Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 35

Mary Baker Eddy
An anonymous IP 89.100.155.6 is doing some edit wars on the Mary Baker Eddy article, he admits to be a Christian Scientist and I noticed he has a long edit history of trying to add original research into Christian Science articles and edit warring with other users. He keeps adding a Christian science source which claims Eddy was opposed to Spiritualism (which is not true). I have reverted him three times, I will probably get in trouble if I revert him again, can anyone look into this? Fodor Fan (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is a NPOV issue rather than a fringe issue... the source for the statement is: Robert Peel's Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966, pp. 183-84.) which does not strike me as being a fringe source (I have no idea whether the author was a Christian scientist or not, but that does not automatically make the source unreliable or fringe). I would suggest that attribution is the way to go rather than removal.  Don't try to state definitively whether she was or was not a spiritualist... instead state that there is some between the scholars... noting the fact that scholars X, Y and X say she was (and why they say this), while scholars A and B disagree and say she was not (and why they say that). Blueboar (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All that line says is that Eddy made a presentation against spirtualism. That is consistent with "Eddy often attempted to distinguish Christian Science from Spiritualism". IRWolfie- (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The date is wrong, that is the problem. Peel (a christian scientist) claims that Eddy was opposing Spiritualism as early as 1864. Well we know this is not true becuase in the same year she was going around peoples houses claiming to channel dead spirits! See Braude, or Martin Gardner etc. Fodor Fan (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree it is more of a NPOV issue, I added the line back in. I am leaving wikipedia at the end of today, going on holiday for 4 months tomorrow and won't be editing in that time. Thanks for your comments. Fodor Fan (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Radical" criticism of epistles of Apostle Paul - fringe or minority view?
It has been generally accepted for many years now by scholars and experts that some of the New Testament epistles attributed to the Apostle Paul are not really by him at all. In the 19th century, a "school" of "Radical" Dutch critics advocated the position that none of the letters in the New Testament were really written by Paul - | Dutch Radical School. These ideas were marginalised until recently when they have been revived by Hermann Detering and Robert M. Price. These are all scholars notable enough for their own wikipedia articles, many other scholars would disagree with their ideas, but I don't think anyone would dispute that they are genuine scholars, they are not self-published authors with their own websites. Their ideas may be crudely summarised as "None of the epistles of "Paul" are genuine, they are all late forgeries, "Paul" himself is a character that has been partly or wholly fictionalised, the Biblical accounts of him are unreliable.". What I wonder is if these ideas of the Dutch radical school and their present day followers are, to quote WP:DUE a significant minority -"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" which it is, see above, and therefore deserves a brief mention - I am only thinking of adding a sentence or two - or a tiny minority fringe view which should not be mentioned at all? - "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." My feeling is that these ideas should be briefly mentioned in the article, just one or two sentences, with links to the articles on the individual scholars, but there has been an objection on the talk page that this is fringe, so I thought I would bring the discussion here. I am not trying to start a debate about whether these scholars' ideas are right, or have any merit to them, but whether they are a significant minority and should be briefly mentioned in the article Paul the Apostle or fringe and do not belong. Thanks.Smeat75 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is that it should be mentioned in Authorship of the Pauline epistles, but not in Paul the Apostle. StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with StAnselm.
 * It would be a challenge for disparate church groups to forge a rather large number of Pauline letters so that they, more or less, agree in theology and chronology. Mentioning it in "Authorship" seems a reasonable compromise and will hopefully satisfy "conspiracy" advocates. It seems to me that geography, and time, would tend to thwart "conspiracy" in ancient times. Just too many balls in the air to juggle = too many letters. Except for Timothy, I think that experts believe they were all written by the same person. Same forger? The problem is that the epistles don't all say identical things and sometimes seem contradictory, just like regular letters. It would be like coaching (non)witnesses to an accident to ensure that their stories varied "somewhat," in order to be credible - not an easy job. Student7 (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions of a Wikipedian are irrelevant. Besides, the question is not if Price and Detering are right, but if they are fringe. I'll note that Price has published in peer-reviewed journals and was recently asked to speak at some scholarly NT conference. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been a while since I have reviewed the literature, and it can be difficult to get past people like Spong who sell books by saying out-there things, but last I knew the consensus was that Romans, 1st Corinthians, and two of the others (I forget which two and I'm too lazy to check right this second) were all written by a common author whom we might as well call Paul. After that consensus goes to hell. It has to be kept in mind that there isn't really any point about NT authorship that isn't contested, except that John the evangelist and John of the Revelation are likely not the same author, that 1st and 2nd Peter aren't by the same author, and that Hebrews wasn't written by Paul (and that last opinion has ancient backing). The notion that there isn't any Paul is something which Catholicism and it scholars rejects, and which Orthodoxy and its scholars rejects, and which evangelicals more or less uniformly rejects, and which really I think most mainline scholars reject. I could give it notable minority/fringe status, but this sounds to me like another Coluphidist "nobody is a scholar who doesn't agree with my radical solution" position that textual scholarship is plagued with. It's really impossible to honestly say that N. T. Wright lies outside the mainstream, just to pick one of the more widely respected Pauline scholars. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about the issue to opine on whether to mention it in the Authorship of the Pauline epistles article (or how much space to devote to it in that article if it is mentioned).  What I will say is that we can go into more depth on the theory at the Hermann Detering and Robert M. Price articles.  In an article about a notable scholar, it is appropriate to have a fairly extensive section outlining that scholar's views and theories... even if those theories are controversial (or even fringe). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a mention and very brief summary of radical criticism and wikilinks to the articles on Dutch radical school and Robert M. Price and Hermann Detering and nothing more are appropriate. The former because it is of historical importance (I believe there was a fierce debate at least in the Netherlands), the latter to show the current level of support, or lack thereof, namely support at a very, very low level, and not by mainstream biblical scholarship. The radical school wasn't fringe in the sense of kookish, its members were respected academics, their theories were just not widely accepted. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

List of reported UFO sightings
New user promoting themselves, their photo business, and their own UFO sighting by citing fringe sources. I'm at 2RR and won't be reverting further. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I notified the editor in question of this discussion for you. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 21:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Notification is not required when a specific editor is not mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We're cool. I would have done it anyway but Evan beat me to it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Notification is required when a specific editor is mentioned, and an individual contributor's edits are under discussion here. Failing to name the editor does not allow one to skirt the requirement. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 22:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Having looked this over, I don't see that the addition is any worse than a lot of the stuff that's already on the list (it might help if we limited it to UFO sightings with their own articles, but that's discussion for somewhere else). One of the sources cited looks to be a reliable secondary (though not necessarily high quality). If the prose is trimmed and rewritten a little to sound a little less promotional, I wouldn't see any problems. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 21:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but what are you talking about? Which of the sources is even remotely reliable? Which of the sources establishes notability, because if you look at the list you will see the requirement is notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from the user's admitted COI, the sources she's given fail to meet even the somewhat loosened standards for that article:
 * http://www.dailypaul.com (Fringy website that disclaims any responsibility for reliability)
 * http://ovniparanormal.over-blog.com (A personal blog)
 * http://veritasradio.blogspot.it (A personal blog in Italian)
 * http://www.youtube.com (A user-posted YouTube video)
 * She needs reputable sources that establish her UFO photographs are notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At first look, I had assumed Daily Paul to be reliable. Per IRWolfie, above, that doesn't seem to be the case; I obviously didn't look close enough. As for notability, neither "notable" nor "notability" appear on the page or talk page in any kind of prescriptive manner. At any rate, notability can be established by non-RS's, though it's never preferable. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 22:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hank Risan
I'm not totally sure whether this is the right place to seek opinions, but think the article could do with a bit of mainstream balance. --nonsense ferret  13:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you mean Hank Risan, I have to say I fail to see the problem. Perhaps you could be more explicit. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a FTN problem. It's more that it's an overly promotional article that fails basic verification.IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also note that Bbmusicman (perhaps short for Bluebeat music man?) probably has a conflict of interest considering his nick and his SPA editing, so look to WP:COI. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Understood - my initial reading was that the article existed to give credence to two scientific claims: copyright in recordings could be circumvented by psychoacoustic modelling, and secondly that there is a copy protection device that can defeat all possible future copying of music files via methods that aren't even known yet. These didn't seem to be mainstream views, but I appreciate this might not have been the right forum, so apologies - if this should be removed as irrelevant, that is fine. --nonsense  ferret  15:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No you raise a good point, it probably was relevant to FTN for that reason, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Newport Tower (Rhode Island) & Scott Wolter at the History Channel
Comments on these edits?. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverted. My patience is exhausted. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott Wolter is known as one of the advocates of the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone. I'm not surprised to see him pop up in a similar context (he is also mentioned in the AVM Runestone article). --Hegvald (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti
There is a discussion at Talk:Jack_Sarfatti about whether the first sentence of the lead gives undue weight to quantum conciousness. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleve Backster
I don't have time to dive into this right now so I thought I'd just throw this to you folks. This article presents an uncritical appraisal of fringe ideas regarding primary perception. -- Daniel (talk)  04:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an entire nest of articles like these on plants and conciousness or whatever. I worked on them a while ago and it's a mess, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Fringe theory from Britannica?
A theory about the etymology of Easter from Britannica has been accused of being WP:Fringe. According to Britannica, the Eostre theory... ''...presumes—as does the view associating the origin of Christmas on December 25 with pagan celebrations of the winter equinox—that Christians appropriated pagan names and holidays for their highest festivals. Given the determination with which Christians combated all forms of paganism, this appears a rather dubious presumption. There is now widespread consensus that the word derives from the Christian designation of Easter week as in albis, a Latin phrase that was understood as the plural of alba (“dawn”) and became eostarum in Old High German, the precursor of the modern German and English term.''

Someone at the talk page provided several sources supporting the Eostre theory. However, I'm not sure if this makes the claim from Britannica "fringe". Can someone look into this? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting here. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I knew of any secondary sources for this in albis derivations that Brittanica was drawing from.  -Ben (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a copy of Shaw's Pagan Goddesses in the Early Germanic World: Eostre, Hreda and the Cult of Matrons at hand, but he might actually discuss both this in albis business and the encyclopedia entry in it. It was over a year now ago that I read it. However, as I point out on the talk page, there's no shortage of material in Indo-European studies on this topic. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * General encyclopedias aren't automatically reliable sources and we should avoid them for subjects such as history in favor of academic sources (we discussed this at RSN a fairly short while ago). Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The big problem we're going to keep having with Eostre is that a large chunk of modern scholarship, if not the majority, thinks that the Eostre-Easter connection is a bit of fakelore, intentional or not, made up by Bede and then expanded upon by the Grimms. The bare fact is that the Bede is the only direct attestation for such a goddess; everything else is puzzled out of placenames and the like. Easter in virtually every other language but English derives its name from Passover, and the Pascha-Pesach connection just makes a lot more sense because, after all, it's what the gospels attest to. Passover is of course locked to the spring equinox, and the Dionysian computus tries to lock Easter to Passover (it doesn't work quite right because of the Gregorian correction).

If we're talking the 1910/11 Britannica, it represents the same terribly out-of-date scholarship as Grimm and company. Ronald Hutton is a contemporary scholar of the matter who needs to be quoted; there are probably others. I wouldn't call this older view "fringe", but it's not where we are in current scholarship. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah... If we have to give this a label, I would use the word "outdated" rather than "fringe". Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, you are incorrect about modern scholarship on the topic and you seem to have misunderstood the poster's question; you have it backwards. Please see the examples from major scholars in Indo-European studies that the initial poster refers to. Eostre is simply considered to be a reflex of the PIE dawn goddess in modern scholarship, so much so that major etymological dictionaries simply state it as fact. Hutton is not philologist, an Indo-Europeanist, nor a Germanicist, and while he does a poor job of outlining the reasons why Eostre could not have been an invention of Bede, he does not conclude that Bede invented Eostre. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Charges of fascism and charges of communism
A user tries to add endless columns on charges of fascism and charges of communism in New Deal. Does it comply with wikipedia policy (fringe theories, undue weight)? (There has been a discussion already ). --Pass3456 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Constructing material out of quotes is a sure sign of bad writing, poor scholarship, and coatracking. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That kind of charges have in general been part of political propaganda in the states for one century now, up to the present day. This special historical, most probably agree even ongoing, phenomenon even created its own term: red scare. Unfortunatly this is missing in the article in contrast to the rather dominant role of propaganda in that time. This white spot should simply be filled and frame up according to npov and the, in this case, existing solid base of established history literature so this phenomenon is presented completely in its common instead of partly its biased essence. --Kharon2 (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A number of prominent historians have indicated that comparisons of the New Deal to radical ideologies in regards to antidepression policies is neither fringe nor propaganda (I'm the accused). James Q. Whitman said that by the late 1980s it was "almost routine for New Deal historians to list resemblances between the New Deal and fascist governments."  John Garraty wrote that in total the New Deal and the Nazis were vastly different, but in terms of antidepression economic policies they had "striking simlarities."  Garraty said that it was "neither capricious nor perverse" to make these comparisons.  According to Whitman, Ellis Hawley was another historian who found a lot of similarities.


 * This obituary has a high-level summary of Garraty's findings: "Especially controversial was his assertion that Roosevelt's depression policies resembled those of the Nazis: 'Roosevelt and Hitler, the one essentially benign, the other malevolent, justified far-reaching constitutional changes as being necessary for the improvement of economic institutions in a grave emergency' (p. 207)" Garraty wrote the book in the late 1980s.


 * Garraty was vice president of the American Historical Association. He was president of the Society of American Historians.  Garraty was selected to edit the Dictionary of American Biography.  His textbook on American history was widely used.  Its 1979 edition said that the National Industrial Recovery Administration, a key New  Deal law, "was also similar to experiments being carried out by the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini and by the Nazis in Adolf Hitler's Germany.  It did not, of course, turn America into a fascist state, but it did herald an increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of interest groups, both industrialists' organizations and labor unions."  My attempts to quote the Garraty article on the subject have frequently been reverted, even though it's relevant to the topic and comes from a very distinguished secondary source.  The quote from the Garraty textbook indicates that the notion of radical influences on the New Deal isn't fringe theory, but standard textbook material.


 * German author Wolfgand Schivelbuschwrote a book called The Three New Deals.  It finds that the New Deal's economic policies resembled Germany's and Italy's.  This book is cited elsewhere in Wikipedia.


 * The Lewis Feuer article I used was published by a Johns Hopkins University publication. It was published by American Quarterly, a Johns Hopkins University publication.  According to Wikipedia "His edited collection, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy ( 1959) is one of the most widely used readers on Marxian thought ever published."  Feuer would have known as much as anyone if the Soviet Union's economic policies influenced New Deal ideology.  Feuer is cited in other Wikipedia articles, such as the one on Imperialism.


 * Garraty and Feuer probably researched the New Deal and radicalism as much as the sources currently cited in the subarticles. Garraty was a liberal who admired Roosevelt and the New Deal. Feuer was a liberal at the time he wrote his article. If anything, the subarticles rely too much on orginal research providing block quotes from Hoover and Roosevelt.  Hoover felt animosity towards Roosevelt and the New Deal.  Roosevelt's denial is directly contradicted by statements he made at other times.  I could provide plenty of other evidence, sources and quotes.  To say that radical influences on the New Deal is a fringe theory is to say that Garraty, Feuer, Schivelbusch, and others wrote fringe material and were taken in by propaganda.  It would be to say that Johns Hopkins, the American Historical Review, and other organizations publish fringe work and propaganda.  It also means that the University of California, Columbia University, the Society of American Historians and other organizations hire fringe people.  Finally, it means that New Dealers, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, made multiple fringe statements about their policies and generated propaganda against themselves.


 * The noticeboard says "Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact." Everything I have provided here is a fact.  With the exception of one possible misquote of a single sentence in an Alan Brinkley work, all of my edits in the New Deal article are established facts.  I have cited multiple reliable and often eminent sources and publications.  The information I provided isn't fringe.  Thank you for your consideration. LesLein (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The complaining editor says that I try to insert "endless columns" into the subarticles. I don't know what endless columns are. I have been persistent and bold.  There's nothing wrong with persistence, making the subarticles NPOV takes precedence over cconsensus. Wikipedia recommends boldness.  One of the reasons I have to keep trying is that edits get removed for reasons I consider invalid.  One Edit Summary said that the title of my secondary source didn't pass his or her "BS detector."  Another falsely said that I was using a primary source when I was using a secondary source.  Another left the reason blank.  Another said that my quote was "ominous" and out of context.  It wasn't out of context.  "Ominous" is future tense; the term doesn't apply to a quote almost 80 years old.  At the article's talk page an editor agreed that an intelligent layman would understand my edit (odd for a fringe theory) but a high school student wouldn't.  One editor said on the talk page that my edits violated some rule about the ratio of quoted text to other text.  There is no such rule.  An editor said that my edits were suitable for a related article (again strange for a fringe theory).


 * The biggest complaint about my edits is a two sentence quote. I indicated that on October 5, 1933, Harold Ickes recorded a private conversation in his diary.  Roosevelt told Ickes that “what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany.  But we were doing them in an orderly way.”  This appears in page 104 of the Ickes diary.  At least three secondary sources use it.  It originated from FDR himself.  I can provide plenty of similar quotes published by reliable secondary sources.  FDR, Ickes, and the secondary sources have no motive to push fringe theory propaganda.  I'm sorry to go on, but this information is not fringe and is notable.  Again, thank you for your consideration. LesLein (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "One of the reasons I have to keep trying is that edits get removed for reasons I consider invalid."
 * That would seem to me to instead suggest bringing better arguments. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 13:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As I suggested several times it would be a good idea to start with the result of academic research. To start with @LesLein could read the blurb of Schivelbuschs The Three New Deals which actually clarifies that it is "Far from equating Roosevelt, Hitler, and Mussolini". There have been academic comparisons between New Deal and fascism but these were comparisons without equation just as one can compare apples and oranges or the United States Army and the Wehrmacht. Schivelbusch et. alt. are not making "charges of fascism". @LesLein ignores the intentions of the authors by simply quoting out of context and fabricating a false analogy.
 * Futhermore I whant to point out that David M. Kennedy (historian) has written a pulitzer price winning book on that subject called Freedom From Fear. It does not make charges of communism or charges of fascism and since it is a pulitzer price winning thick book I think we can tend to consider it thoroughly covering on it´s subject. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In regards to my edits being reverted without a valid reason, this edit summary is another example. Pass3456 wrote "has been extensively explained on discussion page."  He did not say what had been explained.  It is probably a reference to use of primary sources, but I didn't use any primary sources in the edit he linked to.  Another example is on the article's talk page.  Pass3456 wrote "Before I ereased some quotes the ratio was 18 sentences of historic quotes to 6 sentences of scholarly analyses. Wikipedia:No_original_research demands at least that it is the other way around."  Another editor wrote "those are your personal views not Wikipedia rules."  In fact Pass3456's link does not contain the word "ratio."  This editor also wrote "all the cites that were erased [by Pass3456] follow the Wiki guidelines."


 * In the early 1960s Lewis Feuer traveled to the Soviet Union to lecture the communists on Marxism. There can't be many English language scholars who can make that claim.  As I will mention later, I did not pull any of his material out of context.  Pass3456 should submit another fringe notice about the Wikipedia article present Feuer as an expert on Marxism.  I think the notion that Feuer writes fringe theories is a fringe theory itself.


 * In his first sentence at this board Pass3456 links to a subarticle "charges of communism." The subarticle has a different title.  This is highly typical of his statements.  He complains that I ignore him, yet makes obvious mistakes on the most simple things.


 * Pass3456 suggests that I should start with the "result of academic research." That is exactly what I did, using scholars like Garraty, Feuer, and Brinkley.  Yet he repeatedly removes this material.  He says that I should read the blurb of Schivelbusch's book.  I did.  I read the book.  My description of the book did not equate the New Deal and fascism.  I did not cite any sources as making "charges of fascism."  In the links Pass3456 provides I quote several authors saying that the New Deal wasn't dictatorial or totalitarian.  What I did say was that there were a lot of similarities.  The Amazon blurb for Three New Deals states "Yet in the 1930s, before World War II, the regimes of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler bore fundamental similarities."  Now why did Pass3456 leave that out?


 * I have no doubt that David Kennedy's book is a fine work. Yet Pass3456 repeats his practice of using a source he likes as the Alpha and Omega on a subject. NPOV means considering all relevant and reliable points of view.  Freedom from Fear is a long survey of how America responded to the Great Depression and World War.  It does not explore similarities between the New Deal and fascism in depth; the word "fascism" comes up about seven times.  In over 100 Amazon reviews not a single reviewer thinks that "fascism" is worth mentioning in the context of this book.  The same is true of related terms like "fascist," "communist," and "communism."


 * It's tough to search an online book; I could only find one time where Kennedy deals with complaints that the New Deal resembled fascism. This is a denial from Roosevelt, who like every politician has biases.  Roosevelt's denial isn't candid.  In a private conversation he once told a member of his cabinet that:


 * “what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an orderly way.”


 * The above quote may be what Pass3456 means when he claims that I take material out of context. I did not take it out of context. I challenge Pass3456 to provide the true context.  This shouldn't be difficult if he knows what he is talking about.


 * I ask Pass3456 to enlighten me on why he puts the at (@) symbol in front of my user ID. He accuses me of "fabricating" an analogy.  Pass3456 should read the guidelines on civility and personal attacks.


 * I am sorry this took so long, but there are no short replies to what Pass3456 wrote. LesLein (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this may be the wrong forum for your content dispute. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 04:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are actually a couple of things to replay to LesLein. Just to start with: it is not a peronal problem of mine. User:Rjensen, User:DD2K, User:RashersTierney and User:no qwach macken made the following comments on LesLeins edits: Smacks of POV, "I hate America" wrote Kennan at this point--he had lost faith in democracy and America at this point says Gaddis (2011) p 100, the first quote sounds ominous; but read the whole text & see FDR was denying he was acting too slowly; the second quote is falsified--Ickes never said it (Goldberg got it wrong), The Swope was not part of the new deal – this background information belongs in the NIRA article, No, there is no Talk page consensus for linking FDR to Hitler, and this article is about the New Deal, not Wilson's programs, drop pov claims; FDR and Mussolini did not have a personal relationship, change 1 is unnecessary, change 2 doesn't completely make sense, change 3 needs a better source at least - just the title sets my BS detector off already, One problem with using primary sources is you can except them to make them sound diabolocal...""He said that what we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way." now that means he is communist? fascist? opening death camps? killing Jews? killing kulaks? starving millions? jailing opponents? setting up a secret police? gigantic increase in military spending? shutting down churches? killing priests? building roads and highways? deficit spending? jailing political opponents? sending spies around the world???? By not explaining the context the quote is a deliberate device to make readers suspicious of FDR's motives., the problem with the actual Ickes quote is that it does not say anything about the new deal. Some people will read it to say that Roosevelt imprisoned or killed millions of people as Stalin and Hitler did in their countries. The 2nd Ickes quote (" Ickes warned Roosevelt that there was an increasing tendency by the public “to unconsciously group four names, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Roosevelt.") is a fake – Ickes never said it. The statement came in a letter to FDR, one of millions he received from private citizens., Goldberg got the source wrong--Ickes is nowhere mentioned. As for the first quote--it's a paraphrase and Ickes simply does not tell what FDR was talking about. Mentioning it is forbidden OR -- it involves contested interpretation not based on any reliable secondary source. Mentioning it is a rhetorical device that confuses our readers, suggesting FDR's atrocities on the order of Stalin & Hitler. As for Mussolini, there was one New Dealer (Johnson) who had a favorable view and he was fired for it. As Diggins says, "Hugh Johnson notwithstanding, the published writings of the Brain Trusters reveal no evidence of the influence of Italian Fascism." Diggins goes on to say there was zero influence of Mussolini on FDR. ], The article will be used by high school kids who know very little about the New Deal but have heard plenty about Hitler's atrocities. "Any intelligent layman" will rwalize he's being fooled by the linking of FDR and Hitler but the kids won't. Again the Ickes quote (the genuine one) tells the informed reader zero--what program was FDR referring to??-- but will hint to the poor student that FDR admitted actions similar to Hitler., why can't you call FDR a dictator here -- because the RS strongly disagree. (Cooke wrote that passage when he was in his 90s and he garbled it completely. suggesting FDR was just like Hitler is likewise a no-no., re attacks on FDR try "Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt" article, yes = primary sources. Hoover wrote at length and there is no mistaking what he meant: fascism = control of government by big business. (That is what Hoover meant by fascism but that never happened under Hitler or Mussolini.) FDR was talking to Ickes about XYZ, but Ickes never tells us what XYZ was. No historian has tried to guess XYZ -- there are simply no clues. The Ickes quote is used by enemies of FDR to trick people into linking FDR with Hitler's atrocities., I agree with Rjensen here. Might I also add that you seem to be trying to push a WP:POV here in an obvious manner. Using words like 'dictator' and attempting to link FDR to Hitler is definitely WP:FRINGE.. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am increasingly convinced that the problem is mostly an original research (well and NPOV and undue weight) problem. If we could all agree that the notion of "liberal fascism", that basically implicates that any political group (exept libertarians) are fascists is a not notable subject, we could move on to the original research noticeboard. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If these are simply warmed-over arguments from Liberal Fascism then that is surely WP:FRINGE. Goldberg's scholarship on these types of things is only slightly better than Alex Jones'. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 01:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is quite a list Pass3456 provides. He leaves off at least a few things.  Take this edit summary by rjensen "keep well sourced debate; drop discussion of European terms--this article is not about Europe."  The "well sourced" information was from me.  The quote Goldberg alledgedly got wrong was actually from Alan Brinkley.  A search of Brinkley's book indicates that Brinkley was Goldberg's source, as I claimed.  Brinkley may have made a mistake (every author does).  I pointed out at the New Deal talk page that the reference to FDR as a "dictator" was based on Alistair Cooke's statement calling the early years of the New Deal a "benevolent" dictatorship, my mistake was leaving off the adjective (I was trying to wrap up).  See the National Recovery Administration article.  Rjensen left that statement in the article when he edited it.  It was FDR who "linked" himself to Hitler when he said some of his economic programs were taken from what the Germans were doing.


 * Pass3456 reverted attempts to restore rjensen's edit, without getting any consensus. That's what started the whole flap.  If Pass3456 had allowed the material to stay I would be long gone; I'm not obsessed with the New Deal. The Publishers Weekly review says Goldberg's book is "well-researched, seriously argued—and funny."  That's not something reviewers say about fringe theories.


 * Since Goldberg is so controversial at Wikipedia and elsewhere, I only use his book to find other sources. Every time I checked his sources they were always valid, so whatever one thinks of his interpretations, his facts are reliable. At least one prominent scholar on fascism seems to agree with Goldberg up to a point:


 * "Fascism was sometimes perceived not innacurately as more of a heresy from, more than a mortal challenge to, revolutionary Marxism."


 * The writer is Stanley Payne, whose work is justifiably admired by Pass3456. Payne is agreeing that fascism has far left origins.  So Goldberg's chapter on Mussolini is vindicated.  The term "liberal fascism" was originated by a prominent liberal, H.G. Wells.  Wells was advocating liberal fascism.  Lots of prominent liberals, or progressives, endorsed some elements of fascism up until the mid-1930s.  The co-founder of The New Republic, Herbert Croly, often approved of Mussolini.  Maybe Goldberg should have called his book "Far Left Fascism", but that wouldn't have been as provocative or marketable.  Goldberg does not say that everyone but libertarians is a fascist.  He says that liberals aren't really fascist so many times that it ought to be in the book's subtitle.


 * I think that it's fringe theory to say that Garraty and Feuer, based on what FDR said and did, push fringe theories. I'm assuming that Pass3456 is acting in good faith when he says it's nothing personal.  I'm wondering how he'd feel if someone said he fabricated analogies or pushed fringe theories.  Taking this dispute to original research is fine by me as long as the dispute is closed here and moved to archives without further action. If Pass3456 does so, I would be grateful for a heads up. LesLein (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S., I'm sorry about saying "he." I don't know the gender of anyone involved here.  Sometimes I forget the new writing styles.


 * If you're using Goldberg to find sources, that sounds a bit like WP:CHERRY to me.
 * Publisher's Weekly is a trade journal, about the business of publishing. It is not in any way an academic publication. If you're suggesting that these remarks in PW suggest Goldberg's scholarship is of high quality maybe you should try floating that over at WP:RSN and see what they say. I don't buy it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something (certainly possible), but it certainly looks to me like you're being disingenuous about the whole thing.
 * I still agree with (in spite of that eye-burningly-awful page of links) that your material is WP:FRINGE until/unless I see some discussion over at WP:RSN that convinces me otherwise. I'm happy to consider this discussion closed (for my part anyway, not that i have any power or authority) unless you have additional objections. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 03:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Re "I don't know the gender of anyone involved here", I'm a Guy. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to promote Liberal Fascism. I should have said that I only used (past tense) Goldberg to find a few sources.  These are the Harold Ickes diary that paraphrases two FDR sentences that others can't stand.  I haven't used that diary as a source since January.  The other is an article by John Garraty.  Garraty admired Roosevelt and the New Deal (see his textbook).  He was president of the Society of American Historians and was selected to edit the Dictionary of American Biography.  Another main source that I used was Lewis Feuer.  Feuer was regarded as so knowledgeable about Marxism that in 1963 hs was invited to Moscow to give a lecture on the subject.  Another source is an article by James Whitman  Whitman's article appeared in the American Journal of Comparative Law.  As a professor on that subject, he can be considered an expert.


 * The Whitman article is available at JSTOR. The Garraty article is also available for free.  Unfortunately, the Feuer article requires payment. The first page of his article is available for free and indicates that in the early years of the Soviet Union American intellectuals considered it to be a model for experimentation.  If editors read the first page of Whitman's text they will see that New Dealers as prominent as FDR himself were interested in implementing Mussolini's policies.  New Dealers played this down after the invasion of Abyssinia.  The early pages of the Garraty article inticate that it is "neither capricious nor perverse" to compare National Socialism to the New Deal.  The second page states that the two systems "displayed striking similarities" in antidepression policies while being "fundamentally different" overall.  The examples I provided were in the areas of deurbanization (Whitman), employment (Garraty), and rural electrification (Feuer).  Copying radical ideas in these areas isn't necessarily pejorative.


 * The Garraty article was controversial when published in 1973 and along with a German language article revived interest in the topic. Whitman wrote that by the late 1980s it was "almost routine for New Deal historians to list resemblances between the New Deal and fascist governments."  The Garraty article is already listed as a source for the New Deal article.  His textbook also provides a quote for the article indicating that while FDR was no dictator, the New Deal drew on fascist economic ideas.  So the alleged fringe theory is published in a widely used textbook; if anything I can say that my edits reflect textbook material It was Garraty who got me interested in this topic.  I used to go months at a time without even thinking about the New Deal; I may propose a compromise within a few days.  One can't say that I'm pushing a fringe theory without saying that FDR, Garraty, Whitman, and Feuer did the same.  BTW, I agree with Pass3456 that the notion that everyone but libertarians are fascists doesn't belong in the New Deal article and wasn't trying to cause that impression.  Thanks for reading this.  LesLein (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You may be misunderstanding things. One can be adding fringe, undue, non-NPOV material even if the sources being used are perfectly above board and have wide scholarly acceptance. This happens sometimes. Taking things out of context or using cherry picked historical sources or quotes, one can promote all manner of fringe ideas without the source material being fringe per se. As I understand it, the issue is not your sources, it is your additions, which, to my mind, still qualify as fringe.
 * Does that make things a little bit clearer, i hope? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 20:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We are getting closer. I don't see how I can be using credible sources while pushing a fringe theory.  My material is not out of context.  Earlier, I requested that someone provide the actual context if mine is wrong.  No one has responded.  If there is a POV problem, it is because the current article is almost totally biased in favor of FDR's viewpoint.  I will use the current "Charges of "fascism" subarticle for examples.


 * The subarticle starts out stating that "Enemies of the New Deal" accused it of fascism. There are plenty of scholars and politicians, often sympathetic to the New Deal, who say that in the economic sphere the New Deal had resemblences to fascism.  This includes FDR himself.  I'm not "charging" the New Deal with fascism, just trying to point out evidence of similarities.


 * A block quote summarizes Herbert Hoover's views. Hoover is the only person permitted to "allege" fascism; perhaps because he is easy to discredit as an opponent of FDR.  Hoover refers to the "Swope Plan."  Before I was involved in this, Hoover's quote was followed by an unsourced sentence stating that FDR never signed off on "any such plan."  This implies that there may not have been a Swope Plan.  If readers go to this link and read the Leon Keyserling interview, they will see that the Swope Plan was the starting point for key New Deal legislation; FDR endorsed it.  I am not permitted to point this out, only provide a link to the Swope Plan (I have a source indicating that it was corporatist but not fascist).


 * The most annoying part to me is the block quote of FDR's denial. If readers search this page for "Ickes" they will find a quote from Harold Ickes diary indicating that FDR said privately that the early part of the New Deal was based on some of the things that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were doing.  No one has ever questioned this quote's accuracy.  When I first provided this quote, it was removed on the grounds that editor didn't think the book title passed his or her "BS detector."  Next, I obtained a copy of the Ickes diary to confirm that FDR actually made the statement.  He did.  When I referenced it, it was removed as original research.  This is in spite of the fact that the subarticle has other original research and the Ickes diaries are quoted in other articles.  Next I referenced Lewis Feuer's article.  This is an excellent secondary source.  It was removed because FDR was talking about slowness in enacting the New Deal.  It wasn't.  I'm not sure anyone ever checked the Feuer article or Ickes diary entry to see the actual context.


 * Later an editor said that the Ickes quote of FDR can't be used because it might confuse "high school kids." I never heard of this before.  I think encyclopedias should stretch the knowledge of students; we have teachers to help them out.  I think it is misleading to leave out the quote and let FDR's block quote stand without contradiction.  To do so is to present readers with a falsehood (all politicians say different things in public than what they really believe).  I can be forgiven for suspecting that the goalposts keep getting moved.


 * Later on the article provides two sentences from John Garraty's textbook. This is the only text I've been allowed to add.  It is only allowed if it is chaparoned by another sentence stating that "Historian John Garraty searched for similarities between the New Deal and fascism without equating these ideas."  The two sentences I provided are the only parts of the textbook that address the subject.  The chaparone sentence isn't supported by the textbook or the Garraty article I mentioned earlier.


 * Near its end, the subarticle states that there is no distinctive form of fascist economics. I added text from Stanley Payne, correctly identified as an expert in the field, indicating that there is a broad philosophy behind fascist economics.


 * In sum, the article is currently very incomplete, biased, and misleading. My edits would improve it.  Thank you again.  LesLein (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:TLDR. Still WP:FRINGE. Good luck. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 02:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have so much evidence behind me that it is difficult to keep it short. One thing we agree on is that Stanley Payne is a leading scholar on fascism.  If you go to the talk page you will see that Pass3456 thinks that his conclusions are definitive.  This comparison provides a quote from Payne's book.  Payne writes without dispute that another scholar "concludes that the [Nazi] jobs creation projects were rather like those of Franklin Roosevelt's in the United States and did not work much better."  If you check the revision history, you will see that other authors wanted to keep this quote in, but in rewriting some of the article Pass3456 took out his expert's statement.


 * Roosevelt himself said that some of his antidepression programs were based on what the Soviets and Nazis were doing. This is no fringe theory.


 * In the long list of links, Pass3456 repeats a charge of falsification. I will submit a BLP notice.  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&diff=542294657&oldid=542236713


 * I don't know what you think you're gaining from continuing to plead your case here. You have repeatedly tried and failed to convince me.
 * I have no power over anything, no more than you have, but you have continued to try and restate what to me looks like the same arguments over and over without allowing that perhaps things need to be approached differently. You have responded to my admonition to "bring better arguments" by restating the same ones.
 * see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:POVPUSH, and WP:DEADHORSE
 * I am glad you have identified at least one point where you agree. Use that as a starting point. I will not be commenting further. Marking resolved. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 21:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There obviously are some similarities between FDR's policies on the one hand and communist and fascist policies on the other. This is because all countries were looking for solutions to the common economic crisis. They used state intervention - because in the 30s nation-states were expected to be strong and manage their national economies. The concept of Fordism Is relevant. Any proposed additions to the article must be based on very good sources meeting WP:HISTRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the potential compromise using Payne, Pass3456 won't stand for that. I inserted a Payne quote last week that supported my point.  A second editor added some information for clarity, but apparently didn't think it was fringe theory.  A third editor, you, removed a "PEACOCK" phrase.  Apparently you didn't perceive my edit as pushing fringe theory.  But as you can see, Pass3456 did.  Pass3456 removed it after my second attempt.  He must think that you and the other editor accepted fringe theory.  If I'm pushing fringe theory, I have excellent company.  This includes FDR, Ickes, Garraty, Feuer, Whitman, Payne, Patel, Schivelbusch, and Silverman.  I'll be like the poor editor at the Haymarket Affair article.  I'll keep shouting that the sky was blue, without needing to write a book.  LesLein (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Stone of the Pregnant Woman
We have an IP, or 2 IPs making identical article and talk page edits reverting cited text that this is Roman and calling anyone who thinks it is a moron. This is an old dispute. I've reverted twice and stopped, but if these are the same IP they can continue to use different IPs. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mangoe but of course you've been reverted. I've given the IP a 3RR warning although I think it's the same as the earlier one. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Taken this to ANI to see if anyone can say if it's possible the 3 IPs are just one editor. They won't add dissenting sources, are just deleting the source that says it's Roman. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that we were supposed to go to SPI and get their take before going to ANI about multiple IPs being the same person. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems connected to a pair of issues: first, some nationalism about the pre-Hellenistic settlement, and second, the kind of ancient astronaut woo-woo that invariably accompanies megaliths and cyclopean architecture. Right now the main article on Baalbek (anciently Heliopolis) is clean and sober. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

John Kanzius' "possible cure for cancer"
Noticed this article asserting that an RF technique is hailed as having "the potential to treat virtually all forms of cancer,[1] with no side effects, and without the need for surgery or medication."

Needs work. Will cross-list at WT:MED. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 16:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is also an article on this therapy system: Kanzius RF Therapy. It seems to have garnered a fair bit of media commentary at least. Paul B (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What a mess. Watchlisting, and will start cleaning up when I have time.  a13ean (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Notes:
 * Kanzius RF Therapy redirects to John Kanzius.
 * http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4271398
 * http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070910/full/news070910-13.html
 * http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/fire_from_saltwater
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It only redirects because it has been turned into a redirect since I commented. The information on the talk page of both articles indicates that the Kanzius method is just a variation on an established idea, promoted by Kanzius as a new invention. Paul B (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Fellowship of Isis
Anyone want to turn Fellowship of Isis into an encyclopedic article? I got there after I found someone trying to turn Brooke Medicine Eagle into some sort of saint, from there to Nicki Scully which also needs work (she's an ordained priestess of Hathor). Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Boyko Borisov's picture
Hello, I would like to report for an issue concerning the article for the Prime Minister of Bulgaria - Boyko Borisov. I should point out that the picture provided for the article is not appropriate one and can be treated as an act of disrespect. This picture has not been obtained by the official website of the government. Here is the picture provided by the officials. http://old2013.government.bg/fce/001/0219/bigimg/b_borisov.jpg Please take in account the information I provided you with.

Thank you. Best regards, Radoslav Naydenov


 * This is not the proper venue for this request. You should take it up on the article talk page. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Bigfoot
Just noticed a merge discussion suggesting a merge of Formal studies of Bigfoot to Bigfoot. It's an obvious thing to do, the article is just a content fork. There's a short discussion at Talk:Formal studies of Bigfoot. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Joachim Murat the Armenian?
In this edit, a claim that Joachim Murat was of Armenian origin was inserted into the article by an editor who apparently believes that the given name itself is an indication of this. Somebody interested in French history and preferably with access to a good recent biography of Murat might want to take a look at Talk:Joachim Murat. --Hegvald (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like blatant nationalistic bullshit (there is a fraction of people who believe all famous people should be Armenian somehow), however, I do not have the energy to fight this. My previous encounter with a POV Armenian editor (when I was asked to prove that somebody is NOT an Armenian citizen) took too much of my time and nerves, and I was lucky that the editor was already sanctioned previously with relation to Armenian-Azerbaijani arbcom topic, so he was told by someone to shut up. In this case, I do not see any previous sanctions, so you have to be prepared to fight and somehow prove that Murat was NOT Armenian (I bet such sources are not much easier to find than sources stating he was not an Icelander, Benghali or Tongan).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's up to the editor who wants to add material to show that it is reliably sourced. I see that the edit added three sources. The first could be reliable. The other two aren't: one is a French source that is at best a newspaper; the other is a book for a popular audience, probably nationalistic. Even if the first source is reliable, all it says is that sometimes a claim is made that Murat was Armenian. Occasional claims are not something that we add to Wikipedia. Therefore the edit fails. I'm interested in French history and would be happy to look through any sources that are available online, although I'm not interested in the national origin of every minor historical figure. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Judging nationality by name is especially unreliable. My name sounds french, but in my genealogy to get to the first non-British ancestor you have to go back before 1648. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strangely there seem to be very few recent sources readily available. There are a lot of old publications in English and French, some dating back to his lifetime. All say essentially the same thing, that he was the son of an innkeeper ("'aubergiste") in La Bastide-Fortumière. That's also what the Britannica and other reference works say. The village preserves the Murat Birthplace (Maison natale) and has a Murat museum. . It's even renamed itself Labastide-Murat. I have not found a single reference to the Armenian claim that's not just web-gossip or from specifically Armenian publications the authors of which have no claim to expertise on Murat. Paul B (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Searching for this is impressively bad. If I use his supposed Armenian birth name, I get three hits in books, two by Armenian authors; I get nothing in GScholar. I get nothing old whatsoever. You would think that someone prominent from the 1800s would have a more conspicuous trail. This is "deathbed conversion of Washington" bad: this is not something for which we should have to strain for sources. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably, by similar logic, the famous French poet Joachim du Bellay was also of Armenian origin. --Folantin (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate he was Armenian, and since he IS French, it would take a hell of a reference to prove otherwise... something along the lines of time travel. Still, if you want to have some real fun, don't try to prove he's French, and instead focusing on challenging someone to prove he's not Turkish. (Note: not a real suggestion...). Hiberniantears (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yowie
And while we are on the subject, some eyes on the latest edits to Yowie would probably be helpful. Nickm57 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Genetics and the Book of Mormon
IP busy "removing bias". See my comments on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bedson
Those who remember this editor might be interested in Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson and. Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael A. Hoffman II
In Michael A. Hoffman II, an ISP has been changing "Holocaust denialist" and "conspiracy theorist" (from independent secondary sources) to "author" and "political analyst" (from the subject's own website). An extra set of eyes there would be welcome. Thanks! Location (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Blankets with smallpox
Is the theory that the US Government deliberately infected blankets with smallpox and gave them to Native Americans a fringe theory?

Here are some pages and links that may be of interest:

Siege of Fort Pitt

http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html

Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=plag;view=text;rgn=main;idno=5240451.0001.009

http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm

(If the above URL is down, the content may be found here, and someone saved a cache of it here.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not at all. There are copious historical sources documenting this especially in colonial times, but not exclusively, and to suggest they are all part of a "fringe" theory to make these records "go away" is just bewildering and smells political to say the least. It seems the definition of the nebulously and arbitrarily defined "fringe" on wikipedia in some people's view is growing wider and wider every day. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you bother reading any of the above links in the seven minutes it took you to reply? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been a while, but as I remember it, there is a historical report of this being done, although I cannot recall the particulars so I cannot confirm that it was at Fort Pitt. (Note that if it was at the Siege of Fort Pitt, it would not have been the US Government, which did not yet exist.) Where it comes into play in the Ward Churchill misconduct case is that he was reported to have taken the one documented historical instance and spun it into a repeated pattern, narrating that it had been done at places where there was no record of this being the case. So, did it happen once, apparently yes.  Was it done by the US govt, no (if it was Ft Pitt, which I can believe).  Was it done where Churchill says it was, no.  Agricolae (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

−
 * Mi'kmaq historian Daniel N. Paul devotes quite a few pages to examining the contemporary documents that speak for themselves. Here's some quotes:
 * "Not surprisingly, these actions have been studiously ignored or downplayed by most White male historians. However, their reluctance to enter into honest discussion and critically comment on the matter does not obscure the facts that the documents and journals left behind by colonial English and French scribes irrefutably prove... The same historical documents also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that supposedly "civilized" colonial English politicians and military personnel used means of terror against First Nations peoples which would repel truly civilized people.  Thus, the reluctance of most White male scribes to discuss and put to paper the details of such behaviour is understandable. To do so is to question the very civility of those who perpetrated the atrocities. As a person who has no such reluctance tp expose the crimes against humanity committed by the English, I wrote this book. It details a chronicle of man's inhumanity to man which has few, if any, equals in human history... I have also quoted heavily from well-researched papers about the Mi'kmaq struggle for survival prepared by two White women.  In distinct contrast to the whitewashing of the subject by most White male writers, these women condemn the monstrous mistreatment of the Mi'kmaq... Most contemporary authors who have written about Amerindian civilization have also used European standards to evaluate the relative merits of these cultures.  Thus their efforts are flawed... (Chapter 1)
 * (Chapter 10) "The following is an excellent example of their racist mentality in action. In July, 1763, General Jeffery Amherst, the Commander in Chief of British forces in North America, sent a memo to Colonel Bouquet, a Huguenot in the service of England, asking:
 * 'Could it not be contrived to send the Smallpox among the disaffected Tribes of Indians?'
 * Bouquet replied: "I will try to inoculate the Indians with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself."
 * Amherst answered: "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets."...
 * "An "execrable race" was the General Amherst's favorite description for the Amerindians [citation]; Colonel Bouquet's was "the vilest of brutes". [citation]. This racist language clearly reveals that White supremacist beliefs were prime factors in their desire to commit genocide. Lawrence Shaw Mayo states in his biography of Amherst:
 * As he sped on his way to the relief of Fort Pitt, the Colonel exchanged interesting suggestions with the General as to the most efficient manner of getting rid of the redskins. His first orders to Bouquet were that he wished "to hear of no prisoners should any of the villains be met with arms." Besides using smallpox the two gentlemen contemplated another method: "As it is a pity to expose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spanish method, to hunt them with English dogs."...
 * This is just a sample of Paul's writing. Of course, from the POV that whites are superior to non-whites, as he describes, anyone speaking on behalf of the Native American point of view would automatically be regarded as "fringe", since only white males in this view are entitled to write the history of these things, and anyone else who tries to is therefore a priori "fringe" and not to be listened to... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please pay careful attention to the following. Read it twice if you have to. Did the US government do all manner of evil things towards Native Americans? Without a doubt. Could some of the be fairly described as genocide? I believe that is a fair description. Did some US Army officer or officers contemplate and write about infecting blankets with smallpox and giving the to Native Americans? We have sources documenting exactly that.

Do you have all of that? Are you sure? Good. Now show me a single shred of evidence that the US Government deliberately infected blankets with smallpox and gave them to Native Americans. As the eminent Cherokee sociologist Russell Thornton wrote: "The history is bad enough. There's no need to embellish it" --Guy Macon (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The 1763 accusation that Til discusses isn't fringe, and of course doesn't relate to the US government. The 1830s accusation is fringe of at any rate unsupported by evidence. That's from a reading of the sources you cite above. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that one certainly zoomed right past me. Sorry about that. Agree on both counts. Here is where we cover it:
 * Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst
 * Pontiac's War
 * Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This thread is solid proof that the entire "FRINGE" project needs to be taken down several notches, it is the greatest single danger to the NPOV policy and the rest of project as a whole, it is enshrining bias and intolerance and pejorative, derogatory language as canonical, it is nothing but where the most self important and near-sighted editors congregate, those with the mentality that kicking down every one else's sandcastle is "fun", it relies on its own rolling arbitrary definition of "fringe" that cannot be backed up by any reliable source (there are Soviet sources on what defines "fringe". there are Nazi sources on what defines "fringe".  There are  ZERO reliable sources on what defines fringe, because it is ''SERIOUSLY' in the "Eye of the Beholder"...  The way this board works, and gets more blatant about it all the time, is for the most narrow minded editors to congregate so they can swoop down en masse on an unbiased article for kicks and fill it with bias.  On a globe, there is no fringe, there is only a fringe on a flat earth view of a globe.  And of course where the fringe is depends on where you are standing with your flat earth view. This board should be scrutinized from the very top levels of the Wikipedia Foundation, because it runs directly counter to Jimbo's original vision of an encyclopedia where all points of view are treated neutrally, and where readers aren't TOLD like kindergartners what "the correct point of view" is.
 * Yes, as I said, there are copious documented examples of both English, French colonials AND United States forces using germ warfare on Native Americans. This may not sit well with you politically, but when you start trying to white wash it, you are taking things to a whole new level, and one where I cannot remain silent.   Okay, this is what you consider entertainment, I can easily fill this FRINGE page (where it doesn't belong) to several times its current length with documented example after example of sources and documents stating United States forces passing smallpox infested blankets to natives (there ar thousands so this will take a while until you get the point) so we can have some fun watching the bigots here say to each one in turn "That doesn't count, because it doesn't represent the Mainstream POV of Mainstream White Male historians." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Evidence, please. Thousands of citations proving that the US Government deliberately infected blankets with smallpox and gave them to Native Americans you say? Instead of casting aspersions on other editors and talking about another accusation that predates the forming of the US, How about naming just one source for your claim that the US Government deliberately infected blankets with smallpox and gave them to Native Americans? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at sources like this, it appears that it is historically disputed with no clear outcome one way or the other. Though I certainly wouldn't call it a fringe idea, just a disputed historical occurence, of which there are many that reputable historians disagree on. Silver  seren C 15:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that source, but it calls the 1837 allegation "unsubstantiated". Unless someone can find a historian who says otherwise, the whole issue should stay out. That doesn't apply to the 1763 allegation. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in relevant articles that it is disputed by historians on whether or not such blankets were used in the 1837 event. Silver  seren C 00:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in relevant articles that it is disputed by historians on whether or not such blankets were used in the 1837 event? Here is a good reason: it is not disputed by historians. I have asked again and again and nobody has provided a shred of evidence that any such dispute exists among historians. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

US Army usage of germ warfare on Native Americans - source #1 of many

 * Author: M. Annette Jaimes, editor, 1992
 * Source: The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance.
 * Page: 33
 * Quote: "Amherst's tactics may have been used by the fledgling United States against the Cherokees (who were allied with the British) in 1783: at any rate, the epidemic among them was very convenient for George Washington's rebel forces, and "broke their last resistance".[citation] Certainly the distribution of small-pox infected blankets by the U.S. Army to Mandans at Fort Clark, on the Missouri River in present-day South Dakota, was the causative factor in the pandemic of 1836-1840.[citation]
 * Written as scholarly work, goes on for several more pages that we could also certainly look at if this isn't enough to prove the point. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe it was written in an academic style, but South End Press is a leftist agitprop publisher. I also note in the Amazon reviews that there has been serious criticism of this book. Mind you, the biggest critics were native American scholars. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Leftist agitprop publisher"? Oh, but of course, THATs certainly not a "point of view", is it???   I guess what you are saying is "Look at the source.  Stigmatize the source.  Therefore if the source says there were smallpox infected blankets, it means there were none, because we've just stigmatized the source."  Wow. Just wow.   You know, I could keep this up for days, I've only just got started. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, Til, you're the one who tried to characterize this as an academic publication. OK, it was written by academics, but everything about its publication says that it's something that had to be published by a fringe publisher because nobody else would take it. South End Press is exactly as I have described it: they appear to have taken over as Chomsky's publisher because he has made too many off-the-wall accusations for, I don't know, HarperCollins or one of the other controversialist mainstream publishers. Besides, as I also said, native Americans working in the same field have strongly disagreed with this book. I just don't see this as a strong source. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't, you see it as a "fringe source" because it doesn't toe the line you want it to, thereby allowing you to discredit the entire thing with a supercilious wave of the hand.
 * We're going to notice this pattern again and again in the coming days, I believe. No matter how many sources, from how many publishers, mention smallpox infected blankets, any indeterminate amount of these published sources may all be over-ruled on the authority of The Wikipedians Who Know The Truth. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been alleged that this chapter, by Stiffarm and Lane, was actually written by Ward Churchill. Moreover, it has been said that it misrepresents its source. Have a look for yourself at Chardon's Journal at Fort Clark - it's on Google Books preview - and see if you can find where it says anything about smallpox infected blankets. I hope that the standards in WP:HISTRS can be our guide in this. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, editor Annette Jaimes was Churchill's wife at the time. The specific chapter appears under the authorship of Lenore A. Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr. but when Churchill was later accused of plagiarizing the text, he claimed to have actually ghost written it himself. In other words, this isn't independent support of Churchill's position.  It is Churchill himself.  The citation to the Mandan incident is fabricated/fraudulent, as the primary source makes no mention of the Army in the context of the smallpox outbreak - 'Fort Clark' was not an Army post but a private trading post.  See "Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill's Genocide Rhetoric", Thomas Brown, for a full analysis.  Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Infected blankets, source 2

 * Source: Chief Joseph, Guardian of the People
 * Page: 64
 * Date: 2006
 * Author: Candy Moulton
 * Quote: "Idaho newspapers reported on conflicts between miners and Indians and Indians and often stirred sentiment against the Nez Percés. In December 1865, when Indians attacked a Butterfield Overland Stage and Express Coach, the Owyhee Avalanche editor in Silver City, Idaho, wrote "Send some more blankets." Although not specifically stated, the request for blankets implied a simple act of genocide as one way to deal with recalcitrant Indians. This offhand proposal of mass murder, not unusual in the Indian-hating frontier press of the era, even had a historic, though accidental, underpinning: white traders had introduced smallpox to the Indians of the Upper Missouri River in 1837. A deckhand on a trader's steamboat first contracted the disease and later infected three Arikara women..." etc etc
 * She goes on to discuss the Mandans and the Fort Pitt case, but does not mention the US Army, and also reiterates that while there is no evidence blankets were actually used in Idaho 1865, it is certain that they employed a scalping bounty for genocidal purposes. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So one of the sources for your claim that the US Government deliberately infected blankets with smallpox and gave them to Native Americans actually says that there is no evidence that blankets were actually used? Can you not see what is wrong with this picture? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Infected blankets, Part 3

 * Source: Herbal remedies of the Lumbee Indians
 * Author: Arvis Locklear Boughman, Loretta O Oxendine
 * Date: 2004
 * Page: 88
 * Quote: "Witnessing the devastating effects of smallpox in the Eastern United States, US Army and government officials distributed smallpox infected blankets during the frontier era among some Native American tribes (blankets from people suffering from smallpox) to further decimate the American Indian population in other parts of the country."
 * I know, I know, this must be "fringe" view because they paid some apologist to write a "mainstream" (white male mainstream) article saying this never happened and it's all fringe, and presto! it's as if it never happened, eh?  Wasn't that easy? Give me a break!  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously a book on herbalism is not something one would look to as a major secondary source on this issue. Indeed, one of the Amazon reviews complains about how the interesting herbalism material is padded out with this political history. The authors obviously got this claim from someone else. Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So what? I suppose that makes it "fringe" too?  How many sources are you going to get labeled as "fringe" in your agenda to apologize and whitewash the record of genocide? We'll find out!  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering how many times we should ignore Til's personal attacks on people. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From his user talkpage it seems Til has gone off the wall. It included a personal attack (you are perhaps aware), which was redacted. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the real problem with giving a long list of cites
It's abundantly clear that Churchill's claims are, for whatever reason, false, and that anything which traces back to him has to be discounted. Therefore anything published after his stuff has to be discounted—especially if it repeats his specific allegations—unless it can be traced back to primary research that he didn't do. It's like talking about druidic material, which one has to specifically ensure never went anywhere near Iolo Morganwyg, or any number of people talking about anglo-pagan religion. If you can find this other primary research (and for instance nobody seriously contests the Ft. Pitt/British stuff), then we have something to go on. But Churchill has so contaminated the field that one has to assume bad faith about these claims until they can be based in someone else's research. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a very old issue and has been repeatedly discussed in the past - with the same outcome. Til's hyperbole and chaotic piling up of any sources he can find with no regard to their value and status is typical of an inappropriate approach to historical topics. We should be looking at what the best soucvces say, not looking for those that confirm our prejudices. Also, all discussion of a topic should be kept under a single heading. Not to do so is to violate the conditions under which editors can follow a debate by looking at the edit historty of a single topic. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Constructal theory
Just came across this. Article has a strong promotional/advocacy vibe, seems likely to be pseudoscience. Might benefit from editor attention, afraid I don't have time to look into it properly at the moment. -- simxp (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is going to take some careful review. My extremely quick survey shows that this may be something that first appeared in a limited, physical context and then escaped out into a "this image explains everything" notion the way that catastrophe theory and fractals did for a while. It's possible that the inventor encouraged that escape. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed at
Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to know what to do with that kind of article. It's clearly a coatrack filled with all kinds of synthesis.  But it's the kind of coatrack that's easy to construct using wikipedia policies and guidelines.  The problem is that once it's constructed, people hang all kinds of crap on it and when questioned they point to policies which support the existence of the coatrack, as opposed to the particular item on the rack.  This problem is generally endemic in the "List of ..." articles, with one of the more egregious examples being List of scandals with "-gate" suffix‎ which is a mishmash of tabloid sourced trivia, where almost none of the items are presented as "part of the collection" in a reliable source.  For the most part wikipedia editors seem to support this sort of coatracking, so there's not really much to do about it.  Consensus prefails. aprock (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thierry Jamin
Sorry, I should have placed this here, I think, but here it is: Notability/Noticeboard. If this is a more appropriate forum for this type of thing, please let me know. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Dubious deism variants
I forget exactly how I came across these, but we seem to be being used to launch the notions of pandeism and panendeism. Going with the latter first: this was deleted in April 2007, but was then incorporated into a section in the main deism article. The first was put up for deletion all the way back in 2005 but survived due to a no consensus result; it also appears in the questionable section in deism.

I haven't looked into panendeism, but I have looked into the other term. Book searches, once we get taken out of the picture, seem to amount to a remark from Tennyson which gets lots of hits, and one I think unwary dictionary of terms which may well have copied us. I see no evidence that it's a legitimate and widely used term. I expect that the other is the same way except worse. I'm inclined to submit both for deletion again and suppress the section in deism, but I would like to get some corroboration on this. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I found where it caught my attention: this NOR/N discussion on pandeism. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's filled with OR, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Moralistic therapeutic deism while you're at it. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks a lot like a WP:NEO. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, MTD has a big footprint in the literature. But the two things aren't entirely parallel. MTD is a thesis about the religious/moral framework of a large group of westerners; there's quite a lot of argument about how accurate a picture it is, but there's no question at all of its notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously I disagree. MTD's footprint is limited to an echo chamber of self-congratulation. To suggest that MTD -- a babbling misuse of terms which was invented in 2005 -- has some greater standing than Pandeism -- a term coined in 1787 -- is to somewhat flip reason on its head. Not to suggest that enthusiasts haven't put more into Pandeism than is merited, but at some essential level it "is" as much as MTD. Either ought not get preferential treatment over the other. I suppose we could take up the suggestion made on Talk:Pandeism to rename the page Theory that God became the Universe, as this theological proposition clearly exists, and is developed there but not otherwise reflected in Wikipedia.... DeistCosmos (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem I'm seeing, though, is that the pandeism article is a festival of original research dedicated to trying to show that uses of the word in old German texts means some combination of pantheism and deism— and from what I can tell at an admittedly somewhat cursory glance, not doing such a good job of it. Whatever you think about the legitimacy of identifying something they call MTD, there's no doubt what they mean about it, and there's enough other discussion in both directions about whether they're right. The message I get from the pandeism article is that years after the fact various people combined the two terms into one and then went fishing for these old references. I would feel a lot more comfortable if that fishing were being done by RS authors rather than by our editors. As it is we're seeing a lot of editing revolving around deleting sections because it is pointed out that the supposed pandeists never used the word. This is never a good sign for the reliability of the concept's presentation. Mangoe (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that, having just checked the JSTOR and Highbeam Research sites for any appearances of either "pandeism" or "panendeism," neither site produces any matches for either word. Google books doesn't provide a lot of information on pandeism here and panendeism as per google books search here is a new term coined by Larry Copling. I have serious reservations about whether either of these topics is sufficiently notable for separate articles. A biography of Larry Copling, if he's sufficiently notable, could contain the relevant encyclopedic content on panendeism. A single article on pandeism might qualify as notable, I don't know, but I am less than convinced that it would. I think it might make most sense to contact the WikiProject Philosophy about these two articles, because I think that they probably fall more closely in their field than anyone' elses. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I firstly don't believe "Panendeism" is at issue here at all -- it no longer exists as an article, and is only ever mentioned once in Pandeism, and that is in a quote of the Robert G. Brown article. As to the etymological efforts: I think it cynical to suggest them to be an effort to dress up a newly coined word with old references when there is nothing about them that cannot be explained as simply an effort to discover the origin of a word. (Compare the similar etymological search in Pantheism.) But I think all of this focus necessarily misses the real question, the encyclopedia question. And that is: does there exist a theological model which proposes that a Creator being created our Universe by becoming it. That is exactly the model that William Walker Atkinson assails in the criticisms section, and what William Sharpe proposes and the Taaroa legend describes and various other authors identify as a model. I asked on the Pantheism talk page and unsurprisingly was told that such a model would not constitute Pantheism. But if such a model exists, and is notable and meritorious of encyclopedic coverage (and I don't see how the theological model itself would not be in light of those uses), them the question becomes, what is the name of this model? It's not Pantheism we already know, nor traditional Deism which has a Creator which remains apart from our Universe, nor Panentheism which has a still-intervening deity (which need not be a 'Creator' at all), nor Emanationism, which has the Creator again as a distinct entity from which the Universe projects, but it does not become the Universe. It may be that there is no formal name for this idea, but at least some authors seem to modernly identify it as Pandeism. I had heard it that way before Wikipedia ever existed, but where it came from I can't begin to tell you. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose this discussion must note as well, Polydeism. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Maharishi Effect
This article includes a lot of material which gives undue legitimacy to a parnormal claim, including rebuttals from fringe publications to mainstream points etc. More input welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis E. Dec
Francis E. Dec seems to be built upon a combination of fan sites and primary sources. I cannot find anything independent to establish notability. I am wondering if anyone else can find reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Other thoughts on what to do here? Location (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Great herds of birds. Going for books and getting rid of the Wikipedia accumulators pretty much disappears the guy except for one passing reference in an obscure novel. It's so pure in its crystalline fannish construction that one is almost loathe to smash it with an AFD. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Francis E. Dec (2nd nomination). My good deed for the day. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mangoe's line above - "so pure in its crystalline fannish construction that one is almost loathe to smash it with an AFD" - nails it perfectly. The article may fail WP:NOT on several fronts, but it is such an entertaining, feverish masterwork of homage I'd hate to see it gone.  (I've copied it to one of my Sandbox pages in case it gets blown up).  Might I also add that, as a former Reverend of the Church of the SubGenius (in 1988, ordained by the Rev. Bob), I can attest that Dec has been a well-known fringe figure both in and out of the Church for decades.  Sadly, it's, um, the sources for this that are missing.  There are thousands of Wikipedia articles more deserving of AfDs than this shrine, but I'm afraid there's little hope that the Dec acolytes will win out here.  Thanks.  --Seduisant (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not cool to have Wikipedia's voice definitively stating someone was a paranoid schizophrenic - sourced to rumors contained in a fan publication. The entire article borders on a unreliably-sourced essay. For example if you want the article to declare Dec a significant figure of "outsider art" you need more than an editor noting he's listed in the outsider art section of the UbuWeb site. Ditto for the comparisons to Ed Wood, which appear to be the editor's personal opinion. It's not Wikipedia's job to create wide awareness for fringe figures who are as yet, little-known outside a small circle of fandom. Those who want it to remain accessible should port it over to Wikia or somewhere like that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely missed the follow-up on this. I could easily be convinced that this is a hoax given the lack of reliable information. Location (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Never heard of him before this, but Dec apparently was a real person with apparently real mental health problems that a small but vocal cult following has tried to promote as a zany object of mockery and failed to get any attention outside of a few fringe sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like the article has met its proper fate. Still, it would be nice if those most familiar with him put together a well-researched biography and had it properly published. It might be an interesting read. Location (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Brandenburg stone
Created by a non-fringe editor, this is a bit of a mess. I've put some links and comments on the talk page. This has gotten a bit of play in the less notable areas of fringe and locally. Sadly, sources have just taken material at face value. Thus a poet becomes a historian, two amateur researchers (Blackett and Wilson) become professional historians despite having less right to this than David Irving (who they resemble in one other way, see the talk page), who we don't call a historian, one source says 'so-called archeologists', etc. It is a problem when sources such as local newspapers and books assign labels to authors that professionals wouldn't give them. I haven't challenged any of the sources yet but may do so. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject certainly meets the WP:GNG threshold, but I would welcome any help making the article more representative of the available reliable sources. Dougweller's assessment is mostly correct, but of course we can't discredit one source with an even less reliable source. I have boldly included one blog as a source, since it seems to address the subject in a serious manner and the blog author is at least published. - MrX 18:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I question whether it does meet the GNG. It's presented as a genuine bit of archaeology, and none of the sources presented constitutes a reliable source for that finding. "To be reliable, a source has to be right," and every source we have mischaracterizes the supposed authorities in question. This is rather like the Kolbrin Bible AfD mess, but worse; at least in that case I could find some sober outside sources (but not really reliable). I don't see how we can write a reliable article from the sources we have on hand. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It should definitely not be presented as genuine archaeology. I don't know that we can judge the sources to be unreliable simply because of new information that surfaced after the sources published their articles, especially if that new information doesn't emanate from reliable sources. - MrX 18:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the character of the sources themselves that's a problem. Newspapers are only reliable for this kind of reporting if they are within their competence or they are repeating material from reliable scientific sources. The fact that those latter sources don't exist is the problem here. They aren't presenting material that traces back to peer-reviewed research; they're just passing along the self-promoting output of people who are manifestly not qualified, and for which there is no properly published research material. We are not constrained by reporter incompetence to repeat this stuff as if it were true, and we are perfectly within our rights to refuse to accept them as reliable sources when they've manifestly done a bad job. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. If you haven't already, you might want to look at the news articles, to see if I've attributed the material correctly. I wouldn't want to blame the newspapers for my possibly inadequate editing. - MrX 19:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, MrX, but I've had to go for Articles for deletion/Brandenburg stone. I just don't think this is salvageable. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure your did it in good faith, so we will see what the community thinks. - MrX 20:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense
Gentlepersons, I present to you The Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Scientology! HA! Can we implement this hierarchy of categorization in Wikipedia? Location (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't miss A Handy Alternative Therapy Flowchart and The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Adaptogen needs some help
It's an alt-med term/classification/concept. Looks like nothing more than pseudoscientific jargon to describe stimulants in a manner that makes them sound safer and more healthy. Anyone have time to look at the article closely? There was a fringe theory discussion a few months ago that made little progress, and I notice rather blatant WP:COI violations in the large additions by since. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is an excellent review paper available online (see below). This includes peer-reviewed, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. HairyWombat 22:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, see my comment about.
 * Does the source appear reliable to others? --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The adaptogen article has been on my radar screen for awhile as a problem area, but I'm not sure how it could be fixed (especially in the setting of someone apparently using the article to promote their own papers). The term is not really part of mainstream medical discourse, and I think the description of these purported substances (especially the "adaptogens vs. stimulants" table in the article) should throw up a few red flags. Certainly I'm not the only one to whom this concept seems a bit unscientific; see . The most popular "adaptogen" is probably Rhodiola rosea; although there are no good data supporting its use, it is quite well-marketed. Not sure what to do about the article, though. MastCell Talk 22:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are certainly several issues with this page. First of all, what classifies a natural medicine as an adaptogen?  There is a technical definition of what it needs to do (and not do), but no indication that the plants highlighted meet these criteria (particularly with regard to the complete absence of side effects).  It seems to be that anything someone decides to claim as an adaptogen is welcome.  Second, the article makes a dramatic switch half way through.  The first half of the article described them as natural therapeutics that resist perturbations of homeostasis, but then it goes on to discuss their uses as stimulants.  These are mutually exclusive, as a stimulant perturbs homeostasis.  I don't know enough about it to know whether this is a distinction between initial claims and how they are marketed by the dietary supplement market, or just fuzzy thinking, but they can't both be right.  The comparison to stimulants seems to be comparing apples and oranges, only selecting the most undesirable aspect of apples to contrast.  The description of the mechanism of action is likewise problematic - the fact that GPCR pathway genes get up-regulated by one of them doesn't mean that this is how all of them maintain homeostasis.  In fact, one might predict this (again) to perturb homeostasis.  The original paper goes on to indicate that ER and HSP expression also change, neither of which have anything to do with GPCRs.  This appears to be a correlation/causation fallacy.  And central to this is that it is all fringe (lower case) - it is on the fringe of science, pushed by researchers on the geographic fringe and for the most part published in obscure journals catering to the scientific fringe.  As best I can tell only two publications have appeared in broad-circulation mainstream publications, and they are by the same author, and that author has made significant edits to this page.  Does this make him the world expert, or does this make him one voice calling out from the wilderness?  It is disconcerting to see his 2013 paper defining the term by quoting his 2009 review, and then our Wikipedia article repeating the text verbatim (without quotes), citing the 2013 work (until I removed it as a copyvio).  Like MastCell, I don't know what to do with it.  Agricolae (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are certainly several issues with this page. First of all, what classifies a natural medicine as an adaptogen?  There is a technical definition of what it needs to do (and not do), but no indication that the plants highlighted meet these criteria (particularly with regard to the complete absence of side effects).  It seems to be that anything someone decides to claim as an adaptogen is welcome.  Second, the article makes a dramatic switch half way through.  The first half of the article described them as natural therapeutics that resist perturbations of homeostasis, but then it goes on to discuss their uses as stimulants.  These are mutually exclusive, as a stimulant perturbs homeostasis.  I don't know enough about it to know whether this is a distinction between initial claims and how they are marketed by the dietary supplement market, or just fuzzy thinking, but they can't both be right.  The comparison to stimulants seems to be comparing apples and oranges, only selecting the most undesirable aspect of apples to contrast.  The description of the mechanism of action is likewise problematic - the fact that GPCR pathway genes get up-regulated by one of them doesn't mean that this is how all of them maintain homeostasis.  In fact, one might predict this (again) to perturb homeostasis.  The original paper goes on to indicate that ER and HSP expression also change, neither of which have anything to do with GPCRs.  This appears to be a correlation/causation fallacy.  And central to this is that it is all fringe (lower case) - it is on the fringe of science, pushed by researchers on the geographic fringe and for the most part published in obscure journals catering to the scientific fringe.  As best I can tell only two publications have appeared in broad-circulation mainstream publications, and they are by the same author, and that author has made significant edits to this page.  Does this make him the world expert, or does this make him one voice calling out from the wilderness?  It is disconcerting to see his 2013 paper defining the term by quoting his 2009 review, and then our Wikipedia article repeating the text verbatim (without quotes), citing the 2013 work (until I removed it as a copyvio).  Like MastCell, I don't know what to do with it.  Agricolae (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional CoI issues: this link, which appears to be a text copy of this article, lists the "contact email" username for Wikman as christina.holm. This is the same name as an SPA that has edited the page substantially in the past. This editor's contributions should probably be scrutinized more closely.

Personally, I would send it to AfD as a WP:TNT measure, but I'm not convinced it would actually get deleted. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  02:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And these are not academic researchers. Their affiliation is with SHI Research and Development, which is short for Swedish Herbal Institute - it is like letting employees of the Tobacco Institute write an article on all of the benefits of cigarettes.  Adaptogen and Adaptogenic, together, have over 400 PubMed hits, which means it is probably notable enough to merit a page.  Just not the page it now has.  I would vote to stubify it, but I suspect it would grow back like the hydra of Hercules.  Agricolae (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Some interesting links:

One "Yusuf (JP) Saleeby, MD" writes "Dr. Saleeby contributes to Wikipedia - Adaptogen Herbs" Clearly this is blocked user Jpsaleeby.

Never Mind the Bullocks, Here's the Science By Karl Kruszelnicki calls it "psuedo-scientific gibberish"

adaptogens.com (hardly a skeptical site) has a a machine-translated (Czech) critical article:

Northern Doctor's Antidote has a writeup on the topic:

And, of course, good old RationalWiki: --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim Channon
His article calls him a futurologist. Maybe he is, but and other sources talk about "Col. Jim Channon, a Vietnam vet whose post-war experiences at such new age meccas as the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California, led him to found the “first earth battalion” of “warrior monks” and “jedi knights.” These warriors, according to Channon, would transform the nature of war by entering hostile lands with “sparkly eyes,” marching to the mantra of “om,” and presenting the enemy with “automatic hugs.”  Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Worse, someone felt the need to pull Texe Marrs's leg on this, and got taken seriously. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed "futurologist" as I couldn't find any reference to that. He's not on List_of_futurologists. He did write some articles for the Guardian. [].

Stone of the Pregnant Woman
See - repeated attempt to remove 'Roman'.


 * It's all IP. Request semi-protection based on IP-driven edit warring. Agricolae (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The greatest mystery is why the IP spells "Anciënt" with an umlaut. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That can’t be an umlaut proper: must be a diæresis. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed true and indeed irrelevant. But sometimes things just have to be said... Paul B (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you can't CheckUser an IP, this at least serves as a quåck. I should add that at least one IP came in on the side of the Romans, so it would be unfortunate to use such a blunt weapon as semi-pro, but it may be the only feasible option given multiple IPs are being used. Agricolae (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been mentioned on the History Channel! (by Scott Wolter)

 * Cabal approved.png

/www.examiner.com/article/scandal-at-wikipedia "Wolter added that immediately prior to the premier of "America Unearthed," several articles he had written or contributed to in Wikipedia had been simultaneously “gutted” or deleted by a self-appointed Wikipedia editor in rural England named Doug Weller." This is submitted by Richard Thornton, who has emailed me with insults in the past. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Should mention that I found this on Talk:Melungeon where an IP is trying to add an article by the non-geneticist Donald Yates. Yates's article and his company's article have been deleted, the first by AfD and the 2nd by PROD. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And I certainly never emailed him at all (why would I reply to him) - he claims I emailed him saying “If you attempt to change another article or submit another article without my approval, you will be permanently blocked from Wikipedia.” Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well let's not forget that Scott wanted his article to be deleted to eliminate all criticism of his great self. It was duly deleted on the grounds that he was non-notable: Articles for deletion/Scott F. Wolter. Since he's become a TV presenter a case can be made that he's notable enough to get his article back - along with all the critical content he wanted to have hidden from view. Paul B (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * He did ask for it to be deleted, and recreating it could be problematic and add fuel to his attacks. His attitude that he wants it to present his viewpoint won't have changed. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Doug Weller of rural England, or elsewhere, I hereby appoint thee Editor of Wikipedia. There, now he's wrong on that point too. --Amble (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out, Thornton gets money when you click on the link. One reason why examiner.com is blacklisted. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just looked at the deleted article. He was trying to remove criticism of him by a former colleague. I don't think he'd give up if we restored the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For excellent work at gatekeeping, you are hereby promoted from Purple Gatekeeper to Yellow Fence Mender. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Self-appointed Wikipedia editor... Isn't that pretty much the point of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit?


 * Gutting articles is hard work. Have you considered hiring a minion? I have a lot of experience as a henchman, and I am looking to move up. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've read the article and looked at the county article histories. I see no record of such additions and guttings. am I missing something? Tom Reedy (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's made up, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What I find particularly amusing is that if Mr. Wolter continues to rant about Doug in prominent venues like the history channel... then sooner or later we can create Doug Weller (conspiracy theory). Now wouldn't that stick in Mr. Wolter's craw... Doug rates an article, and he does not. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I recall of the examiner.com article (I'm not clicking on it again) by Richard Thornton, it says Wolter mentions Doug Weller "in an interview" of March 25 (I think). I could be wrong, but I did not get the impression this was actually an interview that was broadcast on the History Channel, but rather a private one with Thornton. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess there are other articles in which Doug's villainous plots are exposed, but the linked one says nothing about an interview. In fact the whole Wolter intro is just a lead-in to an absurd rant about articles on American towns. The give-away line is "Heritage tourism plays a major role in the local economy". in other words, he wants Wikipedia to puff Bartow County, pointing out how prosperous, beautiful, historically important, etc, etc, it is. No doubt promoters of "rural England" are jealous of its charms and are dedicated to destroying its reputation to preserve their rival "heritage tourism". For some reason these people also want to the place to be overrun with Cherokees, since excessive promotion of Cherokee presence seems to be another of his hobby-horses. In other words this is just an incoherent compendium of pet obsessions and xenophobia ("Many of these information-control-by-stealth operators are foreign nationals"). Paul B (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, my curiosity got the better of me and I looked again:
 * "In an interview on March 25, 2013 the host of the History Channel’s new hit series, “America Unearthed,” Scott Wolter, stated that he had demanded that Wikipedia remove his biography because its editors had allowed so many false alterations to its contents. Wolter had sent them the true facts on his career, but the editors of Wikipedia refused to eliminate the recent anonymous edits. Wolter added that immediately prior to the premier of 'America Unearthed,' several articles he had written or contributed to in Wikipedia had been simultaneously “gutted” or deleted by a self-appointed Wikipedia editor in rural England named Doug Weller."
 * So there is some "interview" being referred to, although I haven't a clue about details. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, missed that somehow. I was probably looking over my shoulder for Cherokees. Paul B (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller is gaining in notability and will soon need his own BLP. - MrX 22:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh, it does look as though I wasn't actually mentioned on the History Channel, it was probably Thornton who was already annoyed with me just talking to Wolter. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just curious. If, as seems not unlikely, there wind up being enough things which give you significant mention to meet notability guidelines, would you prefer a straight biographical article, or one on your conspiring to promote your evil, villainous, opinions and your conspiracy with others to keep "the truth" from appearing in wikipedia. Also, if it comes to that, I think I've still got a few Tharks available for hiring, and Blofeld generally has at least a few minions seeking additional work at the same temp agency. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Protocol violation! John... you of all people should know that this is not how we do things here on Wikipedia!  We do not ask the subject of a potential article whether he wants a bio article or a theory article.  Long standing Wikipedia tradition is to have both... so that we can then hold long heated arguments about them... debating which specific bits of information should appear which article, which article should be deleted or merged/redirected into the other, and accuse how both violating WP:POV FORK, WP:ONEEVENT, and WP:FRINGE etc. etc. etc.  We have been doing things that way on Wikipedia for years now! (and anyone who wants to change it has no respect for tradition.)

RIGVIR
Three non-secondary sources on pubmed (in Russian, which I can't read). Only link is to Latvian Virotherapy Center. Doesn't even fit the definition of virotherapy on that article (itself maybe a little hinky), as it is a non-engineered virus. No Google News results other than aforementioned Latvian Virotherapy Center. I have no idea how to even verify that this is approved (whatever that means) for use in Latvia. WP:DUCKTEST suggests it is WP:FRINGE. Maybe other eyes could help figure this out. Will crosspost to WT:MED. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  19:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
I am running up against the 3RR in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Looking for additional feedback on the talk page: Hearsay regarding RFK's thoughts on the Warren Commission. Thanks! Location (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of posting some advice on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Biocentrism
There is a discussion about the accuracy of the title of Biocentrism (theory of everything) and whether it promotes a fringe theory by calling it a theory of everything, rather than referring to it as metaphysics. Editors also appear to be trying to edit war rebuttals published in fringe/pseudoscience journals at the article. Input from FTN regulars appreciated, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

William C. Rader
Hi folks, I think additional eyes at William C. Rader might be needed. Massive edits were made there recently apparently in the name of WP:BLP, but with (in my opinion) rather questionable results. For example, references to an article published in Science were conveniently deleted. Their relevance to the article was then perversely denied by the article's evident owner, with that denial only to later be repudiated by that self-same editor. Despite this repudiation, the source was still rejected by this editor for the apparent reason that the peer-reviewed literature in Science is not a valid secondary source.

Furthermore, in the edits in question, all references to the Quackwatch article on the subject were removed, while apparently self-published references were permitted to say. To me this seems to be a clear violation of WP:FRINGE, and especially the assertion of WP:PARITY. Either we should have a neutral article on the subject that includes all significant views in proportion to their prominence in reliable scientific sources, or we should have no article at all.

During the course of my brief exchange with the editor in question, I was notified that I would be blocked for adding poorly-reference material to a WP:BLP (while in the mean-time the article seemed to be reverted to a revision of the article with even poorer reverences). Having made even this single edit to the page, I was then called a "vandal" by the article's owner-apparent, which seemed excessive, particularly in the light of the fact that I had in fact started a thread on the discussion page which was ignored for over a day before all the reverting, name-calling, and sanction-threatening began. This is totally unacceptable behavior from another editor, in my opinion.

I have no real wish to pursue a fight with anyone about this, and I leave the article to the community's discretion. In light of the above evidence, I feel as though I am being deliberately provoked. It is my hope that cooler heads will prevail. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. Moreover, there is an unblocked SPA and confirmed sockmaster (sockpuppet investigation) keen on removing any content critical on the subject.  This person should clearly be disallowed from performing major revisions to the article, given that he or she has a declared conflict of interests there.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relevant post also at WP:BLP/N.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dion Fortune
I haven't heard of her, but I see she's described as a legendary occultist. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Legendary is certainly too strong. :) However, she was a big deal in the occult movement. - Bilby (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

John Hagelin
This article need attention. Specifically a lot of it appears to not correctly separate the opinions of new age believers from scientific opinion. Particularlly if anyone has access to this source from Nature:, can they see if it is being misrepresented? From the title: "Physicist running for president is accused of distorting science to fit guru's ideas". It seems sources are being presented in a very rose tinted way. There may also be close paraphrasing issues, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I may have access to the Nature article on Monday. In any event, I would strongly recommend nominating the JH article for GAR.  John Hagelin passed good article review in December with absolutely no assessment of the fringe problems with the article.  Skinwalker (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found it archived online through googling the title. (I can't link to it due to copyright uncertainties). A community review sounds appropriate here, since I don't have the energy to try and do a full review myself, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With regard to the individual Nature article, I think its coverage is a fair representation. I do question whether it is necessary that three of the four references to the article are direct quotes when use of the precise words seems unnecessary.  The thing that jumped out at me when I looked at the Wikipedia article is the bibliography - it looks to be stuffed.  There are 99 sources listed, which is more than some articles three times the length on much more notable people. It looks like it has been compiled via SYNTH, cobbling together primary references and every mention of the man that could be found.  Agricolae (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While the John Hagelin article was created with input from multiple editors, I asked for a review and with Timid Guy cleaned up the article per the reviewer's requests. I'm happy to have more input on the article, and /or a GAR and suggest this discussion be moved to the article talk page. I will add a notice to the article talk page notifying editors of this posting on the Fringe Theories NB. Thanks (olive (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC))


 * I've put the article up for reassessment. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reassessment here (olive (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC))

Madoc
This legendary figure now has an infobox and a birthdate, despite the fact that most historians don't believe him to have existed and even our article says that there's no proof of his existence. I'll raise this on the talk page also. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it. It was completely misleading. The "birth date" wasn't from a reliable source either. --Folantin (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He's re-added it. --Folantin (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Constructal law
I don't have time to go through this at the moment, but the only reliable sources in the article don't appear to refer directly to it or establish notability. a13ean (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the article was written by a non-native-English speaker, and really ought to be titled constructal theory (which is currently a redirect to the article). With that title, it would be notable, as supported by several good references in the article.  This feels to me like a relatively minor problem. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Looie, could you clarify what references you think establish notability?  Besides a long list of publications from this group, most of the external links are trace back to things the professor wrote himself, or were published by the Duke PR office, neither of which are RS.  The only ones I saw at a first pass which are independent RS are this Guardian article and this SEED article.  However, neither provide any information beyond the professor's own characterizations of his work, and I think this is a pretty low standard for notability.  Most importantly, it appears that there is nearly no academic mention of this work except from the professor and people directly associated him (former graduate students, etc).  The only one I found dismisses it out of hand with several other theories as "these hypotheses have received little acceptance in                     the mainstream field of what is now called Earth system science.                  "  a13ean (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Sounds like something for this noticeboard. I am not a linguist, but when I was in high school and interested in languages, ALL sources available to me listed both Japanese and Korean as isolated, not as a part of Altaic family. I will close now the ANI thread as misplaced, and the page has been protected, but the review of the article talk page may be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

More attacks
This isn't an issue about fringe articles, but I think it's because I'm not a friend of the fringe and my activities here. Not only as the Metapedia article shot up to the top 3 when you search for my name, someone's created a fake Google+ account using some info from my real one (and getting some info wrong) and saying I'm gay - ditto a YouTube account in my name with gay porn. It's probably Bedson or Thornton, although it's possible it isn't related to Wikipedia, just unlikely. I've complained to Google but I hope they will not just take it down but find out who is behind this so I can get the police onto them. It's not going to hurt me but whoever did it could hurt someone. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Utterly despicable. It says much more about the vile character of anyone who would do this than it does about you. How shameful and pathetic that they would resort to such libelous tactics. I'm sure that their bad deeds will eventually catch up with them though. - MrX 22:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will be interesting if they can be identified, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's going to happen. Google deleted the fake Google+ page but didn't give me any more information. If I'd been hacked they would have told me, but the page was linked to my real page so I'm wondering what happened and if there's a Google problem. I've still got a fake YouTube page attached to my regular one with fake subscriptions I can't edit. That's Google again of course. Now if I was rich this wouldn't be a problem as I'd have batteries of lawyers and probably a direct link to the CEO, but I'm not, so I'm pretty helpless here. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you asked for further information and didn't get it, of course, although you didn't specify that. And I know that the headless honky hater squad really has it in for you too. The only thing I can think of, unfortunately, is, maybe, to fight fire with fire. I mentioned it to you before, but if we were able to create a page on you which would meet notability requirements, then I also tend to think that our page would probably be the first one to appear on a search engine, and the material in it could well indicate that the other material is basically falsely derogatory. Yeah, if there were such a page, it would probably be permanently protected too, but at least you would be able to be able to indicate that the other material is false. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly there would be continual attempts to use it to attack me, which I don't think is something I'd like. I just discovered that the late Philip Coppens saw me as a chief example of the skeptics dominating Wikipedia - whoever is attacking me might have been a Coppens fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
 * Honestly, I'd personally hate doing it myself too, so I can't blame you. There is, maybe, one thing I can try to do soon, or comparatively soon, anyway. Thomson-Gale has a really frightening number of reference books on any number of subjects, some of which have, honestly, gotten a WTF? reaction from me. If there are any topic areas where having lists of the articles contained in directly relevant reference books would be useful to establish that your opinions are more or less the opinions of the really independent reliable sources, I can at least try to find and make such lists in the comparatively near future. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you're being harassed. The good news is that a general google search (ie no personalized results) doesn't turn up any of the offending pages.  I would suggest just filing a complaint to google or whoever whenever it pops up but otherwise ignoring it, and letting it all get buried under the hundreds of linkedin hits for random people with the same name.
 * I've made it a point to keep my name off here (at least until I finish my studies), since I'm the only person with my name, and a single troll could create a lot of hassle. It's a shame since it prevents me from reaching out to other editors with whom I have common interests (physics, go, jiujitsu, etc).  a13ean (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Billy Meier
Various attempts to argue that this guy really was in contact with extra-terrestrials and claim there were 6 attempts to shoot him. Article could use some work. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I made some minor changes (mostly moving stuff around). I would argue that the bulk of material on his evidence can be removed entirely. It appears that it was included in this article some years back when an actual article on the topic was deleted. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's lots of weight given to opinions of not-quite-notables such as Marcel Vogel. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And now this self-reported stuff about assassination attempts. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Legends of Alcatraz (was Reported haunting of Alcatraz)
Recreation against consensus of a recently AfD'd article under a new name, and built using sources like Weekly World News and obviously WP:FRINGE books like  When the Ghost Screams: True Stories of Victims Who Haunt. Rumors of Alcatraz being haunted deserve a sentence or two in the main article...but an entire article that basically says "Alcatraz is haunted" over and over again is over the top. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems sure to survive AFD; I suspect we're going to get a lot of resistance to cutting out the fringey sourcing. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling it's going to be one of those outlaw articles where those who want to keep the fringy sources just continue saying they're not fringy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad in the Bible
This article has never been in great shape, but it has been overrun in the last month or so by a single author who appears to be writing his own treatise on the subject. I'm beginning to despair of what to do because there really isn't a good version to revert to. And the problem is that I cannot find good reliable sources on this. I've found a couple of books on the subject but I am inclined not to trust them; they seem devotional rather than scholarly. More precisely aligned with our mandate, there is apparently a story going about that there is a manuscript of the bible containing a suppressed version in which Jesus predicts the coming of Muhammad (e.g. ) which has made its way into the article. I have remonstrated with the author of the current version to no effect. I'm not strong on Islamic scholarship, or rather, scholarship about Islam, so I'm not sure where to go for material to rewrite this from scratch. I'm also inclined to move the article to a more accurate title (if I can figure out what to use). Any suggestions on how to proceed would be appreciated. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another editor has removed all the new material -- I have doubts that that was the right thing to do, but I really don't know this topic at all. I've placed a request for more eyes at WT:ISLAM. Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was that "other editor". I don't know much about Islam either, but it was clear that was a big expanse of content that was not sourced to appropriate sources. There does appear to be some scholarly content on this topic, although even entering a load of relevant search terms one gets a lot of noise in the results. Alexbrn talk 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you cannot find reliable sources and if there is no good version to revert to then have you considered nominating the page for deletion, or reducing it down to a stub pending better sources? Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 17:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I found one RS and added something from it (in early Christian times, Bible scholars interpreted it to prophesy Muhammad as the Antichrist). I notice the article has been nominated for deletion before, but the decision was "keep". Alexbrn talk 19:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a rather confusing topic. Obviously Muhammad isn't in the Bible. He claimed to a prophet allegedly predicted in the Bible, known as Saleh - equated with the Biblical Shelah (son of Judah). But that's about it as far as I know. The rest of this has nothing to with the Bible. The Gospel of Barnabas is a medieval text, which is not part of the Bible and never was. I guess it's mentioned because it's called a "gospel" which is a "biblical" word. Paul B (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems comparable to the idea that Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament, which has generated a massive literature even though obviously there is no explicit mention of him there. Our article on Jesus and messianic prophecy seems at least somewhat analogous to this one. Looie496 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that some hold that the Gospel of Barnabas isn't really a medieval text, but is (in some way) original. This article seems to argue that the text is a polemical weapon used in Christian-Muslim argument. Alexbrn talk 20:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've now had a look at the deleted version. It seems to be about Muslim scholars claiming that Muhammad was predicted in various Biblical texts, comparable, as Looie496 says, to Christian claims to find predictions of Jesus in the OT. This is a perfectly legitimate topic, which should be possible to cite from scholarly literature. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The extant text of Barnabas is certainly considered medieval/renaissance by scholars. Yes, some Muslim polemicists claim that it's authentic. That because there was a text called "Barnabus" referred to by early Christians. The Muslim apologists claim that the surviving Barnabas is the same text - though no non-apologist agrees with that AFAIK. But even the original Barnabas was never in the "Bible" as that term is normally understood. Paul B (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the earlier comments comparing this Islamic biblical interpretation with the Christian view that the Old Testament prophecies Jesus. These are matters of religious belief and the interpretation of sacred texts - and I would not consider the topic fringe, even though the possibility of obtaining prophetic future knowledge via divine inspiration and revelation is presupposed.  I agree that proper sourcing is a significant challenge, as much of the available literature (especially on the Web) is published by Muslim and Christian apologists who respectively promote and rebut the claim that the Bible predicted Muhammad.  However, there are some published academic sources which analyze the topic; this Google Books search reveals some promising titles, and some keyword variations should reveal yet more.  Also, I don't see a need for the article to mention the Gospel of Barnabas at all (except possibly as a "See Also" wikilink to Gospel of Barnabas which is the proper place to discuss how Muhammad is portrayed in that text).  No record exists of any Christian church having received the Gospel of Barnabas into its canon, so it cannot be deemed part of the Bible.  Moreover, just because someone attaches the word "Gospel" to a document or claims it to be a "lost book" of the Bible doesn't automatically entitle it to be featured in an article about the Bible.  It's simply irrelevant to Muhammad in the Bible. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the comments above. Prophecies regarding Mohammad or maybe Prophecies interpreted as being about Mohammad, or Alleged prophecies regarding Mohammad in Christian texts, or something similar would be I think a much less problematic tleit, even if they are a mouthful, and could more legitimately include the Barnabus. A lot of the information here could possibly be included in Islamic view of the Christian Bible as well, which could also include the Islamic belief regarding the Gospel of Barnabas perhaps being Biblical, which is probably a bit too convoluted and detailed to really easily fit anywhere else. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the discussion here should be about the veracity of the claims, but whether or not it's a fringe theory. Among orthodox Muslim scholarship, it isn't a universal view but it isn't a fringe view either. While the article as it stands now isn't a good article, there are likely a few more sources from Western academic journals which could be brought. I can tell you (general "you") right now that there is plenty of scholarly material written in Arabic which could be translated, though each source would require a discussion regarding its reliability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Atonement in Christianity
Is the theory described at Atonement in Christianity to be regarded as a fringe theory? Should it be mentioned in the article at all, and if so, does the current description constitute undue weight? StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. It was fringe. The test is if you are likely to see something discussed in a general undergraduate or graduate level textbook on the topic. If you cant't find it there, it's probably fringe or otherwise of minor significance. Another test is how many academic peer-reviewed articles discuss the topic (not including articles written by the originator or close associates). In both cases, the operative word is "discuss", and not merely mention. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Madoc
This article on the mythical Welsh traveler to America has been heavily rewritten and needs eyes, especially on some of the language. I've commented on some of the sources used at Talk:Madoc. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Parapsychology
There is a discussion about whether this added content falls afoul of WP:FRINGE here: Talk:Parapsychology. More input from regulars welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
We have an editor here from de.Wiki who has been arguing since March that the article is pov. You need to read Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience but basically he seems to think that the article shouldn't exist. He has problems suggesting any specific changes he wants in the article although he thinks we shouldn't use "skeptic sources" and is arguing about what pseudoscience is. He tagged the article on March 17th and it was removed by another editor with an edit summary asking him to bring specific items to the talk page. April 8th he admitted he couldn't get a consensus but said that since he disputes it that the tag should be on the article and he replaced it. It was again removed with an edit summary " the pov problem has yet to be identified". Last night he replaced it with an edit summary pointing to the talk page. I removed it and he replaced it asking me not to war but to use the talk page. But as he says, he's not going to get consensus, he's got 5 editors opposing him and one unhappy with list articles. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * TEMPLATE:POV has "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Alexbrn talk 06:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * while i'm not a fan of the list, it does have a place here. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: The editor was given a warning at WP:AE and the talk page thread has now been archived. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a Sarkar article, not even fringe...
I've put my very first article up for peer review. If you're into Ezra Pound or Louis Agassiz drop by an take a look. Mostly, though, I wanted to remind myself that I can contribute here in ways other than proposing sarkarverse articles for deletion (but if that's what you want I'm happy to oblige:, ). Garamond Lethe t c  18:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Adhi yoga (Hindu astrology)
I don't even know where to start on this. -- Atlantima  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 22:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a whole series of these by the same editor. Karmasthana (astrology), Garbhadhan (astrology), Sanyasa yoga, Trikonasthanas, Brahmi sthiti etc. Sentences like "Sanyasa yogas formed by benefic planets in dignity bless a person with an evolutionary elevation of the total personality and sublimation of primeval urges." and "The woman born with the Moon occupying Taurus, Virgo, Scorpio or Leo sign gives birth to few sons; the woman who has Jupiter or Venus in the 8th house at the time of her birth suffers miscarriages or still-births; the woman whose 7th house from the lagna is formed by an evil sign or evil planet/s aspect the 7th house will not bear any issue she will be barren." are presented without being identified as opinions or beliefs.-- Atlantima  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 22:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be a good idea to take the lot to AfD in a single joint nomination. I can't see anything worth saving in any of these articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Critical Analysis of Evolution
Recently ran across this page after checking the history of an IP who made some anti-evo/pro Discovery Institution edits. Posting it here just as a heads up to other people who may not have this page on their watch list as it's one of our more obscure pages on the topic - the IP's edit lasted for about 4 days so I'm guessing this page isn't heavily watched by active users. Sædon talk 02:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the IP traces to Alexandria, VA, which is where DI is based. Could just be a coincidence but this edit summary could be interpreted as being written by someone for the DI. Their only other edits are related to gay marriage and ID. Sædon talk 09:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Watchlisted and removed some blatantly unduly self-serving claims from unreliable SPS's and outdated material. The article still needs a thorough cleanup. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the entire article looks non-notable. I'd just redirect it to Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along the same lines, and would have no objection to a redirect. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

John Vervaeke and relevance realization
I'm not at all sure what to make of this. Vervaeke's article was deleted in January 2012, but it's possible that it was simply a case of poor sourcing. That said, the RR article sets off my "woo-woo theory of everything" alarms in a big way. It's hard for me to tell whether it's just because it's short and poorly written or what, but some of what I can see of Vervaeke's ostensible research/lecture interests leave me wondering as well. Any other opinions? Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed Vervaeke's article a bit but I can't see any evidence of notability per WP:ACADMIC. Students love him, that's for sure, but that's not enough. I'm not convinced that a nomination for the TVO best lecturer is enough either. The other article also looks dubious and probably should also go to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

4 more Paul Bedson socks
Mentioned for information - he's editing/creating articles about stone circles & the like, and related to the Holy Grail, Joseph of Arimathea, Arthur, Fisher kings, etc. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * and under which he has done some fringe page creation. A bit of cleanup is needed here. I have been SPEEDYing most of his creations, but On Sphere-Making is ineligible due to substantial subsequent edits by an IP. Looks like the others also have created many pages. Agricolae (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Eliyahu Comay
The article describes mainly the subject's alternate to the Standard Model of particle physics - in a most unbalanced tone. Associated articles seem to have been tampered with to give Comay's theories more credence: see vector meson dominance.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cross-posted to WikiProject Physics. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * See also Proton spin crisis, vs. Nucleon spin structure. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 03:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Borderline case, I would suggest an AfD. a13ean (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agreed, no sign of notability, all primary sources (except for one seemingly SPS source) I put it up for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett and Jonathan Wright (physician)
These articles need eyes after recent editing. I've worked on Barrett's article but not on Jonathan Wright (physician) where besides a lot of tags I'm not happy about I also find some pov language, eg "Jonathan Wright (physician) eg "In August of the same year, Wright was fined $850 for court costs and fees," bceomes "Later that same year in August, Wright was only fined $850 to cover court costs" A quick link to the changes for Wright's article is . I note that Neuropsychiatry, which was already in need of attention, has had some changes also but I'm not sure that article is under the purview of this board. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and reverted most of the changes that Pixie made, they were a disimprovement and had several independent issues (mistaken tags, removing details, editorializing etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Chico Xavier
Lengthy and highly detailed article just keeps getting bigger. Subject is a man considered by a majority of Brazilians as having the power to to talk to the dead. Lead is within policy, but the rest of the article is written from a highly sympathetic POV and citing only four sources (one of them Rottentomatoes.com). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree the article is in a bad shape, and much of it is unsourced. I have worked on many of the mediumship articles recently. If I have time I may help out on that one. Much of the unsourced original research should be deleted on that article IMO. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Melissa Farley
Melissa Farley is quoted in many articles as a accredited psychologist but is no longer is no longer accredited member of APA following Ethics violations over fraudulent fabricated research and there are many editors guarding article about her pet theories that quote her. This needs sorting out before these subject become laughing stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk • contribs)


 * The proper place for this notice is the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. At any rate, you will have to cite a notice from the APA, or a news item, saying that Farley has been dropped from APA's list. You cannot simply make the statement without supporting cite. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As posted on the talk page of that article, please provide a citation quickly or this will be taken to Oversight. Incidentally, the APA is not a regulatory agency or organization and does not "accredit" psychologists. Location (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is to justify the claim that she is accredited by the APA, especially given she does not show on the member list: http://search.apa.org/search?limited=true&section=membership&query=Farley — Preceding unsigned comment added by  178.208.204.151  (talk • contribs)  9:00, 23 April 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Responded on talk page. Location (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * While some people clearly believe her views to be extreme, this is not an issue for the Fringe theories board. She is a published academic. If her research is considered to be fraudulent that's soimething that only relevant academics and professional bodies can determine. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Taj Mahal
I don't really know whether this issue belongs here or at the NOR or NPOV boards. Essentially an editor is claiming that there is a "feminist" viewpoint on the Taj Mahal that should be represented. I can't see any evidence that this feminist viewpoint exists outside of one non-notable piece of journalism. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman 2012 book on existence of Jesus
Hello, there is a question about whether Bart Ehrman's recent book "Did Jesus Exist?" is sufficiently acceptable (i.e. not fringe) for inclusion in the article on Oral gospel traditions. Below is the complete citation:



May we have independent verification of its acceptance or a lack thereof? Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ehrman is mainstream from what I have seen of him, and his work appears mainstream (with regards to history etc). What's the specific claim? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff of how the source was used to support article content before it was deleted. And here is the talk page discussion associated with its deletion. Ignocrates (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ehrman went off the rails some years back when he started claiming that there were heinous transmission problems with scripture, a position which the mainstream roundly rejected. I would be hesitant to include his recent work at all, and certainly would never represent it as anything but his own position. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but my question relates to this specific book in the context of how it is being used as a source to support the article content that was deleted. The claims that are being advanced are (1) Christian oral traditions likely preceded and were concurrent with the written gospels, and (2) some of those oral traditions were transmitted in Aramaic. Hope this helps. Ignocrates (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to restate the question now that all the relevant facts are on the page: Is this specific source acceptable (i.e. not fringe) in the specific context it is being used in the article to support the content I detailed in the example? General statements aren't much help for resolving specific issues. Ignocrates (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, yes, this specific source is acceptable in this specific context. I say this not having read the book but having read probably four of Ehrman's other books and having some familiarity with his standing as a scholar.  As he's writing well within his area of expertise, as he has a solid publisher behind him, and as the paragraphs summarizing the work do not appear to be making unusual claims or fall outside of what I understand Ehrman to believe, I don't see where there is a problem.  I expect others might disagree, but that's how we get to consensus.... Garamond Lethe t c  00:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to respond. I would think the view that Jesus did not exist would be the more controversial position, whereas Ehrman is advancing arguments to show that he did exist, based on a combination of oral and written sources. In any case, the relevant point within the context of this article is whether oral sources of tradition were used in early Christianity. Ignocrates (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that Ehrman has taken to making claims which the rest of the field does not accept. He's a good expositor, so if someone else corroborated his thesis I would be OK with him; but I would be wary of using him as a sole source without checking him against others. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the points sourced are, as Ignocrates claims "(1) Christian oral traditions likely preceded and were concurrent with the written gospels, and (2) some of those oral traditions were transmitted in Aramaic", then I don't see how these are even controversial. If he is also making more idiosyncratic claims, it should not be difficult to identify what they are as thety will have been noted by reviewers etc. Paul B (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I read the page, which at the moment is an almost utterly useless stub. The discussion on the talk pages seems quite bizarre. The paragraphs that were deleted diff were clumsy, for sure. They managed to combine banal truisms with uninformative generalities, but they could easily be improved. I realise that Erhman's "proto-orthodox" arguments have been challenged, but he is still a reliable source. I know of no evidence that any of his views enter WP:FRINGE territory. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ehrman is the opposite of fringe - James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one book after the other published by Harper Collins, Oxford University Press, prize -winner, so on and on, it is hard to be any less fringe than that. Some may disagree with some of his views of course, but that does not make him fringe. I dispute Mangoe's statement that he went "off the rails some years back" and that the mainstream roundly rejects his views. His most recent book "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" was published last year by Oxford University Press, it is not possible to get much more mainstream that that.Smeat75 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fundamentalist Christianity considers Ehrman to be fringe. I'm not aware that outside this (large) fringe-group anybody else consider's Ehrman's scholarship to be dubious. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Sun and the Serpent


Just thought I'd drop this here so you folks can have a look if merited. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also edits to ley line by the same editor. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Those articles should be deleted they are not notable and contain no reliable references, by the looks of it the user who created them is also a troll using the words "groovy" and "dude" to describe the author/s in his articles. I think he is creating these articles for a joke. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The citations are good, but there's not enough depth of coverage to support separate articles for Paul A. Broadhurst, Hamish Miller (dowser) and The Sun and the Serpent. I'd redirect all those articles to Ley lines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Miller was notable enough to get an obituary in the Times, but that's about all I can get on him outside of Ley Land. I'm inclined to point the stuff back in the ley lines article as well. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

But now being reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And based on this, the reverting editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey man, I think you need to take a chill pill and mellow out a bit. Some of us think greedy capitalism is bogus and being groovy, funky dudes is right on. What's to discuss? I ain't gonna disrupt nothing, and bum out your religion. That's called religious hatred man, which is really uncool and the reason the world's such a mess right now. Peace out. :) <b style="background:#90F;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#FF0">۞Tripping</b><b style="color:#0F0">Hippy۞</b><sup style='color:orange'>talk </b> 14:49, 15:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Obvious spoof/parody troll. Sent to AN/I. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Has now started a new page: St. Michael and St. Mary ley lines. Agricolae (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And I'm not convinced this is this editor's first rodeo. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The new article assumes one can "dowse" for ley lines, and ley lines were positively identified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I already toned it down a little but I don't know what to do with a complete article based on a (notable ?) concept admitted to be arrived at by "some process independent of the rational mind". Given that dowsing is nonsense and ley lines are nonsense, I don't see why one shouldn't be able to dowse for ley lines and I certainly don't expect there to be non-fringe criticism of this approach - what are they going to say, that you can't find ley lines by dowsing?  That leaves it difficult to balance. Agricolae (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it's a bit more neutral after some copyedits, although I'm still not sure the ley lines described are actually notable enough to have their own article. This seems like just another attempt to publicize the accomplishments of Hamish Miller. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moot, since TrippingHippy has been blocked as a sock. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't say this comes as a shock. Always came across as someone putting us on, but WP:AGF and all that. What do you think - can they still be SPEEDYed or do our own contributions while attempting to minimize the mess mean we must now go to AfD? Agricolae (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC


 * Nope, they're nuked. If anyone wants to recreate any of them they are welcome to do so if they follow our policies and guidelines. Feel free to revert any edits he (Bedson almost certainly) made. to existing articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Don't you think Wikipedia is better for having had a dozen articles on different genera of lice, each stating that "x refers to really small lice"?  (and another thing, does any edit involving lice count as a minor edit, by definition?) Agricolae (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

History of spiritism
I suggest a redirect of this article History of spiritism to spiritism. The history of spiritism article contains no references and is mostly original research/fringe claims or some duplicate stuff of what is on the spiritism article. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a "history of" article split off from the main article, which is not an unusual practice. However this particular fork article seems to be rather skimpy on actual "history" and heavy on uncited original research -- such as speculation about spiritism's differences with Christianity and other religions. You might want to trim out anything that's not "history" and see what's left that can be cited. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hoax article?
Could someone check on the historical existence of Rome, Maryland. I think this article may be perpetuating a conspiracy theory myth. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The current pope is doing an effective job of concealing all searches for anyone named "Francis Pope", but one of the cited sources does provide a key to unlock this. The Ovason book, which is otherwise a farrago of Masono-astrological, um, stuff, very helpful transcribes part of the original deed, which I repeat here: "Do hereby grant unto him the sd Francis Pope, a parcell of Land called Rome, lying on the East side of the Anacostine River Beginning at a marked Oak; standing by the River side, the bound Tree of Robert Troop, and running North up the River to breadth Two hundred perches to a bounded Oak standing at the mouth of a Bay or Inlett called Tiber[...]" Two things may be noticed by local residents: first, that this a grant of property for a farm and not the establishing of a town. It is pretty typical for these properties to be named, and no doubt someone thought it fitting that Mr. Pope would reside at Rome. Second, and more importantly, this is the wrong side of the Anacostia River. But in fact the locations of all these old properties are very uncertain. The aforementioned Tiber Creek is actually located west of the Anacostia's mouth, roughly at the west end of Washington Channel, and this page claims that the creek was also east of Pope's property. In any case I have not found his land on the accompanying map.


 * The upshot, though, is that none of these sources says anything about a settlement or town named Rome. It looks to me as though the original author misconstrued the sources. I notice her talk page is almost entirely occupied with complaints about misuse of sources and questionable articles. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Rome, Maryland is open for business. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So we have an unreliable conspiracy theory source, supposedly quoting from what it says is the original deed... and then an editor taking what might have been the name of a farm and turning it into the name of a settlement or town? Do we have reliable corroboration that any of this is genuine?  Is the farm, settlement, deed (etc) mentioned in any reliable history of Washington DC?
 * I have to admit that at first glance, the existence of a "Rome, Maryland" in the late 1600s seems plausible (given Maryland's Catholic origins)... however, the fact that the only verification for its existance comes from such an unreliable source (one that pushes an Anti-Masonic/Anti-Catholic conspiracy theory), I have to question it. Thanks for nominating it for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Just an update for the records... we now have reliable confirmation that a farm by the name of "Rome" did indeed exist in the late 1600s (and was located in what is today Washington, DC)... It was apparently located on the banks of Tiber Creek, and was adjacent to the "New Troy" tract (on which the US Capital was later built). In other words, the fringe conspiracy theorists have it wrong (surprise?)... there is no real association with "Rome" and the US Capital. The article has been edited to reflect reliable sources... and is still nominated for deletion - a plot of land that was adjacent to another plot of land (on which a notable building was later erected) really pushes the envelope of inherited notability. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what exactly is the "fringe conspiracy theory"? I haven't seen anyone proposing any conspiracies about this around here, so I'm not sure just what you're tilting at.  As far as notability, though, you've convinced me it probably should be merged to Tiber Creek so I will change my "keep" vote now to a "merge". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The theory is that the Jesuits were somehow behind the founding of the United States (and continue to secretly control the government). The theorists like to point to the fact that both Francis Pope and Daniel Carrol were Catholics (Carrol was - gasp - a bishop!!), and the "fact" that the land on which the US Capital Building now stands was originally called "Rome" as some sort of "proof" of their theory.   Yes, I know it does not make a whole lot of sense... but conspiracy theory rarely does.  It's the same flawed logic used by other conspiracy theorists when they look for "Masonic Symbolism" in the street plan of Washington DC and the dollar bill (as some sort of "proof" that the Masons are secretly running the government).  The Jesuit conspiracy idea is fringe of the fringe... but there are those who believe it. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see... These fringe theorists must be saying this somewhere on a different website then, since I have not found anyone saying it here with reference to the Rome farm in 17th century Maryland... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the original author of our article was pretty sloppy in their use of sources, and wasn't concerned with the theory behind the source that was used. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... OK... Perhaps I was reading "between the lines" a bit... but the choice of sources is telling when you know the theory exists. Also, in it's previous state, the article gave an undue amount text discussing Daniel Carrol's Catholicism.  While it did not state the Jesuit conspiracy theory outright, it was clearly referencing it.
 * In any case, the current version corrects all of that... so there is no longer any WP:FRINGE issue (even one reading "between the lines").  Now it's just a question of whether the farm is notable enough, as a historical property, for inclusion or not. That question can be dealt with at the AfD. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Moon-eyed people
I'm not sure this should have its own article but if it does then this one is pretty POV. Til has fixed a bit but more work is needed. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "They only came out at night to do their food gathering activities, as the sunlight of day time blinded them." Clearly they must have been Welsh. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the article was about Madoc, the editor's favorite subject, with sources that were poor through to rubbish. Academic sources are available, but it seems that this is another name for the Adena culture.[. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. All of that stuff should just be dropped, or reduced to a very brief mention. In fact, it seems like a case for a redirect. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to all go back to a dubious 18th century source, see my comments on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a gross WP:SYNTH violation. It's positing (without reliable sources) that the moon-eyed people are the same people as the ancient white tribe. There's no evidence that this is a culturally important myth - I suggest we just nominate this article for deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've nominated this as an article for deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Cherokee
And unfortunately it's now in our article on the Cherokee. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I added it to the Cherokee article because it's patently obvious that it concerns the Cherokee, and you improved on it and expanded it. So what is unfortunate about it in your viewpoint, and why bring this up on a canvassing board? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Barton relays an extremely short communication from an Army officer - "The Cheerake tell us, that when they first arrived in the country which they inhabit, they found it possessed by certain "moon-eyed-people," who could not see in the day-time. These wretches they expelled." That's all that we are told about this group. Others added skin color, etc but those are just embellishments with no sources. Out of all the other things we could add to our Cherokee article, why add this one? It seems to me that WP:UNDUE covers this. It isn't as though it's clearly a genuine Cherokee legend - it's certainly not part of their folklore. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just brought this up on Talk:Moon-eyed people. We've got literally hundreds of published sources on the Cherokee stating that it IS a Cherokee legend, up against ZERO published sources, but one wikipedian, arguing that it's NOT a Cherokee legend.  So once again we will see if one wikipedian can defeat every source that's out there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is more of the usual mythos of "white people were here before Columbus" sort of "ancient Injun legend say" nonsense that plagues many Native American articles. If you can provide peer-reviewed scholarship from respected historians who have thoroughly studied this, then discuss it at the talk page of the Cherokee article.  Otherwise, leave it out.   Montanabw (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And now it's in Cherokee mythology. "According to one Cherokee legend first attested in 1797, a "Moon-eyed people" had lived in the Cherokee regions when they arrived.     " Note 'first attested' but no clarification that it was only a a brief mention by an Army officer. Let's see some other 'attestations'. Let's see who actually calls it a legend - it isn't called a legend in 1797, so that bit is flat-out wrong, it's a label attached by Til. Let's see the quotes from these sources. For instance, "Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, 1990" - what does it say? I can find mention of moon-eyed people but no secure basis that it's a legend, nor any other source than the Army officer. Til, you've got to show us what these sources say if you want to keep them. Dougweller (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a label attached by Til, every last one of those scholars refers it as either a "Cherokee legend" or a "Cherokee tradition". The best place to reproduce direct quotes for proof will be at Talk:Moon-eyed people. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this the Vincent Gaddis source? Why in the world is this being used as an RS by Til? Til, it's up to you to show that your sources back your claim and that you've actually read them. And you added that to Cherokee mythology where I've reverted you. That you think Gaddis is a reliable source says a lot. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And it is not called a legend in 1797, which is where this all seems to originate. Can anyone find any other sources that discuss it as a legend explaining where it is found among the Cherokee? Cherokee sources for it? Anything that directly traces it to the Cherokee? Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Doug, every source that's ever been written on Cherokee legends mentions the Moon-eyed people as a Cherokee legend, and you and a couple of your fellow editors are the only ones who consider this illegitimate because of your novel argument that you are debuting on wikipedia, stigmatizing the earliest source as illegitimate, which no scholar has ever been foolish enough to do because every expert on the Cherokee knows it as a Cherokee legend. Unless you are going to stigmatize all Cherokee sources as equally suspect. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again this impossible claim about every source on Cherokee legends. You may be right Til about the Cherokee calling it a legend or a myth of their people, but you haven't shown that yet and it certainly doesn't belong in Cherokee mythology so far as I can see. Let's see your Cherokee sources. It still looks to me as though Barton's informant is the source of this and he doesn't call it a legend. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will show you what the scholarly sources say, one after the other after the other, but not on this page. Fringe theory is not the page for this, there has to be some restriction on just any random person saying "That's a fringe theory because I don't like it and therefore all the hundreds of scholarly sources discussing it are declared illegitimate by me." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It started out as a fringe bit about Welsh/white Indians, remember? And I note that the source you quoted at Talk:Moon-eyed people does not call the moon-eyed people a legend or myth, and is as you say just a passing mention. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And at the talk page he's added a state park plaque saying that they have legends about Madoc buiding forts, and says this was written by park historians and certainly implied it's a reliable source. That's clearly fringe. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tourist signage is often promotional in nature and definitely does not count as a 'reliable source' for history. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources presented to date, and plenty of "ancient Indian legend" crap abounds in tourist land. WP:RS and WP:V prevail here.   Montanabw (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with a "see also" link to the article, since the 18th century source links it to the Cherokee, but doesn't mention any of the Welsh/European theories. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'm just catching this. I think making a decision about this is going to require finding sources that discuss the "moon-eyed people" story in great detail. It sure seems to be something that may have been an actual Cherokee tradition in the 17th century that has been greatly influenced by the "Welsh Indians" and Madoc legends since that time - probably both among the Cherokee and non-Cherokee writing about them.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the question of whether this is an actual Cherokee legend or not is immaterial to whether this legend is notable. There are many inauthentic legends which are notable because they are famous or widely believed. My main concern here is that the Moon-Eyed people are little more than an item of trivia. None of the sources provided cover this topic in any detail, depth or rigor. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Til who has been providing sources that have from 2 words to a few sentences (and fail to meet his claim that all or virtually all writers call this a legend) now says there are chapters written on these people. Another editor at the AfD mentions 2 academic articles. We'll see.
 * There is probably enough to keep it from deletion, but not enough to link it as a truly authentic Cherokee legend (the Cherokee get all sorts of things attributed to them, correct or not) nor if there is even a scintilla to like it to Madoc, which is the point here.  Montanabw (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The only chapter Til has identified is an ebook self-published by someone who also writes about starting nightclubs. Til didn't know about WP:SPS and now agrees we can't use it. It's probably notable, we just need to be careful how we label it and to keep the fringe stuff out. Note that Til wanted to use the book because it debunks the Madoc stuff, so we agree on that. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Psychotronics
A badly-defined subject, needing attention from those familiar with fringe topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ideas popularized by fringe folks such as "Mind Justice" show up in this article from time to time. For example, John Norseen's statements about brain-mapping have been made to seem like they have something to do with psychotronics, which they don't. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The more I look into it, the less I'm convinced that 'psychotronics' actually means anything much at all - instead it seems to mean whatever it suits the person using the word to mean - technobabble of the worst kind. Anyway, we currently have an editor filling the article with more of the same, and I'd welcome more eyes on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately a new article Psychotronic weapons has been created that places undue weight on passing mention in an Information Operations text of reported Russian research and lifting the most sensational aspects of Sharon Weinberger's article out of context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like a clear POV fork to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note, a related disruption at Stalking on the subject of psychotronics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Predictably, Articles for deletion/Psychotronic weapons - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also reverted similar material the same editor added to thought identification, and looking at his contribs led me to Electromagnetic weapon, which after a quick horrified scan I converted to a redirect. Yikes! Looie496 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Welcome to the conspiracy to suppress and censor the truth. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this meme has been popping up every so often for years, most commonly in the mind control and brain–computer interface articles. I didn't realize it was creeping into so many other articles, though. Looie496 (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go through the sources on Psychotronic weapons before you consider it a "sensationalization" of the Weinberger story. These things are sourced directly from the Russian Defense Minister, Putin himself, A U.S. Army publication, a Navy publication, and a textbook written with the NSA.  You are either ignoring something obvious, or not reading the sources.  Thanks for taking another look. Damonthesis (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now filed a report at WP:ANI. Looie496 (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And now...this. It's a bit too much drama for my tastes. ‪I'll help clean up affected articles after the problem has been resolved, but I'm disengaging for now‬. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

HTMA Nutritional Balancing
Article has serious NPOV and OR issues. Thoughts? Jrsimmons (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at rectifying this. There's not a lot left. Searching JSTOR/Google Scholar for "hTMA Nutritional Balancing" didn't turn up any RS ... is an article on this subject merited? Alexbrn talk 12:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: this section was incorrectly deleted in this edit, claiming 'vandalism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that, the user who deleted this discussion claiming that it was vandalism (and has done a similar thing on other occasions — see Andy's notice on his talk page) has undone all of Alex's edits, once again erroneously calling it vandalism. It seems that he is suffering from a serious case of WP:OWN; he's calling any edit to his original research "vandalism" and gives the editor a warning template. —  Richard  BB  15:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Response to AndyTheGrump -- has in fact reviewed Wiki vandalism policy and his actions were based on his understanding of Wiki policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism. It should be understood that the edits bmartinsen removed were not constructive and they eliminated most of the articles content. This appears to be a malicious attack. It was instigated by an anonymous IP in AU. And the "fringe theories" hTMA section on this page was instigated by an anonymous Jrsimmons (who's page does not exist) for the explicit purpose of supporting a multi-edit onslaught and criticism of the original hTMA Nutritional Balancing page by Alexbrn.  Alexbrn does not have the professional credentials in biochemistry and hTMA science necessary to support his editing actions, yet justifies the edits allegedly because of one search result at JSTOR/Google Scholar. While the original article is actually well referenced, objective, non-commercial and follows Wiki article development recommendations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTMA_Nutritional_Balancing Bmartinsen (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Read WP:MEDRS, and cut out the crap about 'professional credentials in biochemistry and hTMA science'. Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources,not on the self-proclaimed 'expertise' of contributors. If you wish to promote hTMA as a 'science', you will have to do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So anonymous Bmartinsen (whose page does not exist) complains that this article is being edited by "anonymous Jrsimmons (who's page does not exist)"? I see. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooops. Sorry Paul, I am a noob. When you click the Jrsimmons link the file said in big bold text "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title." I misunderstood.Bmartinsen (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A similar section was added to the Hair page with content pulled from the original. Agreeing with Alexbrn I don't believe the subject is notable at all; I've not been able to find any usable sources outside of the quackwatch article.Jrsimmons (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Bmartinsen has now nominated the article for deletion in what appears to be a very WP:POINTy act. I have suggested a speedy keep. —  Richard  BB  13:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Richard, I am not trying to make a point. There is nothing left, as KuyaBriBri stated "there was no article before Bmartinsen's edits." Also, KuyaBriBri has "nothing against this article getting deleted on valid grounds such as lack of notability." I hope this helps clarify. Sorry for any confusion. Bmartinsen (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Moerman Therapy
A similar case to HTMA Nutritional Balancing‎ in that, after removing the unwanted material (which I have done), the only RSs remaining are anti-quack ones. In general, should such articles be on Wikipedia? Alexbrn talk 12:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that we should have articles on this kind of thing, when we can get good coverage from mainstream sources. It's more of a problem when a fringe topic gets lots of attention from non-mainstream sources, making it superficially notable but impossible to write a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that these sorts of articles have a place. The challenge always is in presenting a neutral look at the crazypants without coming off as judgemental, rather than appropriately skeptical.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary back up.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
Discussion here about a book with perhaps fringey notions about native American legend/mythology. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The related article International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers needs to be gone over for puffery. The body may be OK but the lead is, um, not that neutral. Mangoe (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Electronic harassment
The lede: "Electronic harassment is a term referring to the use of electronic devices to harass, torture, or harm a person using some form of direct or indirect physical influence on their mind or body. It should not be confused with cyberstalking, where the harm involves only communication."

Sourced entirely to legislation, which doesn't support the lede... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ...and since the legislation was off-topic, I've deleted it, leaving nothing but the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, more paranoia. One thing that might be worth noticing here, though.  Damonthesis, the editor who has been so disruptive recently, shows all signs of being a very experienced editor, but clearly isn't one I've dealt with before.  He does, however, show substantial behavioral similarities to, the creator of this article.  Jeremystalked "retired" a year ago, so the account is too stale for an SPI, but it does sort of fit together. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sterling Harwood
I'm wondering if I could get a few more eyes on this article. I have WP:SOAPBOX concerns about the detailed expansion of his bibliography and conspiracy-related radio program. I am also looking for a second opinion as to whether he passes WP:ACADEMIC or the relevant notability guidelines for local radio show hosts. Thanks! Location (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose this doesn't directly address your concerns, but aside from the article's reading like an expanded CV/beauty sheet, both of the very active IP editors of the article geolocate to San Jose, California, the "home base" of Professor Harwood. Quite an astonishing coincidence. --Seduisant (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He may be notable for his opinions on utilitarianism but not for his radio show. And in any case, WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Jim Tucker (journalist)
This conspiracy theorist has just died and his article needs watching as I've already seen attempts to puff him up & remove critical material. He was an editor and writer at the American Free Press where I just reverted an attempt to remove all critical material and add copyvio from the AFP itself. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * added, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Uncritical presentation of AIDS Denialists on LewRockwell.com page
I object to the below characterization of LewRockwell.com's providing a forum for AIDS Denialism;written by User carolmooredc, it uncritically presents a long quotation from the producer of the Denialist Film House of Numbers, and presents Peter Duesberg's impressive academic affiliations (Prof at UC Berkeley) while only saying that he is called a Denialist by two non-notable people (as opposed to being widely regarded as such by the scientific community). This unchallenged characterization of Denialist ideas -- and the failure to clarify them as fringe or denialist -- constitutes WP: UNDUE

''The website hosted a 2010 podcast called "Dissent on HIV/AIDS" interviewing Brent Leung, director of the 2009 film House of Numbers regarding the "shaky statistics that drive vast HIV/AIDS funding, and the amazing differences of opinion among top scientists about what it is, and how to treat it." The website has featured articles on the subject by Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass label an "HIV/AIDS denialist. ''

Incidentally, the LewRockwell.com page used to be characterized as "providing a forum to fringe science" (this characterization was upheld from mid 2010 before it was a few weeks ago removed removed by user Srich without any clear argument as to why. I submit that the characterization was accurate. To illustrate the point, consider that LRC has published promoting pieces (to provide just a few of the examples) promoting Evolution Denial (http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi158.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/chernikov/chernikov19.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan132.html ) AIDS Denial (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye9.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/scheff3.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/22/163-dissent-on-hivaids/) and the view that Vitamins cure cancer (http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi144.html). (Note: I got those articles from a group on Facebook, but have confirmed that they all promote what they're labeled as promoting.)

I submit that characterizing LRC as providing a forum for fringe science is a necessary and accurate label. It avoids WP:UNDUE by clarifying on the LRC page that the views it presents on science (which are detailed largley uncritically on the WP page for LRC) are fringe. I further believe that the charactization of stuff like AIDS Denial and Evolution Denial as fringe is so common-sense and incontrovertible that, like characterizing articles which deny major historical events like the French Revolution as fringe, does not require RS. Steeletrap (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Steeletrap is a brand new editor who has a stated POV of trying to put criticism of articles and individuals connected with Ludwig von Mises Institute into Wikipeida. His POV is so strong he's got a really bad habit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes even to using WP:RS, not to mention WP:OR and WP:NPOV. That said...
 * I edited after "providing a forum to fringe science" was removed after having a Citation Needed tag. Why doesn't he just find a ref he wants something in there?
 * I actually looked at the existing refs to reflect what they said and used that, I didn't include a lot of unsupported WP:OR and then stick the ref at the end. Thus the Podcast quote.
 * If I didn't put enough in from Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, he could just go to the books google page links which I put in there and find something. But he'd rather complain for thousands of words on the talk page sharing his opinions and insinuating we're idiots who never took science classes and that's why we don't understand real vs. fringe science.
 * A very difficult editor to work with. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 18:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Carol, please stick to the issue at hand. If you or Srich want to file a complaint about your (in my view, bizarre) misintereptation of my behavior and comments to you, please use the proper channels. Steeletrap (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Disregarding other aspects for the moment, the characterization of Duesberg doesn't seem adequate. Our article on him says unequivocally that he is "known for his central role in AIDS denialism" -- merely saying that two unknown people have labeled him that way doesn't really get the point across. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an article about LewRockwell.com so all that is relevant is what WP:RS has said about LRC. One mentions Duesberg wrote an article there (not found) and was in a conference (refs later found) and is an aids denialist. If they want to find out more about him or aids denialism the links are both there and they can go over and feast away. And if there are other WP:RS criticizing LRC for such articles, people can do the work to put it in there.
 * Just in case this editboard is a hot bed of WP:OR types, let me quote from WP:OR introduction:
 * Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * TL;DR. The rules indicate that you don't need an RS to say a cigar is a cigar, denial of World War I is fringe history, Paris is in France, and AIDS/Evolution Denial is fringe science. Steeletrap (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEWAY is the guidance on-point. "Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." [Emphasis added.] OP has not provided the required material. – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, you misunderstand the excerpt you quote. It refers to the discussion of fringe theories in scientific articles, rather than to a discussion of a person's (or website's) promotion of fringe theories. Fringe "criticism" of the view that HIV causes AIDS, in the context of a scientific article on HIV, could be deleted in accordance with that principle. But an assertion that Sam.com gives a forum to fringe theories (based on the fact that he publishes stuff saying that HIV does not cause AIDS and affirms creationism), in the context of an article about the content of Sam.com, would not. Steeletrap (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The preceding comment seems correct to me. SPECIFICO  talk  13:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is. And in addition to the manifest absurdity of rich's interpretation (according to which Bob.com's repeatedly publishing articles promoting flat-earth theory and geocentric cosmology could not be labeled as promoting "fringe science" unless a source specifically said Bob.com is promoting firnge science), the piece has (and has had since 2010) an RS criticizing LRC for promoting AIDS Denial: Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy. Steeletrap (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the guidance which limits the requirement to provide "independent reliable sources to connect the the topics in a serious and prominent way" to scientific articles. The guidance covers fringe subjects in general -- so, organizations, conspiracy theories, urban legends, and history re-writes are mentioned/discussed in the guidance. In any event, where are the independent reliable sources that connect AIDS denialism, etc. and LRC in a serious and prominent way? It is the lack of those sources that make the fringe stuff inappropriate for LRC. – S. Rich (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we get a couple of diffs for problem edits here? I'm having trouble picking the actual problem out of all the complaints about behavior. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to clarify:
 * OP has (above) listed some articles from lewrockwell.com (LRC) that have fringe topics.
 * I believe s/he would like to post those links in the LewRockwell.com article.
 * And OP wants to discuss the fact the LRC has provided a forum for these particular topics.
 * And OP (I believe) would like to refute these topics, or at least point out that the topics are fringe.
 * I do not think there are diffs that pertain to OP's concern, but I haven't looked.
 * The issue of fringe topics on LRC was brought up in the past. See:
 * Talk:LewRockwell.com
 * Talk:LewRockwell.com
 * And most recently (brought up by OP) on Talk:LewRockwell.com.)
 * S. Rich (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Pretty good summary, and I appreciate your (rich) bringing it away from the personal stuff. #4 is misleading though; I have no interest in "refuting" AIDS Denial on the page; I just want to mention that "The website has often provided a forum for fringe science, such as AIDS Denial, Evolution Denial, etc" (with some links), which, per my above links re: creationism/AIDS Denialism/vitamins curing cancer, is an easily sourced fact that provides information about the website. I have a big problem with the current text (quoted above in the second paragraph of this whole discussion) which basically presents the AIDS Denialist stuff LRC has published (i.e. Peter Duesberg and commentary from an AIDS Denialist filmmaker) in an uncritical way, without mentioning that it's fringe science. Steeletrap (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do say in #4 that you "at least" want to point out the topics as fringe. And you do seem interested in refuting the topics "as fringe" because you do not like the "uncritical" presentation of the theories – AIDS denial, et al. – on LRC. Do you say this because you want a critical presentation on the LRC website, or because you want a critical presentation in the LRC WP article? (Or is there another rationale?) Either way, once we say "LRC provided a forum for fringe topics X, Y, or Z" we have problems: 1. We are injecting our own opinion as to whether particular topics are fringe because we cannot characterize them as fringe without providing RS. 2. Even if we provide RS showing they are fringe, we have a balance problem – what about all of the non-fringe topics that are presented? Do they/should they get listed?? 3. We do not have independent, reliable sources that say – in a serious and prominent way -- that "LRC has provided a forum for fringe nonsense". This analysis applies to all the fringe theories, including the AIDS denialists. – S. Rich (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you both to post notice of this thread at all the relevant WP projects or other places to solicit broader participation. Otherwise the two of you are going to end up repeating yourselves here. SPECIFICO talk  16:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It really is a WP:ORN issue (note the WP and brackets to help people figure out what the heck you are talking about?)
 * But note that generally speaking (in bold since some people don't seem to hear that phrase) in any area of science there will be mainstream critics, obviously fringe critics, and people who may be labeled fringie and who may eventually be proved right. Like Barry_Marshall whose theories on Helicobacter pylori in the 1980s were originally mocked by some and doubtless even called fringe, and now they are accepted medical doctrine.
 * I have no knowledge or interest in this case, but maybe there are other articles published by LewRockwell.com (making more general later: Huffington Post) on the HIV/AIDs topic that are just over that "mainstream line", do they all get slammed as "fringe" because a Wikipedia editor wants to slam them? No. We leave that to the WP:RS to slam all the articles on HIV/AIDs on LewRockwell.com (Huffington Post). Just that simple. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 17:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol, please avoid the loaded language and speculation about my motives (i.e., your view that my request stems from a "desire to slam" LRC for publishing fringe/psuedoscience like Creationism/AIDS Denial). Also please note that my request only seeks to restore WP: Con that lasted from 2010 to 2013 (i.e. the fringe science characterization). You have your facts wrong when you imply I stand alone here. Steeletrap (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert:] Didn't I write generally speaking? Did I say your name or you? Please see NPA and NPA. OK, i could have used another example. So I'll stick in some other sites name above instead. Is that better?
 * RE: Consensus, as I've said before, just because people talk about something that's against policy and can't agree to take out what's against policy doesn't mean it becomes consensus. Policy trumps consensus. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 18:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still not getting a clear picture of the problem. Are we being called upon to assess whether a particular theory is fringey? I am getting the impression that we're being asked to referee the edit-warring over how prominently the criticism of LRC should be placed. My personal reaction, as someone with at least a passing acquaintance with the site, is that the concentration on this small area is really the tip of the iceberg of a much wider-ranging negative reaction, and that letting questionable people post articles on fringey stuff is just one of many criticisms leveled at it (and for that matter one which is made by people far less marginal than at Cato). But as far as this noticeboard is concerned, I'm not seeing the conflict as lying within our purview. Mangoe (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is whether we should characterize LRC as providing a forum to fringe science. I think that without that characterization, the discussion of the content LRC has published on various scientific issues (such as the HIV/AIDS discussion that appears on the LRC entry right now, and is quoted in the second paragraph of this article) is misleading. Various arguments for and against my view are presented above (this thread has been flooded with off-topic banter, unfortunately). Steeletrap (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as primary research of the site is concerned, a simple review of Donald Miller's articles shows a festival of fringy medical advocacy, with a topping of JFK assassination theory. Finding promotion of AIDS denialism is as easy as a Google search of their site. But beyond that, they get plenty of mentions in Seth Kalichman's book Denying AIDS. I wouldn't be surprised if a search through general interest policy magazines like The Atlantic or Harper's wouldn't turn up other citations. I wouldn't rely just on the guy from Cato, but it beggars belief that he's the only one complaining. Arguing about whether they "promote" fringe theories seems largely a choice between "yes they do" and "no, because they have no editorial standards." Mangoe (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If people are concerned with the term "promoted", maybe the phrasing "has offered a forum to fringe science" would be more appropriate? In any case, from what I understand from her or his remarks, Mangoe agrees that fringe science is an appropriate characterization. Steeletrap (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While it might be obvious to those of us who frequent this board, I have a concern that the statement "Lewrockwell.com has offered a forum to fringe science" requires an interpretation of the primary source material as "fringe". Is there reliable secondary source information stating this? Location (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A resolution to this has been posted at Talk:LewRockwell.com. I suggest closing down this notice and moving the discussion there. – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your proposed resolution because, in terms of the previously cited Denying AIDS book, 1) we have an RS that 1) connects LRC to AIDS Denialism 2) and calls AIDS Denial pseudoscientific. This thread has certainly jumped the tracks, however, and is way too long and wordy. Therefore, I created a new one relating to NPOV concerns on this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Concerns_on_WP:Undue_regarding_AIDS_Denial_and_LewRockwell.com Steeletrap (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Institute for Historical Review
Needs eyes, I've reverted an attempt to replace critical material with material copied from the IHR's website. I've decided to take a wikibreak this month so won't be around to watch it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Miklabæjar-Solveig
I question whether we need an article on an Icelandic ghost story. I am, however, absolutely sure that we don't need such an article which is written as if the story were true. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a fairly famous Icelandic folk tale. Stubified and trimmed to what accessible WP:RS will support. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Problematic change to WP:FRINGE
I reverted a change to an example which seemed intended to blunt a passage about what we can say without qualifying a statement as someone's position. Please take a look and advise me as to whether this was off-base. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not IMO, and I agree with your edit summary at the first reversion. The proposed replacement is poor anyway: absent context the vague qualifier “early” introduces an element of relativity or judgement, spoiling the “simplicity“ of whatever factual content it’s applied to—at least for the purposes of an exemplary statement appearing in such a guideline. The choice of “proponent”, rather than e.g. “formulator” or “investigator”, is subtly loaded with reference to the fringey canard that a scientific theory is a mere opinion or notion. Furthermore, historical facts are inherently more susceptible to “reasonable doubt” than scientific ones.–Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fringe coatracking at Gordon Novel
A spate of recently added sections (seemingly unrelated to the subject of the article) accusing people of being fascists, Nazis, holocaust deniers, etc. and promoting strange conspiracy theories as fact, such as Gordon_Novel, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Erotic target location error
I'm going through the contributions of after the closure of Sexology, and, in defiance of his pledge on his talk page to not edit in areas relating to the fringe theory of autogynephilia due to allegations of CoI, I have identified at least three articles of which he is the primary contributor, created in the last year: One is at AfD, one was redirected, and the third is here. I'm rather concerned that Cantor created an article about a theory that was coined by his friend and colleague Ray Blanchard (who he says he is a "fan" of at Talk:Shemale/Archive 5), which appears partially to be a coatrack to push autogynephilia. I also note that Cantor also seems to be engaging in editing to attack opponents of theories he supports, which was brought up (but not actioned through deadlock) at the arbitration case. I'm unsure what to do here, as the arbitration case complicates things. However, I do think that the article could do with some combing through. Sceptre (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking purely personally, I have very little sympathy with these theories, but I'm not any kind of an expert. The people who propose them and publish them are, as far as I am aware, scholars with legitimate publications, though their views are highly contested. The outcome of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology was that Jokestress, James Cantor's principal antagonist, was topic banned, not James Cantor. The way you present this, you seem to be suggesting the opposite was the outcome. I know of no determination that these views fit the definition of WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of how the case ended, and I believe it was a massive error on the part of ArbCom. Sceptre (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gynandromorphophilia has 11 sources, all quite reliable scholarly books and articles; more seem to be available.
 * Autoandrophilia has 5 sources, 4 of which are scholarly books or articles (and again, more exist) - but could definitely be merged as a section into androphilia or other pages.
 * Erotic target location error has 17 sources, 15 of which are scholarly and the remaining two are quite mainstream news publications (ditto).
 * I don't see how this meets the definition of WP:FRINGE. All of these are discussed seriously within mainstream publication outlets.  I'm not sure why this is at the FTN.  Are any of the sources misrepresented or otherwise inappropriate?  These may not be widely-accepted concepts, they may not be popularly liked, but there does appear to be scholarly interest.
 * My position on the outcome of the arbitration hearing is quite obvious given my initial position and (now blanked) activity on the evidence pages. That being said, I don't know what action or comment is expected here.  I don't know what policy or guideline is being breached.  The redirected article was redirected by Sceptre, and gyandromorphophilia was nominated by Sceptre.  I normally see the FTN as a place to address content, not behaviour, but these complaints seem to be primarily aimed at identifying a behavioural problem.  Arbitration, which does focus more on behaviour, just concluded and essentially produced no restrictions on James Cantor's editing activities.  The only policy I see being really relevant may be FORUMSHOP.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When we're talking about a search engine where "gender identity disorder" and "gender dysphoria" have about 37,000 results, 190 for "autoandrophilia" is not really a convincing argument. Many of the results given for the latter seem to be tangential, not-focused on gender identity, or actually give scant evidence for its existence. From Cantor's expansion of, this is even admitted; the article says that "the concept has received much less attention than autogynephilia, its counterpart". Also, the citing of J. Michael Bailey, who is as reliable as Blanchard (i.e. not) on the subject of transgender pathology, is indeed worrying.
 * From what I can tell from, Blanchard's preferred diagnostic criteria for transvestic fetishism (itself a controversial diagnosis) did not match those of WPATH, the accepted authority on transgender healthcare. Indeed, from what I can tell (from Conway), Blanchard isn't even a WPATH member, after he resigned in a huff over the TMWWBQ controversy. This also pushes towards seeing such concepts as fringe.
 * And on the subject of erotic target location error and gynandromorphophilia, the Google Books results for those are even scanter. Interestingly, makes very little mention of autogynephilia or gynandromorphophilia, and indeed, it seems he sees it as not part of transsexualism at all, but a different concept: a far cry from Blanchard. Also interesting is part of Lawrence's (a proponent of the typology) new book in which she pretty much confirms that "non-homosexual MtF"s (i.e. bisexual and lesbian trans women) are autogynephilic unless proved otherwise, which gives credence to the popular theory that autogynephilia as a homo/transphobic quackery masquerading as science. The same, IMO, can be also extended to Cantor's own theories on their face; I mean, really, "shemales"? Google Scholar results, by the way, don't give support to autogynephilia either.
 * For the sake of not opening old wounds, I've tried not to cite from the TMWWBQ-era sources. However, we can't isolate them entirely. I would like to point out, however, SPLC's report on Bailey, which raises worrying questions about the theory being artificially inflated in stature, mostly by a small cabal of unsavoury people (including the co-author of The Bell Curve and a far-right columnist).
 * I posted this here because I wanted the articles to be checked over by someone who has more journal access than I, although now I can see a good case for an ANI report too. Not only does WP:FRINGE seem to be violated in a systematic way over several years (and it's something that could take some time to correct), worse is that Cantor's personal pledge has been broken. I'm not privy to the details of why he made it, but I'm assuming that it's due to the fact he recognises his own conflict of interest, and also recognises the accusations of fringe editing in this area. In my mind, the second is worse, as it does seem to have been his only restraint from violating the first. Sceptre (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But what do you want done? James Cantor didn't get topic banned by arbcom, so you want to try FTN instead?  Or ANI?  Or you want someone else to read and verify the sources apply?  I find the former distasteful and indicative of personal distaste that I find irritating, but the latter reasonable.  I get that lots of trans* persons find Cantor's, and many sexologists/psychologist/psychiatrists' views offensive or harmful - but the standard is whether there are reliable sources discussing the topic.  Not personal offence.  For instance, J. Michael Bailey is controversial and disliked - but still reliable .  Wikipedia's readers are served by having discussions of controversy, not excision. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reliable != Real world reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:69.244.220.253 (talk)
 * I'm not sure what that comment is meant to mean, but you are in the wrong place if you wish to question the reliability of a source - WP:RSN is the venue you want for that. Beyond that you're going to have to be more specific about what you mean. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ideally, I'd like FRINGE-checking of any articles related to autogynephilia, but these three are articles which could do with combing over in the meanwhile. I'm very worried with the reliance of these articles on a fringe pathology of transsexuality. Over the weekend, I was able to gain access to the International Journal of Transgenderism, volume 12, issue 2, its DSM-V special issue. and  indicates that autogynephilia was rejected by WPATH's working groups due to a) lack of evidence of its validity, and  also discusses autogynephilia unfavourably. Looking further into, I note also another rejection of autogynephilia for insertion into the DSM-V, and also an implicit rejection of ETLE, again due to a lack of evidence of this validity. While, yes, I do recognise that the controversy is notable for an article, I have my concerns, especially given the above articles, that we are very much treating these concepts uncriticially. Sceptre (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the subject in general, but as I understand it this interpretation is somewhat controversial. There should be some concern, then, when Erotic target location error ends with the only stated criticism being dismissed as "ludicrous". Agricolae (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Stumbling across this set of articles, I'd have to largely agree with what Sceptre says above. There seems to be a set of articles, constructed largely by James Cantor, that push a theory tying transgenderism and fetishism that is roundly rejected by medical professionals (though enthusiastically endorsed by Christian Right and other anti-LGBT groups). Take a look at the sources on Erotic target location error, too, and you'll see the same names recurring: Lawrence, Blanchard, Lawrence, Blanchard... and Cantor. This theory certainly deserves to be written about, but from a neutral point of view that keeps its current non-acceptance in mind. --Fran Rogers (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I came across this interview with Ray Blanchard while doing some more digging. This is a very interesting quote:

"I would say if one could start from scratch, ignore all the history of removing homosexuality from the DSM, normal sexuality is whatever is related to reproduction. Now you have everything else. I would distinguish between behaviors which are anomalous and benign vs. those that are malignant. So homosexuality would be not normal but benign. Whereas something like serious dangerous sadism would be a malignant variation."


 * This is in relation to the term "normal" with regards to how it's expressly not used in academic papers because of connotations of the term. Also, this too:

"No, I proposed [autoandrophilia] simply in order not to be accused of sexism, because there are all these women who want to say, “women can rape too, women can be pedophiles too, women can be exhibitionists too.” It’s a perverse expression of feminism, and so, I thought, let me jump the gun on this. I don’t think the phenomenon even exists."


 * Which is interesting because proposing something that you don't think exists just to head off an accusation of sexism isn't how scientific inquiry works. I think it's a long stretch to claim that Blanchard is a scientist worth listening to on the basis of these two quotes. Sceptre (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment. I'm not familiar with this area, but was intrigued enough by all the back and forth about it to do some reading (which of course may be poorly informed or unduly influenced by what I happen to have read). It seems the theories variously presented by Blanchard, Bailey and others (including Cantor) are rather controversial, and in particular in disfavour by some (many?) of the members of some of the communities to which they apply. However, however much some critics would like to marginalize the theories as fringe/crackpot or merely politically self-serving by some activist group or other, they are theories credibly presented by pretty senior academics with undoubtedly relevant (though some would say biased) expertise, well-published, and subject over time to a pretty large body of published analysis, some supportive and some critical. This is not cold fusion. What is more, we have people with opinions on both sides willing to put real time into writing about the subject matter -- and the controversy -- on Wikipedia. That's great. Two suggestions: a) given this is an ongoing and/or recent academic controversy, nothing anyone writes on Wikipedia is likely to Prove Once And For All What the Truth Is and resolve the controversy. So channel that energy to writing an NPOV article about the theory and the controversy rather than Waging War on Wikipedia. b) ownership of the terminological framing is an important in controversial subjects. Think the number of classical-Greek-derived technical terms being floated around here is making most non-experts' heads spin. Would suggest that to start by and large all of the relevant content (theory and controversy) be treated holistically and in one article, with appropriate links from relevant broader topics. Would also suggest terms coined *within the theory itself* to at first only created as redirects to the one article, and later expanded as subarticles if and only if the one article becomes too lengthy. However, terms in broad usage which have interpretation both inside and out of this specific theory should of course have their own articles. Feel free to ignore this opinion - just sharing since it seemed all those commenting either have a professional interest or at least a strong personal opinion about the subject matter, and hence an outsider view may be helpful. Martinp (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree; Wikipedia can and should have an exhaustive, well-sourced article on these theories. What I see as the issue at hand here—a set of articles written assuming these theories are true, which are themselves hard to make NPOV due to the titles—would be properly dealt with by merging these other articles into the primary one (presumably Blanchard's transsexualism typology). Autoandrophilia has already been done; erotic target location error should probably be next. --Fran Rogers (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

On topic relating this specific theory, Serano has this to say on the theory:
 * "It should be noted that Blanchard conceptualizes autogynephilia as but one of several possible “erotic target location errors,” which hypothetically occur when men who have a particular sexual object choice develop a paraphilic desire to become that sexual object themselves (Freund & Blanchard, 1993). The evidence forwarded to support this theory is entirely anecdotal, consisting of case histories of certain individuals who both are pedophilic and engage in age regression play or of individuals who are both attracted to amputees and wish to become amputees themselves (Freund & Blanchard, 1993; Lawrence, 2006; for challenges to the theory as it has been applied to people who seek out amputations, see Brang, McGeoch, & Ramachandran, 2008; Sullivan, 2008). Autogynephilia is the one proposed “erotic target location error” for which the most empirical data has been generated and, as such, it will be the sole focus of this review."


 * Serano's paper is interesting for the wider topic of autogynephilia, but doubly so here. Sceptre (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fran - generally agree with you. Sceptre - sort of yes, sort of no. There are two potential flaws we need to avoid. One is overemphasizing and uncritically presenting a theory or construct far in excess of its importance in the field(s), especially if doing so would serve to legitimize interpretations the mainstream has rejected (and which a group of people seem to find actively hurtful). The second is censoring viewpoints since they are unpopular or out of a desire to marginalize them. I am not quite sure, but I see warning lights flashing on both counts. On the first, both of you have made the point and I tend to agree. On the second, warning lights in this very discussion include the use of emotionally-laden critical words (e.g., "-phobic quackery", "long stretch to claim X is a scientist worth listening to"), appeals to "look how many [other] experts disagree with the theory", and guilt by association (e.g., "X works with / supports Y", "the theory is endorsed by bad people like Z"). I continue to think the right answer is for all those passionate about this (which seems to include you as well as Prof. Cantor once he returns to editing) is to develop a single killer NPOV overall article on the relevant theory and surrounding controversy, and move content from the technical terms to this article -- for now redirecting those articles to the main one and later creating the technical subarticles only once there is a clear need for them. This is not a value judgment on the theory; just if the terms are technical and controversial in and of themselves, but really only have meaning within the context of the overall theory and the relevant criticism will always apply to the overall framework, then independent articles on each and every component would be inherently duplicative. By the way, I see nothing wrong with any of the interested parties here, with pro- or anti- POVs to be sure but operating within Wikipedia's collaborative norms, continuing to work on this in article and talk space, with the appropriate back and forth to ensure NPOV is maintained. (I realize I am skimming over the fact that it appears - taking the articles at face value - that ETLE may refer to a much wider range of sexual preferences than the ones relating to one's self that seem to be provoking this discussion - but here I am way out of my depth and not planning to pursue this further enough to have an informed opinion) Martinp (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I may have been a little too emotionally laden, I do think it should be pointed out that it wasn't "look how many other experts disagree", it was demonstrating a lack of support among the mainstream of transgender health professionals (WPATH represent most of them, and most standards of care derive from theirs in some way). I also recognise that there may be guilt by association issues, although I don't think it's necessarily fallacious. Sceptre (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)