fringe opinion as the main opinion on the article. For a minor edit that I had tried to make i.e to change the statement to "self identify" I have met with a wall of rejection by two prolific wiki-contributers. One is Ahmadiyya Peaceworld111 himself and whilst a respected wikipedia contributor has a vested interest in not maintaining the balance of the page. The other simply reverted every change that I had made. I questioning the selective referencing used in the opening line of the page. One quotation is from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community which whilst biased I am happy to accept. The other is from an author who spent time with the Ahmadiyya community in England. I raised the issue that throughout his book he had cited that Muslim opinion was that the Ahmadiyya were not Muslim and therefore to quote his singular statement whilst ignoring his own referencing of the fact mainstream Islam consider the Ahmadiyya to be none Muslim is biased. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Islam_and_the_Ahmadiyya_Jama%CA%BBat.html?id=Q78O1mjX2tMC. I sought to resolve this issue by adding the statement that they self identify as an Islamic Reformist movement or alternatively to find an alternative opening quotation. All were met with firm refusals and a denial of any bias. Either way a fringe theory should not start an article as its prime quotation. If the other quotation is from the community itself then it supports the statement of self identification which I have put across (Steeringly (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC))
 * I am not sure that we have a fringe issue here, so much as a conflict between two religious opinions. I would have thought that the view that Ahmadiyaa are not Muslim is significant enough to be mentioned. Maybe not in the lead, but in a separate section. Would you mind posting this question at WikiProject Islam? Come back here if you need to. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasnt particularly pushing an opinion that they are not Muslim the title of the section is misleading. I was simply trying to raise the issue that it was their self identification that categorises them as Muslim as generally Muslims reject their beliefs as heretical. The reason I feel that it is a fringe issue is becasue the work cited as evidence of the Ahmadiyyah being an Islamic reformist movement is a fringe opinion and therefore should be correctly categorised as self identification by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. (Steeringly (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC))
 * It's not a fringe opinion as defined in WP:FRINGE, but it is not the only opinion. This is really a question of WP:WEIGHT. I know it is not exactly the same situation as the Latter Day Saints have in Christianity but there are some parallels. We have dealt with that as best we can, probably in a way that satisfies no-one. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Echo Flight UFO/Missile Incident
I think Echo Flight UFO/Missile Incident (additionally created as Oscar Flight UFO/Missile Incident) promotes a fringe "UFOs did it" angle (sourced to UFO sites) as the main view. News sources  report a newly-discovered hardware glitch was responsible for the missiles going offline. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It's very difficult to write neutral content about something if they're only really covered by fringe sources rather than mainstream ones. I'll have a look... bobrayner (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Related to these articles: having difficulty accepting WP:RS policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Morrelli, Chance & Hubbart & MacLane
I have created the story thet is mentioned above. User noq has attempted to sassert a POV that simply does not make any sense at all. Others have mentioned and he continues to push a POV that is out of line and this user is now bordering on abusive.

Other users have also questioned his actions on this story as well as others. According to the users logs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Noq noq seems to be doing a great deal of Drive By Tagging and according to user talk page, user noq's objectives should be questioned and reviewed.

noq seems to manipulate in a quest to perform self serving edits that serve no function and both distract and hinder Wikipedias ability to evolve. According to noq POV, a person is the same as a group of people and under this users POV, just about all of Wikipedia should be deleted or merged.

In this case, users noq POV is that a group of people that had the same effect as World War 2 on a famous yacht race, is not notable unless the group did something else notable.

I will use the Space Shuttle Challanger as a example that we can ref: In that story, each person whom was in the craft at the time it exploded has a singular page devoted to them. No other event took place for this person, so according to user noq, each of these people should be merged into the master story, as none of the astronauts that died that tragic day, had other notable events to report upon. Under user noq POV each of these people would have to had something else that also made them notable in some way in order to qualify for a Wiki page.

Here user noq asserts that Mr. Dennis Conner, in creating a team that would design something that the world had never even seen before, that went on to win the oldest race in modern sports and were cited over and over and over in the media, by Dennis Conner himself and world wide as a group, do not qualify for a page that defines the group. User noq's pov is that these men, as a group need to do something else, other then gather 70 people together that had never worked together before to do something that is still active in sportings most historic race today by creating a whole new form of sailing. If using the above example POV from noq to apply to the story I have referenced here, someone like Christa McAuliffe, should be merged into the main story as she was not really notable untill she was killed in that tragic crash, (a single event). user noq POV is way way way out of line and this POV, is distructive and noneproductive to Wiki's main objectives.--WPPilot  04:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not our bailiwick. It's obvious to me that the article on the four designers should be rolled into the article on the boat, but I see nothing about it that has anything to do with fringe theories. Mangoe (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree - this is not an issue for this noticeboard. Try Notability/Noticeboard. SteveBaker (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bat Creek inscription
The mainstream position on this is that it is a hoax. Recently a fringe geologist, Scott Wolter, has claimed it is genuine, and his views have been given some prominence in this article using his website as as a source. Now the hoax category has been removed (I've replaced it). Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Should we remove the Wolter section altogether, or leave it and mention the response from the Covalito link you provided?  I was waiting on University of Tennessee archaeologists to respond, though they've stated in the past that they're sick of dealing with the stone's controversy, so we may not get one.  Bms4880 (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it needs more work than that - given that most scholars dismiss it as a hoax and it gets its best support from an economics professor playing at anthropology, the whole he-said/she-said style of the Analysis and Debate portion gives a false equivalence between supporter and critics. Agricolae (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My problem is that a geologist is not someone who routinely dates artifacts - he looks at the composition of rock and stuff like that. So his opinion counts for little more than an economics professor does.  I'd want to see evidence from archeologists and others who might be experienced at dating rock carvings before we remove the hoax claim.  Do we really believe that the "mainstream" view is that somehow these carvings were made millions of years ago, before mankind existed and way before the chinese writing system in which they are made had been invented?  We'd have to believe either in the existence of time travel (not a mainstream opinion) or in seeing the future (also not a mainstream opinion).  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and the word of a single geologist with no background in dating carvings does not constitute the degree of evidence that this crazy claim demands. SteveBaker (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The proponents claim the inscription is 1st century AD Hebrew, not prehistoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Til Eulenspiegel (talk • contribs) 28 June 2012


 * I'm not even sure to whom you are referring. Wolter?  Of course the mainstream view isn't that they are millions of years old.  That is just a different flavor of fringe.  You seem to have grabbed my comment from the wrong end of the stick.  I am not suggesting that the hoax material should be removed, far from it.  I am suggesting that the McCulloch ancient Hebrew stuff is given far too much weight, by presenting it in a claim-and-response, claim-and-response style that occupies a third of the article when it is nothing but a non-expert repeatedly pushing a hyper-diffusionist pet theory that nobody in the field takes seriously, and most don't even bother to refute - it makes it look like there is a serious scholarly debate that there may have been ancient Jews in Tennessee. It basically gives this fringe opinion an undue role in the scholarly analysis, while making the hoax arguments look like they are just responses to McCulloch rather than of broader applicability.  A recent book that seems to include a detailed analysis of the hoax hypothesis just gets passing reference, while the Globetrotting Tribe of Abraham theory is described in much more detail. It should be the other way around.  As to Wolter, I don't think such a self-published analysis even merits mention until the scientific community has a chance to respond. Agricolae (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems to be right - what makes Wolter's view significant enough to meet NPOV? Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Steve seems to be confusing this topic with Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_32 which was mentioned here last week. This one is more in the time frame alleged for the Burrows Caves inscriptions and a number of similar others, that the proponents generally suggest to indicate refugees from Imperial Rome, not so much "Globetrotting Tribe of Abraham diffusionists". (I won't even say what that makes you sound like) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if you to ignore that this inscription is claimed to be in Hebrew (which you inexplicably do), I am not seeing how the fact that this is part of a broader pattern of fringe nonsense changes anything. Agricolae (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? I stated before, and I will state again, the inscription is unequivocally claimed to be in 1st century AD Hebrew.  If you are going to attack something so hostilely, at least take the time to figure out what you are attacking, and not a strawman. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's like we aren't even participating in the same conversation here. Yes, McCulloch fantasizes that this is first-century Hebrew and I never said otherwise.  There isn't a non-fringe scholar on the planet who thinks Hebrew-speakers were in Tennessee in the first-century.  It is pure fringe and should be treated as such in the article.  All this talk of strawmen and attacks and hostility is just smoke and mirrors. Agricolae (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you not just pretend the claim was that it was an "Ancient Hebrew Tribe of Abraham"? And is your tone not exceedingly hostile?  I stand by every word I have said here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No pretending involved. Can the term 'ancient' encompass the 1st century? Yes, absolutely (e.g. ancient-medieval-modern is a common division).  Can 'Tribe of Abraham' be used, albeit informally, to refer to Semitic speakers? Yes.  Is calling a fringe theory a fringe theory exceedingly hostile?  No.  Stand, sit, whatever, I don't care. Agricolae (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a pass at bringing it into line with FRINGE and RS - rearranged and reduced McCulloch material, removed Wolter. Agricolae (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Maria Gimbutas and the Triple Goddess
Maria Gimbutas theories about an ancient triple Goddess are fringe and rejected by mainstream academia. However these criticisms of her theories are being deleted from the article Triple Goddess (Neopaganism). The content being censored can be seen in this diff: [], for spurious reasons (ad-hominem arguments from an editor history of long-running disputes with myself). However, a prevailing argument on the Talk page is that the criticism from mainstream views are a WP:COATRACK and that the article should report this (fringe) theory without recourse to outlining it's rejection by mainstream academia. So how should this be handled? should a fringe, rejected theory be simply repeated by wikipedia (as the current article shows) or should mainstream rejection of those theories be part and parcel of reporting it? Davémon (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I shall try to take a look at this shortly, but I still have lots of storm damage to recover from, so it may be a while. Mangoe (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COATRACK did not apply, and claims that criticism belongs only on the Gimbutas article is a pretty clear misunderstanding of our policies. The criticism text could use some clean up, but it is the better of the two versions. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. It was as I thought, and agree that the criticism text could be improved.Davémon (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It cherry picks only critical statements from the cited sources. For example, the times article is largely positive, noting that she's an authority in the field. Furthermore, it shouldn't attempt to rubbish her theories prior to even presenting them.—Machine Elf 1735  20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ley tunnel
What to do with the above article? Folklore surrounding tunnels might be a notable subject, but that's not what we seem to have. Rather it's a collection of miscellaneous tunnels. Should we merge with ley line? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I lost track of this. See Articles for deletion/Ley tunnel where it was suggested it be given a new title. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And remove any unsourced 'ley tunnel' claims(a search for "ley tunnel" doesn't exactly turn up anything useful in Google books, although maybe another search might find something for one or two). Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dougweller says what I wanted to say, but more eloquently :-) Ghits (and Google Books in particular) reveal very little except mirrors. A synonym might return better results but if there is one, I don't know what it is. bobrayner (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What to do, then? AfD again? Merge? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we have to engage User:Rosser1954, probably on the talk page, and rename. Probably Tunnels in popular culture, maybe folklore. Meanwhile take out unsourced ley stuff. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've told Rosser1954 about this but have no time for anything else, can someone start a discussion at the article's talk page please? Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done so. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is clearly about what are normally called "secret passages", about which we already have a servicable article. It should be merged there. "Ley lines" are a totally unrelated topic, since they are supposed to have some quasi-natural existence in the landscape. Most of this is about supposed secret tunnels used for practical, criminal or otherwise secretive purposes. There is a brief section which does seem to link to the ley lines concept, which could be moved there. Paul B (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree, any sourced material should be moved to the appropriate articel and this one deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Dyatlov Pass Incident - Anyone speak Russian?
The Dyatlov Pass incident leaves the reader with the strong impression that the hikers were either attacked by aliens, or stumbled onto a secret soviet weapons test grounds and were therefore eliminated.

Now, I can believe that a bunch of hikers got spooked by something and ran like hell into the woods in their underpants. And in -30C weather it's not difficult to imagine how that would kill them. (Or how the ones that wound up in the bottom of a ravine might have broken their bones.) Or I can believe that an avalanche smashed them out of their tents and pushed them down the slope. (Some combination of the two also seems entirely plausible, to me.)

However, this article seems to concentrate a lot on some pretty dubious aspects of the story. It's presented as fact that the hikers clothing was "highly radioactive" and that there were mysterious orange spheres in the air above where the hikers were camped.

Maybe I'm just overreacting. It could be that the radiation and orange fireballs stuff is true. But as the article is based almost entirely on a single non-contemporary article in the St. Petersburg Times, maybe it's placing a little undue weight on the conspiracy story? APL (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do speak Russian and I generally know the story. The incident has never been solved, and, indeed, there were very unconventional explanations which made it to one or two newspaper articles. I think the easiest is to purge all aliens and to declare that no convincing explanation was found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you speak Russian it makes it easier to locate the many sources which don't give the aliens explanation etc and use them. Per WP:DUE we can give the statements from reliable sources more (i.e all) weight than the few incredulous ones. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's kind of the problem right now. The only English-language source in the article is completely behind what seems to me like crazy aspects of the story.  English-language books on the subject seem to be mostly from the point of view of trying to tell a spooky story. APL (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Available Russian sources are about the same and also promote crazy explanations.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer
The article on conspiracy theorist James H. Fetzer appears to be filled with many primary and otherwise dubious sources. There seems to be a lot of puffery, but I am unsure how to deal with most of this given that WP:PRIMARY does allow the use of primary source information to fill in details. Location (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Much of this article is completely undue. We don't build massive articles solely based on primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We just about had this article cleaned-up when the subject reposted a bunch of primary and self-published sources, as well as Amazon and YouTube links. I reverted the changes, but another eye or two would be useful to address the COI issues. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayurveda
The lead of the article on Ayurveda contains a paragraph on safety concerns, which are a major issue in the discussion in independent reliable sources. This paragraph, naturally, is loathed by proponents of Ayurveda who either delete it or try to bury it elsewhere in the article. More eyes would be apprectiated. A discussion is in progress on the article talk page. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Will keep an eye on it; watchlisted. Doesn't look too bad at this point... bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Flanagan
If anyone has a spare moment, this bucket of miscellaneous woo and technobabble looks a prime candidate for an AfD. I must admit though that I'm impressed that someone can apparently claim that something which will "lower the surface tension of drinking water" is somehow of benefit - or significance? A little Whisky in my water (or preferably, a lot of Whisky) has a similar effect. And for teetotallers, there is always detergent, though I'd suggest that the Whisky might possibly taste better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * He may be notable, some book coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd honestly be curious to see the response at noting that the surface tension concoction is but one of thousands/millions/a more or less infinite number of surfactants... Regardless, he's sure as heck not notable for that.


 * Yes, I don't think a paper with a rather modest number of citations like this contributes to notability. I was referring to a mention in Life Magazine, Skeptical Inquirer and the Washington Post. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Musica universalis
It seems that the article Musica universalis is being inappropriately linked with astrology in the text and the templates on the article, when the sources don't support that linkage. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the text since I can't find anything to support it, and the references fail at basic verification. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Creationism
See and 2 similar edits (3RR given). Editor seems to think that we are calling a theory a law of science, that because evolution is not a scientific law it something or other, not sure, and that it isn't observable. So, editor is removing the word 'empirical'. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there another editor arguing recently that evolution wasn't a law and that discounted it? Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
We appear to be having an impasse at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories regarding the proper treatment of Joe Arpaio, an Arizona sheriff who has been going to great lengths to "investigate" the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Note that this entire article is supposed to be devoted to the reporting of what are generally admitted to be fringe theories, so that point is not what is at issue here. Rather, the problem involves exactly how Arpaio's claims should be described in the article.

See the recent revision history for the article, and the "Sheriff Arpaio" section of the article's talk page. I see two main areas of dispute here:


 * Is it appropriate to report that, as of March 2012, Arpaio's staff had not asked Hawaii state officials for documentation regarding Obama's birth certificate — while at the same time not mentioning a trip which some of Arpaio's people made to Hawaii in May 2012, apparently in an unsuccessful effort to obtain more information? Some people are insisting that the comments from March are accurate, relevant, and reliably sourced, that the May developments add no new information (just more of the same pointless grandstanding), and that any mention or discussion of the May trip to Hawaii is giving undue prominence to Arpaio's crackpot theories.  Others insist that it is deceptive to report that Arpaio's people had not asked for any documentation in March, while refusing to acknowledge that efforts to get documentation were apparently made in May.


 * On a related note, is it appropriate to include a blog comment from a staff writer for the Phoenix New Times critical of Arpaio's investigation — again, from early March 2012? Aside from the first question (reporting March events without also reporting May events), it is alleged that the writer in question is not notable and that his negative opinion about Arpaio is thus not worth mentioning in Wikipedia.

I proposed three rewrites of the Arpaio material in the article's talk page, with little success — some other editors continued to insist that the existing material is adequate and that there is no need to rewrite it. Attempts to edit the article are descending into edit-warring misbehaviour, with accusations being traded of "content improperly removed", "possible vandalism", and editing actions based solely on "I don't like it" grounds. I'm intentionally declining to name specific individual editors here because I'm hoping to keep this matter in the realm of a content dispute, rather than cross the line and characterize it as a user conduct issue.

I will admit here that I'm partial to the idea that the May 2012 Hawaii trip by Arpaio's staff should be reported. But if it is going to be simply impossible to achieve a consensus along these lines, I would favour deleting or severely trimming mention in the article, not only of Joe Arpaio, but of other individuals and their quests — on the grounds that the article is really supposed to be about the fringe theories, and not really about the fringe theorists. This idea actually looks like it might manage to get a consensus behind it, though it's hard to tell now that people have gone back to edit-warring.

Any comments or suggestions for intervention would be welcome here. — Rich wales 06:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 06:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really a question of assessing the "fringe" nature of the theory, which is already given. It's a matter of due weight. That's not really an issue for this board. The article coulsd go on at great length about every action, theory, court case, blog comment etc ever made, but in factr editorial decisions do have to be made. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also: am I not correct in believing that the trip in May was not made by actual law-enforcement officers, but by Arpaio supporters grandstanding at the expense of an anonymous donor? - Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not accurate, Mike, as best I can tell. According to the sources I've been able to find, the two people who went to Hawaii in May were Michael Zullo (the lead investigator on Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse") and Brian Mackiewicz (a Maricopa County sheriff's deputy from Arpaio's "threats unit").  They visited the Hawaii state health department, showed Maricopa County Sheriff's Office badges, and said they were "authorized by the Sheriff of Maricopa County, who is conducting an official investigation".  There is a controversy over the funding of the junket:  Arpaio said it would be paid for by private funds, but the county Board of Supervisors voted to refuse to accept private donations to cover the expenses.


 * As for Paul Barlow's wondering whether this issue is best addressed here (on the fringe theories noticeboard) or somewhere else, that's a fair point; to this end, I posted a link to this discussion last night on the NPOV noticeboard, and I'll be happy to move the issue to WP:NPOVN entirely if people feel the discussion really doesn't belong here. —  Rich wales 18:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we may finally have reached consensus on a rewrite of this article's description of Joe Arpaio. So it should be possible to close this request for intervention. If and when problems arise again, I'll open up a new request (and presumably post it on the NPOV noticeboard, not here). — Rich wales 21:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories
User: Jason from nyc deleted my newly created article on Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories and restored the terribly written Influence Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood article instead. That article was so bad it was practically unsalvagable, since it featured few to no reliable sources and openly promoted the conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood that are advanced by discredited "counterjihad" activists such as Robert Spencer, David Horowitz and Pamela Geller. I replaced it with an article with a NPOV title (since it describes the allegations for what they are, conspiray theories) which I used reliable sources to write. However, Jason from nyc reverted my changes, deleting my new article (which he ludicrously claimed had been "moved by consensus") and restoring the bad version. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote fringe theories, and I don't think Jason from nyc should be allowed to do so here. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On second thought, at least in theory it probably would be best to have two articles, one on the what the actual influence efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood are, and one on the batty conspiracy theories about them that seem to be all the rage in the American far right these days. However, the current Influence Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood article does need a complete overhaul, in my opinion; we need to use mainstream scholars as our sources, not conspiracy theorists or polemicists such as Horowitz et al. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Influences" was written by 18 editors and has 75 references. To just delete it and put a reference to your newly created page undoes a consensus established over time. I would have thought that both well-sourced claims and well-sourced criticism could be in that one article as it is in other articles. The debate should be on the talk page of the article. Influences was previously moved from Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories after debate among the editors. Talk to the editors involved and derive a new consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Simply having a large number of references doesn't prove anything about the article's merit, since most of the references are unreliable sources. Ditto for editors (see WP: Countering systematic bias and WP: Vote stacking). By analogy, if 16 members of the Flat Earth Society came over here, created an article on Reasons for a flat earth, and claimed that the article was backed by "consensus" because 16 editors support it, that doesn't give the article merit. We've run into problems before with large ideologically motivated groups of people joining Wikipedia in large numbers in order to give the appearance of consensus on articles, so having a larger number of authors doesn't necessarily imply an article is NPOV or of good quality. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Phillip Willis
I'm not sure where to begin with this one. The article for Phillip Willis, who was a witness to the assassination of JFK and referred to in various conspiracy works, is filled with citations pointing to primary source material and images. There are a lot of explanations in the "References" sections that aren't backed-up by commentary from a secondary source (e.g. description of Willis in the Zapruder film). It is as though the citations need citations. Thanks! Location (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article looks like it could be pruned and merged to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. His only notability is inherited from that. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A clear case of WP:ONEEVENT, unless there is a lot of conspiracy/fringe writing on him that just hasn't made it into the article. Agricolae (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Combined with his membership in the Texas House of Representatives and a couple bits of information that suggests he was involved in the capture of Kazuo Sakamaki, I think there is borderline notability; however, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another regarding keep and clean-up vs. merge. Location (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sakamaki thing, if it happened, does not improve his status much - being a peripheral figure in two unrelated events does not cumulatively make one notable. To be notable, he has to have received coverage for himself, rather than for watching multiple notable events happen. The legislate part makes a stronger case - I overlooked that as I scanned the article, which only mentions this more significant possible claim to independent notability in passing - as written, it is ONEEVENT, but if it was recast as more of a biography rather than as 'the guy who took the pictures of the important event', I may view it differently. Agricolae (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Herbalism may be about to heat up again
I just reverted a page move of List of plants used in herbalism to List of medicinal plants. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Asebu
The article about Asebu (a region and former Fante kingdom on the Gold Coast, contemporary Ghana) reads like a fringe theory involving the Israelites in Egypt and their journey to the Promised Land. Please have a look at this. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the whole History section needs to be blanked and not redone without a reliable source. Agricolae (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ymblanter (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your advice
Hello,

Perhaps not the kind of posts you usually receive here, but I need your advice if you don't mind. Would you be kind enough to tell me whether this site is a fringe site or not? The link you are looking at in particular relates to an article which was originally authored by the anthropologist David Maranz. Thank you so much for your time. Best Regards. Tamsier (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm the one that mentioned this. There are several problems. One, yes, it's a fringe site. Do a search for Atlantis and you will quickly come up with things such as . The site is full of such fringe stuff.
 * We did discuss this before, see . There I pointed to noting that at the bottom it says "(Published in Kolo Suryoyo: April-May-June issue 2002. Number 136. Page 85 -- Reproduced without permission)" - which rules it out altogether as something we can link to.
 * Maranz would normally be a reliable source if this is the anthropologist (which I think it is), but not in this case. For some reason he hasn't published this in a reliable source, in fact, if he actually chose to put it here, he's decided to publish it in an unreliable source. But as I said, the site contains copyvio and we don't link to such sites. " Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tamsier, does Gravrand actually talk about Raampa pictographs? Because I can't find them mentioned anywhere other than phoenica.org which also seems to be the only source of claims that they represent writing, although you are citing Gravrand as saying they are writing - if he does, that's interesting but not nearly enough to claim they actually are writing. Surely there is a name for these pictographs other than Raampa pictographs, a phrase I can't find when I search. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your help in removing the link. I've also found a number of our articles linking to a clearly copyvio article which I'll be cleaning up later (this is to do with Melkites, nothing to do with Serer related material). Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, but more so for the discussion link of 2008. I notice two editors in that discussion mentioned "convenient link", it was exactly in that light I used it, as mentioned in the Serer religion's discussion page. On the Raampa page on Phoenicia, there was nothing that said it was "...Reproduced without permission" (unless I missed it). If it did, I would never have used it. As regards to your question, "Raampa" is the local name from the Saafi language (language of the Saafi people) who preserved many of these pictographs/writing/symbols/ideographs or whatever in English, itself derived from Serer religious symbolism. It is not English, not French, not even from the Serer language. The Saafi language partains to the Cangin group, although all Cangin speakers are ethnically Serers. I mentioned this also in the Serer religion talk page. Because these works were carried out long ago by scholars and many of these scholars have died or retired, and also the word "Raampa" being a local language whose speakers form a minority among the Serer group (despite the fact that they have preserved it and contributed to it more than any of the Serer group), etc., this may explain why it is not coming up in Google searches. As such, Phoenicia is right in their assertion at the top of the references. In some sources, they are referred to as Serer symbols / Serer religious symbols, difficult to decipher unless one is initiated, and used to communicate between those who can decipher it (usually the Serer priesly class - Saltigues). It was for this reason I added it under proto-writing in the History of writing article (which you removed) and not true-writing per say. In Gravrand, "Raampa" is referred to in the general context of Serer symbols and symbolisms, its history and so forth. Here is a link which derived from his 1971 work : "Le Symbolisme sereer : Mythe du Saas et symboles", « Revue de Psycho-Pathologie » vol. 9 No 2 Dakar (1971) (Published and reviewed under the title "Le symbolisme serer" [in] Psychopath. Afric. 1973, IX, 2, 237-265 [in] Pyschopathologie africaine) [in]  Société de psychopathologie et d'hygiène mentale de Dakar (I have the book but it is snippits here, it is in French),  etc.,). I have also provided an external on the Serer religion talk page regarding Serer symbols and their meaning etc see  : "Tracing memory: a glossary of graphic signs and symbols in African art and culture", by Clémentine Faïk-Nzuji Madiya, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Canadian Centre for Folk Culture Studies (further snippits this time in English , ). Sorry about these snippits. I am of the old school where we use books. I have many of these books but things have changed now. If it cannot be seen on the Worldwide web then it is not true. So sad but that is modernity. These symbols/writing/pictographs or whatver, have religious and historical significance. Nothing dubious about them, nothing strange about them or anything. Thank you for your time and advice. Tamsier (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was suggested that it might be used as a convenience link but (from memory) agreed that as it contains copyvio we cannot use it(which is the case, we can't link to the site at all). And it isn't a convenience link in any case, that refers to a site that contains an article originally published elsewhere which isn't the case here.
 * Getting back to the issue of "Raampa pictographs", I've got to ask again in a different way, is "Raampa pictographs" actually the common name of these? Or are they normally known, in English, under a different name? Surely these are the symbols usually described as the rock art of the Tassili n'Ajjer or Tassili n'Ajjer rock art? If I'm correct, then our articles should not be calling them "Raampa pictographs" - that's original research. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Meant to add that I don't like snippets. I very very rarely use them because they can be misleading. I prefer books myself and have several hundred books on archaeology and history. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously Raampa is not an English word as I have told you above. I have also told you I have seen them referred to as Serer 'symbols [my emphasis on the word symbols, which obviously is English, originally Greek according to its article]. And yes, in Gravrand's 1971 work, he did refer to the Raampa within the general context of Serer symbols and symbolism. I directed you to the sources. You are more than welcome to buy them or borrow them from your local library and evaluate them yourself. I too do not like snippits, I prefer books. I only provided the links (which happened to be snippits) because you were assuming bad faith, not only in the Serer religion's talk page, but also in Dispute resolution among others. Since you are an involved administrator, not to mention canvassing for support &, I think at this juncture an uninvolved administrator may be the right way to go. This was not a discussion, but a query. Full disclosure:  Dougweller is correct in admiting they are the one who mentioned this. I came upon their edit summary on Serer religion . It was for this I decided to open this query and get the facts from the fringe team who normally deal with these kind of issues. In my query above, you will notice that I did not mention Dougweller by name, but they were the first to jump into this, in deed the only so far apart from myself. I have another diff which demonstrate their initial involvement which led to where we find ourselves today. That diff is either a coincidence or very unsual for an administrator. However, that is not for this forum. Tamsier (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not acting as an Administrator in this dispute, nor am I canvasing. I am asking for a reliable source for the existence of something called the "Raampa pictographs". You have mentioned them in several articles and those articles and a fringe website are the only place that the phrase is used. So anyone searching for information about these from a reliable source by our criteria is going to find nothing. What I am trying to say is that we need to find a name for these that isn't an invented name, one that is used by reliable sources. Isn't there one? Where are they located? Hasn't anyone written about them besides Gravrand, and if he's the only one, what does he call them? And unless you are trying to get me blocked, what do you want another Administrator for? Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fringe claim concerning Raampa writing/proto-writing
Saafi people states "The Saafi also have a very rich an ancient culture of writing called the Raampa, and have contributed immensely to the old Serer Raampa writing tradition. The word Raampa itself comes from the Saafi language. It was a religious pictographic writing system used by the Serer people to which the Saafi are a sub-group of. The Raampa tradition has also been adopted by some none-Serer ethnic groups. The original source for this was the fringe Maranz article mentioned above. Tamsier changed the source to an article by Henry Gravrand[ without changing the text. Neither Maranz nor Gravrand are experts on writing, and Gravrand's article appears to be an obscure article not used as a source in other reliable source (at least I can't find any). I'm raising a discussion at [[Talk:Saafi people]] but at the moment it seems NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I think I figured out a bit about the attacks on me and maybe the problems I see with some of the articles, see . Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still baffled as why you find the need to refer to my block. Are you telling me you are unable to argue your case without the need to refer to my block? Shrugs. My concerns about this editor (Dougweller) are found above (Your advice) - follow links above, also see my talk page . This section and the above are interlinked so heaven knows why he opened this section, but that is another issue for him. Everything I have said about this editor/admin is backed up with a WP:diff. Surprised that this administrator who has a long history of inserting unsourced content to Wiki articles (here and the latest is here) is passing judgement - ill informed judgement for that matter. When I caught him out on my talk page he tried to cover his back by adding this nonsense on the article's talk page "Just noting that when I added this, I did cite it, but I am having trouble with using the citation template in Firefox and sometimes it adds the cite not where my cursor is but at the beginning of the section(as can be seen in my edit). I've fixed this and am glad to see Tamsier found a second source." Keep digging! Go on then and have the last word. I am tired of these games. I have never made a personal attack against you. Everything I said I back it up with a diff. Go through my talk page or DRN and you will find everything I said about you is easily verifiable. Tamsier (talk)
 * Let me repeat, the first edit where you say I didn't give a source was my 2nd edit ever to an article (and had a source, I just didn't add it). I've already told you that I added a source at Bafour - if you actually showed the diff for my edit instead of your diff, you will see that the source I added, to the Historical Dictionary of Mauritania, is clearly at the top of the section instead of after "They are at times referred to as proto-Berbers." which I added. I explained that clearly. That you don't like my explanation is not my problem, that I added a source can easily be seen. I don't deliberately add sources before the first word of the lead. Others can judge if I've been bullying, etc. I have added thousands of sources to articles, including some of the ones you created, as you know. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, thousands can't be right, but over a thousand certainly is. I certainly add sources regularly, usually at least one a day. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklight Power
Blacklight Power is a pseudo-science based company. The article currently doesn't seem very balanced towards mainstream opinion and the pseudo-science theories are presented uncritically Bhny (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup. Needs a substantial trimming, for a start. Half it (at least) seems to be sourced to the company's own press releases, and much of the rest is from primary sources and/or original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is anyone up for doing this trimming? I've tried but I'm tired of getting reverted Bhny (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed some poorly (one primary and self-published) sourced grandiose claims that it has significant implications for the standard model. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Biocentrism (cosmology)
Some input into this article would be helpful. It's an interesting idea, to say the least, but probably falls somewhere in-between being fringe and an alternative theoretical formulation (likely more towards the fringe side of the spectrum). Currently the article uses sources like Deepak Chopra and non physicists as the "pro" side, while the "con" side is mostly made up of mainstream scientists. Still, the idea does have some support from respected people. At the very least it's worth a read if you haven't heard of this. Sædon talk


 * Of the "seven principles", it starts to look kinda feasible up to about #4..and then it goes rapidly downhill. As http://xkcd.com/435/ so eloquently puts it, biology is just "applied chemistry"...mainstream science says that humans, animals and consciousness are just artifacts of chemistry...with nothing special being demonstrated beyond that, this hypothesis fails at the starting gate.  Meh. Fringe, for sure.  SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, definitely fringe. Mentions by a medical doctor that it "builds on quantum mechanics" also set off alarm bells. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignat Ignatov
Hi re Ignat Ignatov, does the word Kirlian ring any bells? And would I be correct in thinking that "Water in the Human Body is Information Bearer about Longevity" is not the most mainstream title for a scientific paper?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd think that Ignatov fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines - AfD? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Created by sockpuppet/master. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Odd, seems someone added the tag onto a user that is not blocked as a sockpuppet, I've put it up for CSD A7, unremarkable person. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The same user is trying to control the decidedly fringey bioresonance therapy article. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Olduvai theory
This article cites mainly papers by the creator of the theory, predicting that industrial civilization will only last fron 1930 to 2030. The "theory" has changed over the years, as some predictions have failed to occur. It has made predictions about what year the maximum energy per capita will be used, followed by electric blackouts, massive disease and famine, and a return to a worldwide population die-off and stone age lifestyle in the mid 21st century. The article may be presenting the theory in too favorable a light with respect to its acceptance in the field of energy research. This article has been mentioned in relation to the recent power blackouts in India. Edison (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the sources appear to help the article meet WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. The article is ripe for AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Omniverse theory
A theory (stated to be distinct from theories of physics or cosmology) which allows time travel, and referenced mostly to the writings of the theory's creator. Not seeing much secondary coverage in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Much of the content is just repetitions of the same point, some parts are also incomprehensible, I'll tidy it up and stubify then do a check for notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the publications like "applied ethics review", don't appear to exist. RIA university press is him: . I've put it up for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dowsing
I think the entire "Evidence" section is giving undue weight to fringe studies. Few, if any, legitimate scientific inquiries into the topic have produced positive results and yet two paragraphs are devoted to a single study which, when messaged to an incredible degree, hinted at its possible efficacy. -- Daniel 23:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * yep looks undue, I might re-work the passage. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ground regulatory system
This is a new article that came to my notice. Everything in it is bullshit, but on investigating I find that it exists in the context of a whole corpus of bullshit called applied kinesiology (which is a completely different thing from real kinesiology). Bottom line, I'm not sure how to deal with it. Looie496 (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost all citations are in German. Of the three that aren't, two is from a publisher of fringe works, and the third only mentions the theory in passing and do not seem to be used as an actual source for anything the article says.
 * It's possible that this theory is a common theory within German acupuncture. But I think the first thing to do is to verify this, and see if any mainstream sources can be found. Otherwise it might not be notable. If notable, it would be better with English sources, and inline sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks non-notable: perhaps redirect or do a partial merge into Applied Kinesiology? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

the abomination that causes misinformation
No, not Fox News but instead Wikipedia -- according to some person cited within the newly augmented article Bias. Apparently "FrontPage Magazine" and "WorldNetDaily" regard Wikipedia as a agnostic/atheist liberal/leftist plot. Speaking as a member of the reality-based community, I'd be most alarmed if a project of which I was a tiny cog were not so regarded by "WorldNetDaily" etc -- but there you are; I suppose people taking "WorldNetDaily" seriously would regard me as part of the problem. It's probably bad manners to say "No, run off to 'Conservapedia'"; what's the right etiquette here? -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This does not seem to be a notice about fringe theories. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a notice, or rather question, about what in the US may indeed be a mainstream worldview. (For me, it's fringe; but I may thereby show my librul bias.) Do you have any suggestion for what I should do with it? -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dominus Vobisdu has kindly done what I was inclined to do. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Your "notice" was framed in such general terms that it was completely impossible to understand what you was actually talking about. It sounded like you had, somewhere in the universe, encountered an opinion that you didn't agree on, and wondered what to do about it.
 * In the future it's probably a good idea to to be specific in what text and edits you are referring to via quotes and diffs. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, good point. Sorry about that. (I of course blame my temporary [I hope] mental decay on my attempt to take seriously stuff from "FrontPage Magazine" and "WorldNetDaily".) -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Africoid"
I was advised on the WikiProject India board to post here. The issue involves a group of edits on the Black people article that over the past few weeks have basically attempted to change the entire direction of the article. While the wikipage was, like its companion White people article, originally reserved for discussion on race-based social categories/constructs (and thus featured the main Race template and category), a newbie editor has been unilaterally replacing material on racial classification with material largely centered on dark skin color. On this new basis, he/she has also added image galleries of disparate peoples, including Dravidians of South Asia, under the pretext that they are all "black people" since "black people" apparently without qualification refers to all "people with relative dark skin". But how does one go about objectively determining what constitutes "relative dark skin"? And where exactly is the cut-off point? Wouldn't such a broad, skin color-based parameter also by definition rule out many light-skinned so-called "black people" like Stedman Graham in favor of more dark-skinned individuals not traditionally considered "black people" like Vijay Singh? It's a slippery slope. The article now almost approximates in content the old "Africoid" wikipage, a deleted essay on the fringe Afrocentric "Africoid" concept that was created by a banned user. I have tried explaining that these pages are not solely based on skin color, but rather on debatable social categories/constructs on race. Hence, why East Asians are not discussed on the white people wikipage, although many East Asians have skin color as light as, and sometimes even lighter than, many Europeans. Gallery images have also historically been discouraged on these pages because of their repeatedly demonstrated potential for misuse and idiosyncratic selections. This is why the white people article presently does not feature any images at all. Perhaps its black people companion wikipage should follow suit, or at the very least limit images to a couple of within-text pics that few would contest as "black". Please advise. Soupforone (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Black people" article should discuss how the term "black people" has been used over the years. "Dravidians" have certainly been included within the category for various reasons. The Aryan/Dravidian opposition in India (which of course is linguistic, not racial) was codified in terms of a "white"-migrant / "black"-native opposition, in line with models of racial hierarchy pertaining in the 19tth-mid20th century. However, there was also the "Caucasoid"/"Negroid" model which included some dark-skinned peoples but not others in the former category. More recently some African-American writers have tried to construct a model of an "African diaspora", which includes any people deemed "black", in their view: which fact somehow makes them part of an African diaspora (even though everyonme is part of an Afican diaspora; if you are going to argue that people who happen to be dark skinned in Australia or India are part of it, you may as well argue that Norwegians are part of it). And of course in America even someone who is of only one quarter, or less, African ancestry can still be deemed "black", for reasons specific to that nation's history. All of these complexities have been discussed in literature on this topic, which is extensive. The article should sinmply describe the full range of uses of the term, the contexts and the histories of them. It's not difficult to find reliable sources in this area. Paul B (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Helpful insight. What seemed to be lacking was a lot of that requisite contextualizing and attribution. For instance, views that are mainly held within the contemporary Afrocentric community, such as the notion that Australian Aborigines are "black people", were presented as fact and in Wikipedia's voice. The image galleries were another bone of contention, but I can see a workaround by including a few within-text pics to illustrate the various uses of the term. For the sake of consistency, it would perhaps also be useful to apply a similar approach on the companion white people article. Soupforone (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have invited the editor to participate in this discussion so as to form a community-wide consensus on this issue. Soupforone (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Pumapunku
IP with little clue about the subject edit-warring to claim that the radio-carbon dating was done on rock (it wasn't, it was organic material under the walls that was dated). Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Urantia Book
There's a discussion at WP:CON about an editor at. I took it off my watchlist some time ago and just added it again, but it would be useful if other editors took a look at it (including the recent discussion on the talk page, I see that some material removed some time ago has been reinserted). Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Must be a typo above, COIN. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, I was thinking COIN but seem to have lost the I. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car
FYI: I have started an AfD on the Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car article Articles_for_deletion/Agha_Waqar's_Water_Fuelled_Car. SteveBaker (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fringey issues on the right
There is a bit of culture warrior battle going on at various articles, but the conflict that we might be able to address here centers on right-wing authoritarianism and authoritarian personality, and from there slops over into social conservatism. Basically, as best I understand it, there was a hypothesis that people like, well, Nazis and fascists fall into a distinct personality type. This led to the "F scale", but in practice when actually tried out on Nazi prisoners, it didn't work too well. But never fear, much later we have Robert Altemeyer's formulation of a "Right Wing Authoritarian scale", which apparently shows that conservatives all are possessed of a strong tendency towards authoritarianism. This research was then popularized in John Dean's Conservatives without Conscience.

OK, so this sounds a bit axe-grinding, doesn't it? I personally have to wonder how Uncle Joe fits into this theory, or how all those liberals who want to enact laws regulating public behavior escaped the authoritarian label. But there is a concerted effort here to emphasize that nobody of significance disputes this thesis. And at the bottom of it all we have the now-retired User:Jcbutler, who as it turns out has a conspicuous conflict of interest: he has published research supporting this thesis, and he is the author of the statement in the RWA article that the dissenters are a minority viewpoint.

I'm hard-pressed to believe that the world of conservative ideology doesn't object to this thesis. But I'm having a very hard time finding evidence that they are even aware of it. Other than Dean's book we seem to be trapped in a little closed world of psychology papers which I'm somewhat inclined to reject as primary sources. Of course since this involves current politics the level of bad behavior here is very high, and I have been accused of "conservative bias" for doubting that this isn't what every reasonable person accepts. Mangoe (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the first sight the article certainly doesn't look perfectly neutral - far too many things are said in Wikipedia's voice...
 * Anyway, a short search has found an article by Jonah Goldberg - "Republicans have bad brains?" -, published in "National Review Online" and "USA Today" . It notes another article in "Slate" by William Saletan - "Liberal Interpretation" . I am not sure if that is sufficiently close to what you are looking for (it is not about this same concept), but it does look somewhat related... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Those aren't exactly on-topic but they do give me some ideas; thanks for the assistance. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Kooky claims regarding "Tailteann Games"
User:Paul Bedson is pushing some fringe claims at Olympic Games and the less important Tailteann Games, namely that the Tailteann Games date to 1600 BC. This is an impossibly old date, considering it is barely into the Bronze Age and written records from Ireland don't appear for millennia later. He is using this source, a history of Ireland for the period of 1922-1985. I consider this kookery of a high order. The claim regarding the Tailteann games is exceptional, and the source used is far from adequate for such a claim. The matter is somewhat urgent, since a lot of people are currently looking at the article due to the fact that the games are ongoing. Athenean (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the text and advised the user to return to the talk page, but my night started and I will disappear now, so that somebody else will have to continue the discussion on the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The book is on the modern history of Ireland and is likely mot reliable on what happened during undocumented period of history. This claim has to have more serious evidences.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources could maybe claim that there are legendary claims about these dates (which is what the article claimed) but I think that the historical evidence could be emphasized more. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Turkey Mountain inscriptions
At Talk:Turkey Mountain inscriptions there is an argument with Til Eulenspiegel claiming censorship but the real issue is about the use of a source by William F. McNeil, who is an expert on the history of baseball but also wrote one or two books (I'm not sure if the second is just a rewrite of the first or an entirely new book) "suggesting that ancient European and Asian mariners visited the United States more than 1000 years ago". Whether it's one or two, he's had virtually no attention paid by mainstream sources. Another bone of contention is the use of the late Gloria Farley's webpage as a source - Farley is another minor fringe writer. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a concern with most articles that relate to fringe theories... all sources that support the theory tend to be less than reliable (Indeed, they are usually deemed unreliable "fringe writers" because they support the fringe theory). However, NPOV requires that we present all significant viewpoints ... and in an article about a fringe theory, the views of proponents of the theory are significant.  We are required to discuss their opinions... we don't need to present what they say as being fact, but we do need to present the fact that they say it. And when we present their opinions, we must support our statements with citations to sources where the opinions are expressed.
 * This is where we need to step back and examine reliability in context... while a fringe author may not be reliable for a statement of fact... he/she can be reliable for a statement of opinion. This is where DUE and UNDUE weight comes into play... The key is to ask whether a given author represents the opinion of a typical proponent of the Fringe theory (call it the mainstream within the fringe) or does the author represent a lone voice (a "fringe of the fringe" view) that other supporters of the theory ignore?  Is the author a reliable source when it comes to expressing the opinion of the typical proponent of fringe theory?  If so, then the author is reliable for a statement as to what the views of the fringe are. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So when a fringe idea can be found nowhere in normally reliable sources, but only in minor fringe sources, what do we do? Do we use a book by someone whose speciality is baseball which isn't discussed by any reliable sources? Because that's the case here. It would be great if anyone can find anything that resembles a reliable source that actually discusses these Turkey Mountain inscriptions/petroglyphs, because if all we have is fringe sources than I think we have a problem of notability. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, reliability depends on context. The source certainly is not reliable for supporting an assertion about the inscriptions/petroglyphs on Turkey Mountain (such as an assertion that they actually WERE written by pre-Columbian Europeans)...  However, the author is reliable for supporting an assertion as to what a group of fringe theorists BELIEVE about the inscriptions/petroglyps.  The author is a member of the group and can be considered a reliable spokesman for the group's views.
 * Now... the next question is how much Weight to give those fringe views. In this case, I think we need to give them a fair amount of weight - since the fringe viewpoint is, in large part, what makes the inscriptions notable.  You can try a AfD nomination if you want to... but I suspect it would be a fairly quick discussion, resulting in KEEP. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a book (unless self-published or discussing the author's own experiences) should always be taken as a reliable secondary source, because otherwise Wiki editors would become censors in deciding which books are acceptable or not. As an example there's an article on Ancient astronauts which is supported by the book Chariots of the Gods? written by Erich von Däniken - and although I think von Däniken and McNeil are equally unreliable, that's just my opinion. But the other point you make is notability: if the book has sunk like a stone with no reliable reaction from supporters or opponents then I think it should be ignored, but it does seem to have been disputed by two reliable secondary sources - so I would say it has reached the threshold of notability? Aarghdvaark (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the book isn't disputed by those sources, the idea of everyone came to America before Columbus is disputed by those sources. Those sources don't mention the book or the author. It's hard to find even fringe sources discussing McNeil's fringe book, let alone anyone else. But we do have guidance on books, see WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I understand it then, although Fell's book is a reliable source for this fringe theory, Farley's book is self-published so is not a reliable source to support Fell's book (although it could be used in a "see also" section), and the other two books cited are only there to establish the mainstream view about European contact pre-Columbus, not to discuss the markings. I'm guessing McNeil's book (assuming it isn't self-published too) is a reliable source for this fringe theory? That makes two reliable sources for and none against, so I think it is questionable if it is notable. I didn't actually find anything definitive in WP:RS, as a book would not seem to be covered by Self-published and questionable sources nor by the section on scholarship as this is a fringe theory so by definition it is not going to be have "been vetted by the scholarly community". But has User:Til Eulenspiegel been told of this discussion? Aarghdvaark (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not see McNeil's book as a reliable source. He has no track record in the field of general history, no other reliable sources use his book as a source. I guess WP:UNDUE would apply also. I thought I'd mentioned FTN at the article talk page but see that I didn't, so have done that now. I'm sure it's on Til's watchlist as is this board I believe. Certainly the notability issue was raised. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As an aside, judging the reliability and quality of sources is fairly standard. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * True, but also applying the criteria as per mainstream acceptance for mainstream sources to sources supporting fringe articles is not going to work. e.g. he is not going to have a track record in general history if he wrote a Pseudoarchaeology book. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't lower our requirements because a topic is fringe. In fact, we increase the requirements. Books aren't declared de facto reliable as you suggested; far from it. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * When a topic isn't covered extensively in a serious publication then it is not notable, see WP:FRINGE: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To be notable, secondary reliable sources must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." IRWolfie- (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The specific contention of Fell, Farley, McNeill, and actually a variety of other sources is that the inscriptions in question represent an Ogham line reading G-W-N and the corresponding letters P-Y-A in Punic. Another inscription is a portrait of a bearded figure.  Why should the reader not be told the nature of the inscriptions that are the topic of the article? But one editor there has decided his expertise outweighs the claims of these authors in this school of thought, therefore they are not only wrong, but they may not even be mentioned. Even if they are wrong, they should be presented and let the reader decide neutrally. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We do not care of what is "The True Nature" of things. We don't decide who is right and who is wrong. We mention topics and theories when reliable sources do. No reliable sources mention these theories. Please read WP:V and then WP:RS and then WP:FRINGE. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "The True Nature" of things. But as regards deciding who is right and who is wrong, one of the issues being discussed here is that Dougweller HAS decided that McNeil is wrong and can't be used as a source. I think you are wrong to say "No reliable sources mention these theories", as books are reliable secondary sources. What does seem to be the case is that no reliable mainstream sources mention these theories. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean the reference to that Wikipedia must explain "the nature" of the carvings, in which Til means we have to state Farleys and Fell's theories. That McNeil is wrong is not in doubt, since he takes incorrect statements at face value, but it is also irrelevant. What is relevant is:
 * 1. If the sources are reliable sources. Books are not automatically reliable sources. This one could be though, I guess that's an issue for WP:RS if we can't agree about it here. It hinges mostly on the reliability of the publisher as a publisher of scientific literature. Neither McNeil or Fell are peer-reviewed books, that much is clear.
 * 2. If the sources help establish notability. Reliable sources does help there, but some mentioning these theories amongst a long list of other fringe theories nobody heard of? Does that really establish notability? --OpenFuture (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that by our guidelines McNeill is not a reliable source. I may of course be wrong and an happy to see that discussed at WP:RSN. It feels to me that using the word decided puts a slightly different spin on what I believe (& may be being used in some way related to my Admin status), but that may be just me. Fell at least is discussed in number of mainstream (as well as fringe sources), which makes a difference at least as far as WP:UNDUE goes, although he is only a reliable source for fringe opinions. But I still see two issues with McNeill - neither a reliable source nor one significant enough to pass WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was nothing about your admin status - sorry you felt it was. It was just OpenFuture said "We don't decide who is right and who is wrong", and whilst I agree with that sentiment it does seem to me that a reading of this discussion could come to the conclusion that McNeil is not a reliable source because he is wrong. I agree he is wrong, but we must be careful that does not become the reason he is rejected. The reliability of the publisher is important, but I am concerned lest the bar be set too high - obviously no serious publisher of scientific literature is going to publish this book. So the publisher just needs to be in the business of publishing books to ensure self published books don't get in to establish notability. And we are of course only considering whether McNeil is a reliable source for this fringe theory. I think that McNeil managing to get his book published by what I take to be a normal publisher is sufficient to make him a reliable secondary source on what is after all a theory that most people would take to be, well, unreliable at the very least. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Turkey Mountain inscriptions is currently in such a muzzled state that it isn't even allowed to tell us what the inscriptions consist of, or what according to these multiple authors who have written on them, they consist of. The article has had such a muzzle of censorship thrown over it by OpenFuture, that it tells us practically nothing at all.  There is no point in having a one-sided article like this that "declares" what the "correct P.O.V." is, you may as well delete it if you don't want anyone to know there are inscriptions in this cave near Tulsa.  As usual, interested people can learn about this from an informative and impartial source, i.e. NOT wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken if you believe wikipedia aims to balance less accepted ideas with the more accepted. Instead we assign weight. If a theory receives little support in the reliable sources; it receives little or no weight for the article. Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship (WP:GEVAL). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But I think Til Eulenspiegel has a point. Currently all the article says is "These markings are believed by some enthusiasts to have been left by pre-Columbian European travelers". It rather begs the question what sort of markings are they? And an encyclopaedia is supposed to be a source of information after all. Possibly could change the entry to run something like: "These markings are believed by some enthusiasts to have been left by pre-Columbian European travelers. Some letters which appear to spell PIA are interpreted as a Punic word, and another marking is interpreted as an Ogham word". I don't think any analysis or further explanation should be gone into (undue weight and all). This will tell people the gist of what is going on. They can then dismiss it, or follow up the original sources themselves if interested. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on which reliable sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to verifying a statement as to what is believed by a particular person, a source written by that person (wherein they state their belief) must be considered reliable. Indeed, in this situation, a source authored by the believer is actually more reliable than an independent source.  After all, who is in a better position to know an individual's beliefs than the individual himself/herself. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you claim that the author's opinion is significant? Has it been discussed in real-world scholarly sources? Is it part of the real-world scholarly discourse on the topic? Or is it just the opinion of some wanker that has been noticed by no one outside of a small fringe group? The fact that the book was published means little or nothing if it was not published by a recognized legitimate outlet for scholarly opinion, with a reputation for fact-checking and scholarly review. That is the basis we assign weight on for scholarly topics such as archeology. Anything that has not been seriously and substatially discussed in the scholarly literature does not belong here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone named Boland wrote a book on Pre-Columbian theory in the 1960s, They All Discovered America, where he coined a term, "NEBC Principle" which now appears in so many subsequent sources that it deserves an article NEBC Principle to inform and explain its usage.  Basically he asserted that there is an "establishment" that uses an unproven, circular argument fallacy of "No Europeans Before Columbus" were capable of crossing the Atlantic. It is a circular argument appealing to itself for authority, because anyone who mentions evidence otherwise is automatically blackballed, ridiculed, and called unreliable. No matter how many Punic inscriptions have been claimed on the Atlantic coast of the Americas from Grand Manan to Argentina, which must number in the hundreds, each and every one of them has been declared a 19th century forgery, because Phoenicians didn't know anything about crossing oceans.  So therefore either the same bunch of hoaxers must have gone up and down the whole Atlantic coast planting all these alleged Punic inscriptions, or else Punic just coincidentally happened to be a very popular language with forgers in the 19th century, eh? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't the venue to argue whether a theory makes any sense or not... The questions here at this noticeboard are supposed to be policy based... a) Is the fringe topic notable enough for an article on Wikipeida, b) if so, what information should the article include, and c) how should we present that information (as fact or as opinion)?
 * Let's take this a step at a time and examine the issue of notability first... Notability is determined by looking for independent reliable sources that discuss the topic. In this case, the topic is a bunch of inscriptions located in a cave on Turkey Mountain, Oklahoma.  So... what are the sources?  Are there newspaper accounts that discuss the inscriptions?  Are there local tourism pamphlets that mention them?  Have any scholarly books or articles discussed them?  What about Non-scholarly books?  Note: At this stage in our examination, it does not matter what the sources say about the inscriptions... all we are looking for are a bunch of sources that say something about the inscriptions. Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Gloria Farley is who discovered these inscriptions, and is thus mentioned in practically all the sources on it you are going to find, including Barry Fell's America BC. If she cannot be mentioned as notable for this, there is no point to an article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if we follow this logic, anything mentioned by Barry Fell becomes notable. I don't know if Til actually meant that, but I don't think that many would agree that being mentioned by Fell is sufficient notability for an article. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You both keep getting sidetracked... Farley is not the topic of the article, Farley is a potential source. Sources do not need to be notable (lots of reliable authors are not notable)...  The topic of the article is the inscriptions.  So, in examining whether the topic is notable or not, we have to find sources that discuss the inscriptions.  So far we have two potential sources that do so - a) Farley and b) Fell... are there any others or is this it? Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite. If the inscriptions have been mentioned only a couple of fringe sources that have not been widely mentioned in the mainstream literature, it's hard to argue that they are notable at all. Since neither Fell nor Farley nor their "theories" are significant elements of the scholarly discourse on the inscriptions, they can lend no significance to the inscriptions themselves. As far as I can tell, the only place these inscriptions have been mentioned is in little-read fringe sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except... the determination of notability is not limited to mention in scholarly sources. What I am asking is whether the inscriptions have been discussed by any non-academic but mainstream sources... newspapers, tourist literature, etc.
 * I would agree that if the inscriptions have only been mentioned in a couple of fringe sources, they probably are not notable enough for an article... but if they have been discussed by several "general public" sources, they probably are notable enough. Blueboar (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except if it's only present in fringe sources then NPOV comes into play; if neutrality can't be maintained because of a lack of high quality sources to present the mainstream perspective then the article should not exist. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not worried about NPOV yet... We can discuss NPOV as part of the next phase of discussion (what information to include in the article and how to present it)... however before that we must establish that the topic is actually notable enough to have an article in the first place. So... Are their any non-fringe sources that even mention the existence of the inscriptions?  I am not necessarily talking about academic sources... general media or tourist sources will do. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure - the location of the petroglyphs is even marked "Petroglyphs" on this tourist map of the hill from Turkeymtn.com: http://www.turkeymtn.com/wp-content/uploads/Turkey-Mountain-Map.jpg Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the requirement is significant coverage in reliable sources. Passing mentions like this don't help torwards notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree... although lots and lots of passing references in different sources can often add up to the equivalent having one or two that go into more detail. so what else is out there? Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And that they are marked on the tourist maps of the area is hardly a non-fringe source. Those tourist maps of course do all they can to make the area look interesting. :-)
 * I can't find *anything* about these inscriptions except on Wikipedia and in the mentioned fringe-books. I don't think there is notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources, books and websites out there that talk about the petroglyphs or inscriptions at Turkey Mtn. But since by a circular argument they are a priori defined as "FRINGE" and unreliable if they talk about inscriptions, it's a typical case of raising the bar impossibly high in order to censor and muzzle any mention of an entire school of thought from wp. You are demanding sources that talk about the inscriptions, but with the caveat that if they talk about the inscriptions, they are automatically "disqualified". Even Houdini could not find such a source. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are not happy with our sourcing policies, I suggest you find another hobby. And misrepresenting the arguments of those who disagree with you is not likely to bolster your case.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You sure love addressing me as in inferior with your authoritative voice. Please explain exactly how you came to acquire this authority you imagine you have over me, DV, for I do not recognize it. Nor am I misrepresenting you any more than you are misrepresenting me by suggesting that I would leave the project. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting us, Wikipedia in general and also science by the following claim: "But since by a circular argument they are a priori defined as 'FRINGE' and unreliable if they talk about inscriptions" - This is an insult towards everyone here, and an insult to the whole world of historians and archaeologists. It is also patently false.
 * "Please explain exactly how you came to acquire this authority you imagine you have over me" - Yet another insult, as he doesn't imagine to have any authority over you, and neither does he claim so.
 * If you have an interest in contributing to Wikipedia, you must first understand the principles on which it works. At the moment you clearly do not understand this, and you are showing no interest whatsoever in understanding these principles. We can not help you until you do. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With "imagined authority" I also include comments like "At the moment you clearly do not understand this, and you are showing no interest whatsoever in understanding these principles." You don't know me, I am not your kindergarten student, and if you see it like I am, it's only in your head, not mine. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You do not understand the rules of wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And you apparently also do not understand what the word "authority" means. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's at DRV at the moment Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_13. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Are the notability requirements at WP:Fringe met for this article?
We have a number of reliable non-fringe sources that discuss, for instance, the Kensington Runestone. We have mainstream archaeologists commenting on the Bat Creek stuff. But we don't seem to have anything similar for this. There are not only not "plenty of books that discuss this", the handful that do mention it are except for Fell pretty trivial, and no mainstream source seems to have taken this seriously. Our guideline on fringe articles says "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." Til, if you can't find a source that qualifies, the article should go to AfD. This has been overlooked in the past, but since you've been pushing this hard don't you think we need to follow our guideline here? Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I said you may as well AfD it if it can't be permitted to speak the discoverer's name or include any information. There's no need for a stub like that on en. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking thru the talkpage archives I see Blueboar asked this same question in 2008, and this is what I said then:
 * Looking at Google books, I have found numerous published books of all kinds that mention this hypothesis. Apparently one that does so far less favorably to Fell is: A Permeability of Boundaries?: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore p. 94 by Robert J. Wallis, Kenneth Lymer, 2001, this would seem to be a scholarly source establishing that not only proponents have discussed this fringe theory... It looks like there is also a mention of it in Melbourne Historical Journal, p. 76 by Melbourne University Historical Society, 1981. I will let you know what all else I find as my search continues. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Woops... while you were typing this, I was typing up an AFD nomination (I saw this last posting after I completed the nomination) ... do me a favor and mention these sources at the AFD page. It will give me justification for withdrawing my nomination. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, the issue now is are these petroglyphs "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of the theory." Because that isn't clear. What exactly do the sources say, because a 'mention' is not enough. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Google, "A permeability of boundaries" does not even contain the word "Turkey" or "Mountain".This could be Google Books fault, of course. Can you provide a quote?
 * The same goes for Melbourne Historical Journal, where even you just say that "it looks like" there might be something. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is one independent secondary source that describes the theory that the markings read Gwynn in Ogham and Pyaa in Canaanite: History of Southwest Tulsa (2003) p. 14. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this the "History of Southwest Tulsa" that you are talking about?... If so, it seems more like a "passing mention" than a "discussion" of the topic. That said, we are now on the right track... keep searching for sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, there is no information on who published that. Is that a reliable source? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And although Til claimed there were the sources he mentions above, I note that he didn't try to use them and I can't find them. Nor am I clear if he meant that Turkey Mountain was mentioned, or Fell's ideas about visitors to America. The Tulsa document does mention, with no discussion, the ideas of "Jenks resident William M. O’Brien" described as a local historian and geologist but it isn't clear where he is referring to (probably Turkey Mountain but that's not explicit so far as I can see). As I said, there's no discussion and this seems to be a pretty informal document. It's at and I'm looking at a paragraph that says "Soon, other Creeks who had migrated from Alabama began to settle in the immediate region at the present towns of Coweta, Sapulpa and Sand Springs. But the Lochapoka Square at Tulsa was still where they all gathered for their government functions and religious observances. (David where is theis?)" - note the question there. So this doesn't meet the criteria. Waiting for the first links Til mentioned and exactly what they say - and why they weren't added to the article if they are so good. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's another: "The geology of the Atlantic Ocean, Volume 1" 1050 pages, by Kenneth Emery (1984), gives it a passing mention on p. 3: "Near Tulsa up the Arkansas River, a rock cliff carries the Celtic name Gwynn written in both Ogam and Punic" in the context of a discussion of purported evidence for purported Celts in America... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't waste our time, or yours, with passing mentions. They don't count for anything as far as notability is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Willis source mentioned by Til apparently doesn't contain any mention of these inscriptions. And I can't find anything for the Melborne source and Turkey Mountain. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wallis actually does criticise this theory on p. 94 but unfortunately no part of this book is any longer visible on google books, and no matter what you put in the search box comes up as no results, even words that are certainly in the text. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Snnippets wouldn't be good anyway, perhaps that's why you never added it. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And "discussing the theory" is also no good, we're asking for reliable sources that talk about the inscriptions, and not just in passing. Discussing various related pre-Columbian theories isn't helping the notability of these inscriptions. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the sources don't have to discuss the theory at all... the topic of the article is the inscriptions, the various theories as to the origins of the inscriptions is a sub-topic. So, a source that discusses the inscriptions (in some degree of depth) without mentioning the theory would be quite acceptable (in fact, such sources would go a long way towards demonstrating notability, and balancing the article for NPOV) Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTE... Since there is currently an active AFD page for this, further discussion should take place on that AFD page. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also being discussed at RSN: []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the 'theory' of everyone visiting America has no place in this article. In fact it's confused people who thought that the reliable sources there discussed the subject of the article, which they don't. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which exact 'theory' are you talking about, Doug? If you are talking about the general theory that all sorts of people from Europe and China visited the Americas before Columbus, I sort of agree... but if you are talking about specific theories as to who wrote the inscriptions on Turkey Mountain, I would definitely disagree.  It is absolutely appropriate for an article on the inscriptions to include discussion of various theories as to the origins of the inscriptions.  Those that are fringe, we would identify as fringe, and give them less weight than any mainstream theories... but that does not mean we should not at least mention them (this, of course, assumes that the inscriptions are notable enough to have an article in the first place... something the AFD will determine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 August 2012‎
 * You have it backwards. If the inscriptions are notable at all, it is because of the fringe theories about them (the inscriptions are barely not mentioned at all by mainstream sources, and nowhere to the degree that they derive any notability from them). However, unless the fringe theories are themselves noteworthy, they cannot confer any notability on the inscriptions. The fringe theories do not seem to be notable, as they have not been discussed seriously and in depth by multiple independent mainstream reliable sources, and not very much at all even by other fringe authors. The theories therefore play no role in the mainstream discussion of these inscriptions (which is non-existant, anyway), and therefore cannot be assigned any weight. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would indeed be appropriate for the article on the inscriptions to cover all theories, if the inscriptions themselves were of such note that specific theories about them existed. But we are not talking about mysterious ancient writings here. To the non Celtic-Punic afficionado, it just looks like some random person has scratched 110111 and PIA on the wall . There are many other initals and other grafitti too. People scratch shapes and letters on rocks all the time. It's called grafitti. A lot of it has personal or sub-cultural significance that would be indecipherable after a few years. There's no evidence these are particularly old. Imagine trying to decipher New York subway grafitti in a hundred years. The significance only exists within the "ancient contact" community, in which Fell's interpretations of these markings have been picked up and reproduced. Some few fairly mainstream but non-specialist writers have innocently read mention of them and repeated it. To use these brief mentions in "mainstream" sources as proposed by Til would just give a totally spurious weight to the Fell theory, and we would end up with a "scholarly" looking article on some grafitti which gave the impression that was extensive academic discussion about this stuff. Paul B (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Some few fairly mainstream but non-specialist writers have innocently read mention of them and repeated it. That, right there, is the key to this debate. Discussion of a fringe theory by "mainstream but non-specialist sources" definitely can demonstrate that a fringe theory is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article devoted to it.  The determining factors are: How many mainstream, non-specialist sources discuss it, and in what degree of depth?
 * In the case of the Turkey Mountain inscriptions, we are faced with two problems... there do not seem to be enough "mainstream but non-specialist sources" that mention the inscriptions... and the few that do mention them tend do so in a passing way... while discussing the broader "pre-Columbian European contact" theory (ie they do not discuss the specific inscriptions on Turkey Mountain in much depth). Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)