Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 39

Cutler protocol
Fringe medical "protocol" for supposed mercury poisoning treatment. AfD candidate? Yobol (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article makes no real claims to notability, and seems more like a 'how to' than an encyclopedic entry. It clearly fails to follow WP:MEDRS. Even if it isn't fringe, it certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia as it stands. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure this is going to survive AFD, as there are a lot of references (not necessarily using the exact phrase however) in alt-med literature. However the current presentation as a normal medical treatment is unacceptable. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added some tags to this article. I think it ought to be merged into chelation therapy since this is nothing more than a minor protocol within a somewhat better known therapy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see such references, could you please cite? All the article has are Cutler's own book and some deletion-worthy commercial anti-amalgam blogsites.LeadSongDog come howl!  16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not references in the article, but references in alt-med books. I have not been able to find skeptical discussion of his ideas, and it does seem to me that merger into the main chelation therapy article is a reasonable resolution . Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * After further discussion I'm not so sure this needs specific mention in the main therapy article. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Things heating up at water memory
There's an AN/I issue now about how Brian Josephson (yes, User:Brian Josephson) is acting out his COI in this article. It's probably sorted but just in case. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Animal models of autism and today's DYK hooks
A statement in Animal models of autism refers to a primary study that purported to show a thimerosal-autism connection (my edits after noticing the issue:, ). This (non-MEDRS-compliant) statement is the basis for one of today's DYK hooks. I'm not sure if there is a proper procedure for this, but I have reported it to DYK.  Sunrise    (talk)  07:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned this at WT:MED, where the recent appearance of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy has also been raised. Alexbrn talk 10:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)‎
 * Update: the hook is no longer on the main page. It rotated off before anything could be done - see . Also, it looks like the editor responsible for the DYK main contributor to the DYK article has been adding primary studies to Thimerosal controversy.  Sunrise    (talk)  16:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Second update: the article itself was viewed nearly 2,000 times yesterday alone, presumably almost all of which came from the main page hook.  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  02:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ayurveda in America
Created 2 days ago as one large edit. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there's some material there which might be used in an article on how ayurveda has gotten "new-age-icized" but the title is a problem, at minimum. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * True, but I also mentioned to say created as one large edit, citation style correct, wikilinks, layout, all good as a new editor's first edit. Ring any bells? Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mangoe makes a very good point about how there might be something in there which could serve a different purpose, but not as Ayurveda in America. The markup wasn't perfect at the first attempt. The article creator is probably not new, but there are lots of editors who pop up to create a single detailed article; I don't remember any others in this general topic area although there are a couple of similarities to (maybe just a coincidence) bobrayner (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It reads like a translation. Alexbrn talk 06:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hunbatz Men
Fringe. He started studying to become a Mayan shaman when he was one, links Mayan and English, "says ancient Maya thought suggested their ancestors came from space." although Atlantis and Lemuria come in somewhere as well. There's more just as loony. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't shown and there are few to no independent sources in this BLP. If you look at the article's creator, it seems that this is part of a big student project, in good faith I think, but needing more supervision. User:Hoopes is the professor leading the scheme, and you've already interacted with him about this, Doug, on his user page. So perhaps you should go back to him. WP:AUTHOR criteria don't seem to be met. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree! Normally I'd PROD an article of this quality, but I'm inclined to AGF in this case. We might benefit more by providing some constructive feedback to the original author. I'm not sure what the foundation of Mr Men's notability is, he seems like a very ordinary kind of fringe theory proponent. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm getting back to John. Daykeeper is a minor article related to Men. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And maybe in response to my posting about him, we have a new editor adding him and other fringe stuff to various articles, also editing as . John Hoopes agrees there isn't much critical material on him (I find 2 brief mentions just reporting what he is doing). Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hun B'atz and many alike link different religion and cultures of the world together, that is key for the misunderstanding of a "ex-conquered" people (natives). Well everything is in space, but a special place of origins as a group or unit would be the legendary Tollan and "old Aztlan" ("Lemuria and Atlanttis"). its all looney but myth makes learning fun for the children to know and learn the hiding messages and history in them (codice). like Jack and Jill or Paul Bunyan for example or not?. "We" believe that all "Amerindian" are nobility, its just lost and scattered. When the "great pandemic" came to the "new world" 10 million out of 100 million would survive. Cultural heroes would take many or had many wives and spread there genetics into the new lineage of "Indian pheasant" and Meztizo's (Métis). Those who have the knowledge pass down from a direct elder or decent is a privilege, also access to Mayan script and text is also a privilege, not alot of people go looking for it though. Therefore this makes some new age Mayan Elders unique. In Elder B'atz defense he is from Merida Yucatan, where the Maya Itza where divided into two dynasties (Xiu and Cocoom/Ko'woj) at the time of Hunac Ceel's Rebellion in the 1470's a.d. where some Itza migrated to Lake Peten (Tayasal). I hope this is applicable to any optimistic ideas about "Mayan hypothesis" and Mayan history or your own. Well being, Inlakech. Manuel chuenquitz (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Leuren Moret
I'm taking this to AfD again. Absolutely nothing to show the subject meets GNG, and the views are very definitely fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Petitioning Jimmy Wales
May be of (mild) interest to this NB. Alexbrn talk 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What the author of the "petition" does not realize is that Jimbo does not set policy. The community as a whole does that.  Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I find the doublethink in these sorts of petitions more than a little odd. "I pledge not to donate to your fundraising efforts until these changes have been made."  In other words, "You can't have our money until you change Wikipedia to reflect our preferred version of The Truth"...which, incidentally, is very hard to distinguish in principle from the bribe-taking so many fringe believers accuse us of with respect to Big Pharma. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Appeals for a change in policy accompanied by financial inducements are likely to be treated with the contempt they deserve. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * These butthurt natureopaths, accupuncturists and merchants of woo-woo should just fork all of wikipedia and make their own site where they can preach their holistic gospel entirely unmolested by nasty sceptical type people. Failing that the TRUTHers should have a go at submitting their article to Conservapedia instead. I feel that might sufficient to educate most people as to the consequences of rampant POV editing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's always Wiki4CAM. Alexbrn talk 06:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wiki4CAM isn't going anywhere fast. bobrayner (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do a short feature for The Pod Delusion about this. I'd appreciate any comments you might have . Thanks! --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wiki4Cam went a bit further than asking skeptics not to edit articles - it got locked down completely, simply because there was no other way to ensure that edits fit the owner's perspective. That kind of lockdown is a good way to kill a wiki. There are various other alt-med sites which struggle with similar problems; it may not be helpful to focus on that one, and I'd be amazed if there weren't more forks of en.wikipedia devoted to alt-med. One well-known alt-med organisation in Europe tried operating a forum for a while, and after I got into the habit of replying to each forum post with a comment concerning evidence, they suddenly and silently took the forum offline. bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I never attempted to edit an article in Wiki4Cam, however it did occur to me that I could simply invent an utterly fictional modality and their policy would actually prevent any evidence-based challenges to my point of view. The implication is that without policies such as Wikipedia has it's impossible to build a community. The one exception may be Conservapedia which is fuelled by rage against the dang libruls who write all their software for free! --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that happened, and for some time there was an article on "Tree therapy". Alexbrn talk 06:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos
Hi everyone. I think I am on the right track at Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos but I could use a few more eyes everyone. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a WP:POVFORK of the article The Perth Group. Not sure Papadopulos-Eleopulos is notable, and the present bio looks like it's being used as a WP:COATRACK. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wondering on the same lines, but on balance because of the importance of the group in relation to South African government policy, perhaps this can stay separate. If it's to stay, it's a BLP, and would be worked up as a biography. It certainly doesn't advocate for the subject's views, well done for that, especially well done for keeping out the totally irrelevant views of Camille Paglia. It would need more on the subject's education, career and writings. For biographies, it's not so much "what does s/he think?' but "what has s/he done?". Itsmejudith (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Papadopulos-Eleopulos article isn't a POVFORK - it doesn't reflect a POV different from the Perth Group article, and it was in fact created prior to that article. That Paglia's views are irrelevant has been several times asserted, but never demonstrated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with LuckyLouie this is POVFORK about an individual who is notable only as a member of The Perth Group DUEWEIGHT is given in the article on that group. I see no substantiation of notability for Papadopulos-Eleopulos that warrants a BLP. Is there any coverage of this person that reflects importance outside of activities undertaken as a member of the denialist group? Regardless of the time of creation of the article the notability of the subject needs to be established. The importance of the group does not support the notability of the subject. A review of the content of the article shows nothing outside of the subjects activities and views as a member of The Perth Group. There is no evidence that outside of this group (and largely even within it) that this person's views and actions are notable. An uncredentialed fringe activist with a couple of publications who was rejected as a witness in a court case is not a notable subject for a WP article. This article should be tagged for deletion unless some RS' provide notablity. MrBill3 (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should actually read WP:POVFORK? "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies." That wasn't what happened here. The Papadopulos-Eleopulos article isn't a POVFORK. As for notability, Papadopulos-Eleopulos has influenced government policy in South Africa and played a role in high-profile legal cases, so it seems more than reasonable to consider her notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FORK or RACK, it's emphasizing material better suited to the main article. Someone's BLP isn't the place to to rehash the Perth Group's views on AIDS, a judge's trial ruling regarding the Perth Group, and the lack of credentials of its members. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Could somebody AfD this article please. The notability discussion seems more appropriate for AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an AfD is merited. Articles for deletion/Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos open for business. Alexbrn talk 08:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No need for AfD IMO, smerge and redirect citing WP:BLP1E (with "event" interpreted slightly creatively) was the right answer - this person is not notable other than as an advocate of the Perth Group's ridiculous AIDS-denialist bullshit; if we have an article on her we'd necessarily spend omst of it simply repeating content from the Perth group article. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

AIDS denialism in John Maddox bio
There's an unexplained passage in this bio about a 1983 article Maddox wrote which expressed some doubt about the AIDS viral hypothesis. This article seems to be a favorite of AIDS denialists looking for scientific support for their theses. I gather that Maddox's views evolved but I'm not doing so well in finding good documentation of this. Any help in fleshing out the section would be appreciated, especially someone who has access to Nature on-line. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How about these?
 * Where the AIDS Virus Hides Away: "Duesberg, having led many people with AIDS on a seductive path, should now admit the likelihood that he is mistaken."
 * Has Duesberg a right of reply? (in the context of refusing Duesberg publication space in Nature): "The truth is that a person's "right of reply" may conflict with a journal's obligations to its readers to provide them with authentic information...When he offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if possible be published - not least in the hope and expectation that his next offering will be an admission of recent error."
 * More at this Pubmed search. You can trace the evolution of his views as you go further down the list. :-)  Sunrise    (talk)  02:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the 1983 article was quote-mined, which I have fixed (I will leave the rest to others).  Sunrise    (talk)  02:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to find some material which isn't behind Nature's firewall? I could find a library around here which has the back issues but it would also be useful to have a source that was completely independent of Maddox, notwithstanding the problem that his editorials are really a primary source anyway. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't they be sufficient to describe his own views? That said, Google Books turns up this result by Nicoli Nattrass, which describes the context of some of the editorials. As above, this is mainly about Maddox's views towards Duesberg, but I think it's clear that they don't agree (e.g. "Maddox became infuriated [when Duesberg refused to accept evidence that HIV-infected blood transfusions were correlated with AIDS deaths]") TBH I think the change of viewpoint is too obvious to be stated directly - there wasn't any scientific consensus on the question when he wrote the editorial (HIV hadn't even been isolated yet), and like most everyone else his viewpoint responded to the evidence as it became available.  Sunrise    (talk)  07:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My problem with the Nature articles is their relative inaccessibility. That said, I appreciate your submission. I also note a certain consistency across his obituaries in various publications which I intend to use as a template for clean up. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be good if more of Nature's content were freely available, but it's eminently citable. The main problem is not what Maddox said but when he said it: any opinion ventured on AIDS much before the mid-80s was speculation, and the scientific community treats it as such unless subsequently confirmed. It doesn't surprise me that the Duesbergites cite this, they are scientifically ignorable even if they are a public health menace. I would say that it should be covered only in the context of the misrepresentation by AIDS denialists; on its own the comment is obiter dictum and of no real significance. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got access to Nature back to 1997 so anyone is welcome to ask me for articles regarding this. I've also asked at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request if anyone has access to the 1983 article. Gamaliel ( talk ) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Some things that seemed relevant: Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "he was also fearless in taking on what he held to be irresponsible reporting, as when he roundly defeated The Sunday Times in its espousal of a misguided and socially dangerous theory of the causation of AIDS." Walter Gratzer "John Maddox (1925–2009)"  458, 983-984 (2009) doi:10.1038/458983a
 * "He truly believed that those casting doubt on links between HIV and AIDS were scientifically pernicious, and campaigned accordingly" Philip Campbell "Maddox by his successor" 17 April 2009 | 458, 985-986 (2009) | doi:10.1038/458985a

Here is the 1983 article. Gamaliel ( talk ) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be a party-pooper, but... is that a link to copyvio? bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a temporary link to a legally obtained article shared for educational purposes.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Having looked at a bunch of obituaries they are quite consistent about the two controversies Maddox was notably involved in. Those that mention AIDS at all don't talk about this very early in the game editorial, so I'm thinking it needs to be suppressed as misleading people about how he swung around to a strong opposition to the denialists. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

T'ai chi – neutrality &amp; sourcing
Has a "Health benefits" section, which says: "Now that the majority of health studies have displayed a tangible benefit in some areas to the practice of t'ai chi ch'uan, health professionals have called for more in-depth studies". Our article says T'ai chi has beneficial health effects for various conditions including diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer's disease and ADHD.

The article also includes an enormous "lineage" chart which doesn't seem well-sourced. Alexbrn talk 05:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(Update) I have boldly replaced the entire "Health benefits" section with something sourced to an up-to-date review of reviews. Alexbrn talk 05:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (Further !update) I've reverted your bold deletion. Other people seem to find better sourcing than you did for the medical benefits. The lineage chart could be complained about as being OR or SYN, but it's actually neither, a compilation of many such published charts. Most such charts only deal with the author's teachers, their teachers, ... this chart collects many such into one chart, showing links that were unacknowledged in the individual lineage charts. htom (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There was certainly no "better sourcing ... for the medical benefits": there was however out-of-date, primary, and self-published content. We need to follow the guidance at WP:MEDRS which tells us to use the best sources for medical content so that Wikipedia does not include false health information. Your revert removed a solid, very strongly-sourced statement and re-instated a bunch of dubious material.
 * (Add) Hmmm, have we got some kind of walled garden here? These charts feature in the sub-articles too like Wu (Hao)-style t'ai chi ch'uan this one, which is almost entirely unreferenced. Alexbrn talk 06:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I built the lineage tree & I would like to ask you on what basis you deem it poorly sourced. I referred to the information present on Wikipedia, previous taijiquan lineage charts that were already present on Wikipedia, requested input from other Wikipedians, corresponded with shifus Eddie Wu, Chen Bing, Chen Xiaowang, referred to the lineage tree on the Yang family's website, among others, etc. Also, I've been looking into what code I can use here on wiki to allow me to scale down the tree and have only recently made ground in that regard, which I'm now experimenting with.
 * As for the edit on the health section. The section has been there so long, undisputed, that I feel that simply deleting it prior to proper discussion is damaging to the article & acting without proper etiquette and should be reverted until discussion has taken it's due course & consensus is reached. It has already started the beginnings of a edit war, which is upsetting to us editors that have put much time & effort trying to raise the quality of this important martial arts article. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Arriving at "a" tai chi lineage entails a certain amount of interpretation and synthesis (as was raised in Talk at the time). Are you saying you are the researcher who has formulated the chart? Isn't this a case of original research?
 * However, for the purposes of this noticeboard the chart is not the major issue. The main worry is (was) the fringey claims made about health. I don't think any editor can approve of content such as "a pilot study, which has not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, has found preliminary evidence that t'ai chi ch'uan and related qigong may reduce the severity of diabetes", among other claims about serious health conditions drawn from primary sources: this is effectively original research which is forbidden by our policies. I think the only mitigating excuse any editor might have for including it is not knowing of our medical sourcing guidelines (which I linked-to in my edit summary). Luckily we have a comprehensive "review of reviews" which is a perfect source for us, enabling to state the current state of research on the topic of tai chi and health, with great reliability. Alexbrn talk 14:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The chart was built only using available information & does not include any choices among conflicting accounts, unless they were already present in the original chart (which this new one is primarily derived from). It may not be comprehensive, however, it is not attempting to choose a particular take on the lineage & is always up for discussion & edit.
 * I don't have issue with your health argument, per se, but the manner you are going about acting out your opposition. It is simply not right to delete so much without proper discussion first . ~ InferKNOX (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What more is there to discuss? If you want to work on the chart, start a sandbox page until the submission comes to the point where it isn't obviously WP:OR and, at the very least incomplete if not entirely misleading. As it stood, the addition made medical claims that were not backed up by evidence, is all. jps (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I didn't touch the chart (not having looked at any sources), and merely attended to the medical claims. It's just I couldn't see any source for the chart mentioned, and noted some talk on the Talk page which seemed to imply constructing such a chart was a piece of original research, since in the tai chi world (of which I know nothing) the claims of people to be pupils of masters, or their status as merely a "pretender", is much disputed. But as I said, that is thankfully not really a topic for WP:FT/N ! Alexbrn talk 14:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD. User Alexbrn saw that the previous state of the health section gave undue credence to medical views of Taiji which are not currently mainstream. such is clearly described in the guidelines relating to medical research. A user does not have an obligation to discuss the change first, but in cases where it is very likely to be reverted (use your crystal ball to guess, I suppose) then it may be the most effective course of action. Most good faith efforts to improve the content of the article do not need prior approval or discuss to proceed. it is vital to the well-functioning of WP that this be the case. WP:BRD explains a lot of this idea pretty clearly. I for one believe that using the review of reviews is a better solution than the previous health section with its risky claims. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with reverting WP:BOLDness; either, it's the next step in the WP:BRD cycle. Re-reverting and then running to Fringe theories noticeboard is NOT the subsequent step, it is canvasing for support rather than discussing the change. See, for example, WP:REVEXP Take this discussion to Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan where it belongs. I see you've reverted my revert and now managed to mention that revert on the talk page, but sent the discussion here, where it does not (yet) belong. This (moving the discussion to another place which appears to be canvasing) makes it difficult for me to AGF, especially since I see you making more deletions of health references in the article. I will not be making any more changes to taijiquan (although I'll further discuss changes on that talkpage, not here), if you want an edit war, find someone else to play with. htom (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about reverting boldness, yes its part of BRD which I cite in my statement. I'm responding to "It is simply not right to delete so much without proper discussion first ". I'm saying that it is actually quite proper. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your timeline is wrong: I posted here before making any edits to the article, and did not "move" any discussion. Posting to a Noticeboard is not canavssing. On finding a strong MEDRS-compliant source on this topic the solution was clear so I went ahead and used it, and I reverted your deletion of it as a an example of a very bad content edit backed by a non-reason ("Too much removed without discussion" - see WP:DRNC). I'm not seeing anybody disagreeing with the substance of the content change (which was obviously needed IMO). Alexbrn talk 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Pushback
So anyway, has reverted the article to its old claims of "benefits" based on primary sources, self-published material and old research, while removing the 2011 review of systematic reviews on the topic. It almost seems as if making a point is more important than creating an encyclopedia with high-quality content ... Alexbrn talk 17:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Canvasing before reverting, that's an invention. Not sure it's worth keeping, as it seems to demonstrate both bad faith on the part of the user and their expectation of bad faith on the part of the other editors. I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be reliable, not aspiring to truth or scientific proof. htom (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? Posting to a Noticeboard is not canvassing. The topic is of interest to this Noticeboard (another option would be WT:MED in this instance) and it is apparent the editors of the article itself have lacked the ability to correct basic faults in medical content. "Bad faith" doesn't come into it. Alexbrn talk 18:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Having waited for seventeen minutes for a reply to your pronouncement of the discovery of a possible fringe theory on the fringe theory notice board -- without mentioning that discovery on the article's talk page -- you went ahead and boldly deleted a section and replaced it with a stub you found acceptable. Strange that you'd think to come here before being bold, it's like you knew the edit would be controversial. Then you came here to announce your boldness. Whatever the merits or lack thereof in the changes you've made, the way in which you've made them leaves something to be desired. ... it is apparent the editors of the article itself have lacked the ability to correct basic faults in medical content. "Bad faith" doesn't come into it. I'd put it that bad faith was obviously much of it. If you had asked there first ... unlike you, we can never know what those editors might have done if you'd asked there. htom (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with htom's points. I don't see how mass deletion without working with the editors concerned is "creating an encyclopedia with high-quality content". It seems antagonistic and demotivating. The fact that an apparent issue wasn't fixed, is not as much a sign of failure to fix it by editors, as it is of there being no attention brought to the matter prior. I too believe this matter should be discussed on the talk page & will do so there if I have further input. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, this simply isn't how Wikipedia works. An improvement is an improvement no matter whether it is preceding by chat. This is not a controversial change; there was some obviously crappy health content, it was replaced with something modern and reliable in accord with our guidelines, and the article improved as a result: less misleading, more succinct, better sourced. A more appropriate response would be "Gee yes, looking at WP:MEDRS that was terrible, thanks for the fix!". It may simply be the case that editors had not yet got to the most recent research as embodied by the paper I added ... when research changes, articles change to follow – there is nothing unusual about that.
 * Also there should be no separate group of (what you call) "the editors concerned" who gatekeep the article and with whom changes have to be negotiated. We are all editors or potential editors of the article. I mentioned a "walled garden" above as it does however seem to me that within the tai chi cluster of articles there is rather a lot of original research (those charts), and vast expanses of uncited text or articles which are entirely uncited (e.g. Chen Changxing, Wu (Hao)-style t'ai chi ch'uan), so "the editors concerned" have plenty of work to do ... Alexbrn talk 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Lee and Ernst is the perfect source for this section. I think it could, however, be better summarised, to reflect the actual conclusion, with an emphasis on the positive benefits. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This article clearly has an ownership problem. I made two simple wording changes in the lede, which would make the language more grammatical and readable and was told by two seperate editors that I needed to discuss changes before making them. Wherever this assumption came from, I'm here to let you know that it's fundamentally not compatible with the way wikipedia works. If you want to have control over the article then start your own wiki, it's easy. You are free to revert my edits. I hope you have some decent reasons, but you are free to revert my edits for really dumb reasons, too, but please don't tell me or anyone else that edits must be discussed first to be valid. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe material being added to Americas
See and other edits by. He's positive King Hiram came to America and insists that Americas states this as fact (we have Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact for this fringe nonsense). He's edit warring right now. Ingá Stone needs work also. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits against WP:LOCALCON at German acupuncture trials
According to this comment, it seems the article has been hijacked by a bunch of acupuncture fans.

Editors do not have consensus to keep the coat rack material. See the comments at Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials AFD. Editors noted there are problems with the article, including the problems with the WP:COATHOOK text. Therefore there is WP:LOCALCON to cleanup the article. An editor did acknowledge at the German acupuncture trials talk page that We found consensus to limit the information about the results. But the same editor restored the outdated information about the results of the trials along with the low level details that do not benefit the reader. There was consensus to limit the information about the results, but the same editor continued to restore the disputed unimportant details that are also not WP:MEDRS compliant. Recommending revert to this version. Make sure you bring food and treats because it is a 4 hour journey to the article. QuackGuru ( talk ) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I WP:BOLDly reverted the page to the 20:18, 12 December 2013 version (last stable version before before the recent machine-gun editing). This rolls back both of your recent edits. The two of you need to reach a consensus on the talk page or at WP:DR instead of this constant churning back-and-forth editing of the article. If anyone has a problem with this, I can put in a request for page protection to force everyone to stop editing the article until an agreement is reached. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You added a primary source to the lead and original research to the lead. You also added low level details about the trial itself to the lead using an outdated reference. See WP:PRIMARY. The details about the trial itself is a violation of WP:COATHOOK. For medical claims about acupuncture, readers can go to the acupuncture article. What is the specific objection for this version based on policy?  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The FJC is both secondary and a MEDRS, just as the NIH or FDA (which play a similar role) are. Just saying; we can do this at the talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I added nothing. What I did was remove all the changes that you and Mallexikon made since 20:18, 12 December 2013. Yes, we all understand that you don't like that version. That's why you made 24 edits in the next 7 days. We also all understand that Mallexikon made 18 edits in the same period, that a large percentage of your edits were undoing Mallexikon's edits, and that a large percentage of Mallexikon's edits were undoing your edits. Please don't bother arguing the merits of your preferred version. I don't care who is right. All I care about is that fact that neither of you are gong about this the right way. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR tell you what you need to do instead of what you are doing now. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But you did add something to the lead against policy and you obviously "don't care who is right". This version is closer to WP:NPOV IMO.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What part of


 * Please don't bother arguing the merits of your preferred version.


 * and


 * All I care about is that fact that neither of you are gong about this the right way. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR tell you what you need to do instead of what you are doing now.


 * are you having trouble understanding?


 * You can follow Wikipedia policies voluntarily, or we can force you to follow Wikipedia policies through page protection or through blocks, but you will follow Wikipedia policies (WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR). Are we going to do this the easy way or the hard way? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In case anyone thinks that I am being too harsh: --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Do you feel lucky?" --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy, QG is right. The article has been hijacked by acupuncturists who refuse to declare their conflict of interest in promoting their peculiar version of quackery. It's an embarrassment. That you are criticizing him is also something of an embarrassment considering he is one of the only people actually working to keep the article somewhat neutral. jps (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) So it's OK to not follow WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR if you are right? The end justifies the means? Are you sure you want to defend that position? Remember, the acupuncturists also believe they are right and will take full advantage of your implied "I am right so the rules don't apply to me" policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Have you tried to follow DR? The procedures simply don't work. As for WP:CONSENSUS, there is no evidence that QG isn't following that. He brings it up explicitly. The answer here is to support the best scholarship and actually look at content. The perception of good/bad behavior should not dictate content. jps (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What's sad, jps, is this (my comment at bottom, with the bolded remark about sham vs. verum). Follow your own advice and you'll see this isn't what you think it is.  --Middle 8 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're saying WP:DR doesn't work, and at the same time, focusing on the editor and not what the editor writes. What can I say?  WP:DR can work, somewhat, but you have to try.  AGF some.  I agree WP:DR is flawed because the whole idea of consensus among non-experts is flawed.  But your approach isn't helping matters.  At least not in topic areas where there's nuance; I guess maybe shooting from the hip with a shotgun is reasonable enough with perpetual motion interdimensional ESP machine conspiracies... --Middle 8 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the way I think we should proceed. Take any issues about editor behaviour elsewhere. Let's concentrate on what should and shouldn't be in the article. Anything that sounds remotely like a claim about the efficacy of acupuncture must meet WP:MEDRS or be compatible with what's said in sources compliant with MEDRS. However, the article isn't about the efficacy of acupuncture but about its topic: a series of experiments. Good sources for an article about a process of scientific research are normal science news outlets. They don't have to be peer-reviewed. Sources of the type of New Scientist, Times Higher Education Supplement, Nature (news sections), BBC. That's assuming that the topic is notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an additional problem with the rather contentious AfD that made things worse. Since Mark said that merging may be appropriate, perhaps we should merge? jps (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. Just because I am not a big fan of trying to make the article comply with WP:MEDRS by throwing bombs and setting things on fire, that doesn't imply that I don't think that the article needs to comply with WP:MEDRS. Following WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR is the most effective way insure that the article complies with WP:MEDRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Show me an example where this actually worked when there were four different SPAs working to skew an article away from MEDRS. jps (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Translation: "I am right and I know that WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR don't work, so clearly they don't apply to me and it is OK to edit war." Because edit warring works so well. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, edit warring doesn't work at all. The point is that DR doesn't work either. The only thing left is to ask for help from people who understand. That's what QG is doing here, I'd say. DR is empirically a waste of time. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about this, but I've simply never seen it work in any situation. jps (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You haven't been looking very hard.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_83#Macedonians_.28ethnic_group.29


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_82#Wallis_Simpson


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_81#United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_80#Directed_energy_weapons.2C_and_the_Talk_page


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_80#Harvey_Milk_and_related_articles


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_80#Republic_of_Kosovo


 * ...and those are just the ones from the last 3 months at one DR venue.


 * As In promised, I requested and was granted page protection for a week because you and others -- on both sides of the content dispute -- think that WP:TALKDONTREVERT doesn't apply to you. If the behavior continues after the protection expires I will request a series of escalating blocks for all editors who are unwilling to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean, you might pat yourself on the back for those dispute resolutions, but the fact of the matter is that what ultimately happened in each of those cases was either a punt, a discussion that could have happened anywhere, or a closing resolution that simply took sides in an edit war. So I don't see that you've actually shown that dispute resolutions work any better than, say, getting someone to help from this noticeboard. What does it matter if QG makes his request here or there? Why shouldn't I take his side (or anyone else's)? jps (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice demonstration of the No true Scotsman fallacy. Yes, it is true that DR doesn't work if you don't count the times that it does. As I mentioned, DRN is just one venue; WP:DR lists several. Perhaps you can explain to me why these examples don't count:


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem
 * Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement
 * Requests for arbitration/Scientology
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
 * Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity


 * And I haven't even mentioned the hundreds of RfCs that have successfully resolved disputes.


 * You know, even if you are convinced that DR never works, by encouraging QuackGuru to misbehave by telling him that it is OK to break the rules, you are setting him up to be blocked.


 * As for your question "Why shouldn't I take his side?", the problem is not you taking his side. As for the actual content dispute, QuackGuru is on the right side; we really should have an article based upon sound science, not a coatrack for pushing fringe science. If QuackGuru had shown any willingness at all to follow Wikipedia's community behavioral standards, I would have been the first to attempt to assist him. Alas, he has not shown any willingness at all to follow Wikipedia's community behavioral standards, and it appears that you think that's OK as long as he is right. The end does not justify the means. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So you are now referencing a number of arbitrations in which I was involved. They were all wastes of time in the sense that they do not result in meaningful progress in sorting out the disputes. What results in meaningful progress is one of two things: 1) when certain users are excluded from editing, and 2) when enough other users come to help. You seem to be under the impression that "misbehavior" is somehow the major issue. I'm not at all convinced that 1) you've actually identified consistently bad misbehavior on the part of QG in this dispute and 2) you've actually demonstrated that there is something to your approach of attacking those whom you think are misbehaving. You actually went ahead and reverted my editorial choice on that page on the basis of your dislike of QG's behavior. That is, not only do you think the ends don't justify the means, you think that we should WP:PUNISH those who you think are not upholding some arbitrary standard. I have no problem if you want to continue with normal dispute resolution processes, but I have seen the really problematic sides of these processes and they are disgusting. To argue that people spend their time trying to convince arbitrary carrot and stick holders to take their sides in a dispute (which is ultimately what all of DR comes down to) when there is such an incompetent admin corps, when we have a system that does not distinguish between good and bad content, when we have a general culture that not only doesn't defer to expertise but actively despises it, you better believe I'm not a fan of DR and will not be. The way Wikipedia functions best is through when good editors help each other. I speak from experience here, and I do not think your threats about getting people blocked are at all helpful. It's just more wikipolitics as dysfunctionally usual. jps (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted your editorial choice because your editorial choice was to engage in tag-team edit warring, and tag-team edit warring violates Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. It had nothing to do with anyone's behavior but yours. Clearly I am not going to convince you to change your behavior; Comparing this, and this pretty much says it all. I am invoking WP:IAD and withdrawing from this conversation. Feel free to have the last word; I don't plan on reading any response you might post. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Geez, Guy, don't be a dick, or sumthing.... You think that just because you've never been blocked that makes you a better Wikipedian? I guess every block, every ban, every enforcement of Wikipedia's arbitrary power structure is right and good and holy. You are indicative of what makes this place so problematic. It really should be about the content: not the behavior, not the community, and not the arbitrary bureaucracy made up by pseudonymous random internet users. As long as people like you feel justified in treating people like QG and myself poorly, I'm not confident that things can get better. You say, "Please don't bother arguing the merits of your preferred version." That's exactly the opposite of the attitude I like to see people in charge of an encyclopedia take. jps (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Read this comment. Another editor is falsely claiming I am in favor of restoring the coathook information. This kind of deception must stop.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please read it, because it's a question to QG, who is falsely portraying it as a lie. Read my reply at the talk page; I'm not advocating what some here assume.  --Middle 8 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You already know I am not in favor of restoring that text. The diffs you provided showed me deleting the text I did not support. What lead you to believe I am in favor of restoring it when I deleted it.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What I did was ask you a question: "so you're in favor of restoring X and Y?" Did you just not see the question mark?  If you didn't understand why I'd ask such a question, again: Read my reply at the talk page, or ask there for clarification.  Don't ABF and show your displeasure by accusing me of misconduct on FTN.  --Middle 8 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you really want to do the AGF thing, please strike your accusation that I lied. I've acknowledged that perhaps you simply overlooked my question mark and misread the question as a statement. --Middle 8 (talk)
 * You initially wrote: So you're saying you're in favor of restoring/including this and ?
 * Most editors know I am not in favor of restoring the coathook text. I thought I made it clear I'm not in favor of restoring the text I deleted.
 * On another talk page you wrote something that I do not understand. Maybe you can explain a bit more about it at the talk page for me to understand.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking your comment. On your question, that's better discussed at said talk page, but what you say above happens to be an excellent example:  it's very frustrating when you repeat yourself (i.e. "editors know I am not in favor of restoring...") so often.  It's as if you didn't hear me when I said -- and will say now FOR THE THIRD TIME -- Read my reply at Talk:GERAC.  Don't you get how this is frustrating and disruptive?  It's classic and over-the-top WP:IDHT.  It's also IDHT when you assert there's consensus when there plainly isn't.  Please take my and others' comments (e.g. at the very end here, and Guy Macon's below) to heart. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Reiterate that there is WP:CON

 * An editor did acknowledge at the German acupuncture trials talk page that there is consensus to limit the results of the trials: "We found consensus to limit the information about the results; however, QG opposes this consensus as well.".


 * The same editor said: "I personally think the great thing about WP in contrast to other encyclopaedias is that we can include more material... However, I so understand your and Bluerasberry's concerns, and I see that there is consensus forming to not include this material. So if you'd rather delete it, that's also fine with me."

I am not opposed to limiting the information about the individual trials. The same editor who admitted there is consensus to limit the results of the trials also admitted there is consensus to delete the technical details about the set-up of the trials. This is the same editor who continues to restore the information against consensus. I am in favor of the current version without the coathook information. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you and Mallexikon are both OK with the version suggested by Blue Rasberry, I suggest that you both step back and allow Blue Rasberry to edit the article. See Edit requests for the proper procedure. Given the recent history of edit warring leading to the page being protected, it would be a good idea to ask all of the major participants to endorse the edit request. That makes it easy for the admin to evaluate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Bluerasberry wanted a summary rather than keeping the technical details of the set-up. I did make a change to the article. See: The trials were conducted using sham acupuncture.[13] Other editors have not commented on my specific change, however.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would consider reverting your change and shouting at you in the edit summary to be making a rather strong comment. Clearly that editor did not agree that there was a consensus for your change, and the very first thing you wrote when you opened up this noticeboard report ("it seems the article has been hijacked by a bunch of acupuncture fans") tells me that you don't believe that there is a consensus among the editors of the page supporting your preferred version either. Nor is it valid to point to Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials and claim that AfD demonstrates a community consensus on a wider scale as described at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. First, the result was "No Consensus", and second, the question asked was whether the article should be deleted, not whether there is a consensus for your preferred version. You need to do more than saying "there is WP:CON" or "editing against WP:LOCALCON" over and over. You have to supply some sort of evidence that the claim is true. I suspect that your claim is true, but I have seen no actual proof of consensus, and if I were an acupuncture advocate (which I am not; you can look at my history of participation on this board and see that I have consistently supported mainstream science and mainstream medical opinion, not fringe science or alternative medicine) I would want proof.


 * WP:CON and WP:DR lay out the steps you have to take to show that there is a consensus for your preferred version. First, you try on the article talk page (NOT through repeated reverts) to find a version everyone can live with. This does not involve you claiming that they agree; they have to say it. If you cannot reach agreement and you believe that the larger community will support your preferred version (not unlikely, BTW; acupuncture articles attract acupuncture fans and acupuncture opponents, whereas the larger community is likely to have a more neutral POV), then post an RfC. Once you get those magic words where an uninvolved closing admin rules on what the consensus is, everybody need to accept it or be blocked for refusing to follow consensus. Wikipedia's DR system really does work if you give it a chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors at Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials noticed there were serious problems with the article, including the coatrack text. Those comments at the AFD should not be ignored. User:Jmh649 and other editors were against the coatrack text. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no local consensus. Just a handful of editors -- me, Mallexikon, QuackGuru, Alexbrn (off and on), Bluerasberry and MrBill3 (off and on) -- trying to work it out. What's really ironic, and sad, is that a lot of editors are misreading this article and focusing on who's commenting at the expense of what's being said. I'm advocating that we educate readers that this was the first well-designed experiment showing that sham acu to be the same as verum, so I'd like some experimental details to be included, so science-literate readers can satisfy themselves that it was well-designed. See my comments. This isn't an alt-med coatrack; it's an interesting experiment documenting the evolution of scientific opinion about acupuncture, and not in the direction acupuncture proponents would like. There's no need for this discussion to have forked here, although we could use more eyes, attentive ones preferably. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I took a short break over the holidays... I'm a little surprised to find the whole thing boiling over just now... I thought we were making some headway with the help of  Blue Rasberry  ...? Probably it just needs some patience on the side of everybody involved. Thanks, Guy Macon for steadfastly defending WP:DR. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What headway are you talking about? You disagreed with User:Bluerasberry but said there is a consensus forming to not include this material. You also said that "We found consensus to limit the information about the results..."  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you have proven yourself to be spectacularly bad at determining what the consensus is and is not. Again, I suggest an RfC so that there is no doubt. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sati
Edit-warring on this page, and what looks to me very like an attempt to push a Hindutva pseudohistorical view, diametrically misrepresenting an academic source. Sockpuppetry allegations being made. More eyes would be very welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Judith, that is a dab page, are you sure you got that right? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Sati (practice). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really a isolated propaganda like you are treating, you can search around yourself, there's no denial. :::http://books.google.com/books?id=JlgAkHqGyMoC&pg=PA9&dq=sati+islamic+invasion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FwXEUp7bNoG5iQeUhoHoDA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sati%20islamic%20invasion%20rape&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=9mvzKWt50JsC&pg=PA358&dq=
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=Mr_eYjoVjz8C&pg=PA253&dq=sati#v=onepage&q=sati&f=false
 * Page 54 of http://books.google.com/books?id=IzrkAAAAMAAJ
 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ubBPAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&dq=sati
 * There's no source which has denied this information to be either "False" or "pseudohistorical". OccultZone (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theories or Legit/reliable information
Main topic: Pantheism and Shintoism, Dispute:- Talk:Pantheism Considering that there are many sources, regarding the known connection of Pantheism and Shinto. I want to know, if any of these sources are reliable, or legible. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - "very much on the plural for it is a polytheistic and pantheistic belief".."Shinto refers to an assortment of beliefs and practices that are pantheistic in nature"..
 * -"Shintoism combined a pantheistic worship of nature with deification of the emperor, who was the living kami",
 * -"It stands to reason that pantheism should have a more powerful attraction for the Shinto of the future than monotheism",
 * -"As we have just seen, although the animistic polytheism of original Shintō evolves into naturalistic pantheism..",
 * -"I conclude that the religion we need to embrace now is pantheism, as exemplified in Shinto,...",
 * -"All of nature is animated by the kami—including things such as rocks, trees, or streams—making Shinto a combination of polytheism and pantheism..."


 * I'm not sure why you are asking here or at WP:RSN but you haven't given enough information. Eg, publisher. Taking just the last one, Paul Garden is general editor of his publisher, Rose Publishing so it's effectively self-published, making the issue who is Carden (see also and why should we use him as an expert. The answer I think you would get at RSN is no. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN is solely based on confirming whether the source is reliable or not.. But here, the sources are not really unreliable, at least few of them, its just about whether the information is correct or incorrect from these sources. The pointed facts are quoted as well. Out of 6 sources, how many seems to be correct, according to you. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, RSN editors will comment on whether a source is reliable for a particular statement. Do you want me to copy your post there? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Urantia Book
Edit warrior adding OR at. Not the first time either. I gave him a 3RR warning after he hit 4 (missed the 3rd revert). Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

When is a myth not a myth
Creationist advocacy has prevented the article on the creation myth in genesis from being named a creation myth in the article title for years. I would like to remedy that:

Talk:Genesis creation narrative.

Your input would be appreciated, especially considering that there are likely to be creationist advocates who will show up to complain.

jps (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * More evidence that this is a canvassing board where neutral language is not at all required. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Presenting yourself as a supporter of neutrality here is very dishonest. You want us to say Christianity is true because it has a lot of followers. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't spin doctor my argument to suit your purpose, AKA strawman. I do NOT want us to say "Christianity is true" nor have I ever implied such, not even once. Get a grip, man. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Treat ALL religions equally. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ..And while you are at it, treat all adherents of a religion equally. Including the majority of Christians, who don't believe Genesis to be literally true... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's purely your polemical assertion about what the majority of Christians supposedly believe according to you! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Data for Americans. . AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Literal" and "inspired word" are essentially the same thing. Both end up with the same major beliefs. Christians who believe either would accept the creation story. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you always want to focus exclusively in Americans? What percentage of El Salvadoreans?  Ethiopians?  Regardless, we can assume it is sufficient to qualify for SPOV purposes as a "widespread belief system" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I wanted to focus exclusively on Americans - and I've made it clear elsewhere that I consider the Wikipedia tendency to treat the U.S. as the 'default' is one of the worst symptoms of systematic bias on Wikipedia. I provided the data in question, however, to demonstrate that I wasn't making a 'polemical assertion' - it was based on evidence. And of course, the U.S. has by far the largest number of people professing to be Christians of any nation in the world. The next largest (according to our Christianity by country article, are Brazil and Mexico - both (like El Salvador for that matter) overwhelmingly Catholic. The Catholic Church certainly no longer holds to any doctrine regarding the literal truth of Genesis. Not that it matters, ultimately. The number of people holding a belief system has no relevance to encyclopedic description of the belief system - and accordingly, we should use the same terminology regardless of whether two thousand people or two hundred million people hold it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

In Creation myth we say: "By far the most well-known creation myth is the Genesis creation narrative." (Really?) Alexbrn talk 05:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When is a myth not a myth? When people believe in it, obviously. We're up against something of a hard place (and it's reflected in the discussion) that tagging this sort of religious explanation a "myth" carries along a pejorative connotation (which I imagine was always intended). I'm not getting involved, but I don't think there's going to be a satisfactory solution; either the skeptical or the believer POV is going to win, but we won't end up with neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't matter what people believe. Many if not a majority of people believe that seasons are caused by the Earth getting nearer and closer to the Sun. That doesn't and shouldn't affect what we do in Wikipedia, right? There is no "skeptical POV" here. There is only the fact that the most reliable sources identify the creation myth in Genesis as -- wait for it -- a creation myth. It's not surprising at all. jps (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * jps, "citation needed" on your statistics, as they say. But at any rate the obvious problem that any adherent can point out is that those "reliable sources" come from the implicit position that Judaeo-Christian claims about divine creation are untrue in any sense; I wouldn't be the first person to point out that this enables the use of "myth". I can't say I'm all that keen on the current title but anyone can see the lack of neutrality. Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We should go with what the best scholarship says. Scholarship being contemporary writing from the appropriate disciplines: theology, social/cultural anthropology, philosophy. I'm seeing quite a lot of work that uses "myth" as a neutral technical term. There is the argument that "myth" is orally transmitted whereas Genesis is a written account. We have to take that seriously, but it's also well established that an orally transmitted tradition lies behind the written Genesis accounts. The other serious argument is that "narrative" is both neutral and accurate. So I am for "myth", but only weakly. Arguments that are irrelevant include whether Christian editors or readers will be upset, and whether we need to strike a blow for Science. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If there were a better name for it, I would be in favor of that name. It is the creation myth in Genesis. Some have suggested Genesis creation story, but it's obviously more than a story as it is more than a narrative. I also don't get the argument that a myth has to be an oral tradition. Certainly it has to be based on an oral tradition, but just because it is written down, that doesn't mean the myth becomes somehow something else. One source argues that the literary style isn't similar to other myths in the sense that the dramatic tension isn't there. (I don't think that there is an established claim that myths to be myths must have dramatic tension, but in the case of literary analysis almost anything goes if you are established enough.) This source claims we should call it a "report". That's a pretty weird minority view, but I don't see it as being strong enough to argue against calling the title what it is. The problem is that most of the arguments on the page are swirling around whether the term "myth" is biased or non-neutral. These are bogus arguments that prevent really informed discussion from happening as what is occurring here (after Til left the scene). jps (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Mangoe Yes, that is what the adherents will object, but sources don't make any implicit assumptions about whether the facticity of the events recounted in the myth or true or not, they just characterize the form of human cultural production as "myth".
 * I think that many people supporting the change to "myth" do so on the grounds that the argument that there are more current adherents to Christianity than any other religion that has a creation myth that Christians get to call their creation myth a narrative, implying that there is more historical validity to its content due to its currency among believers; hence, whichever religion has the most believers wins the battle for the truth of their stories, etc. Historic truth thus becomes the providence of the victors on the battlefield of religion (to wax poetic). In fact, that is probably close to the actual status of humanity at present, lamentable though some of us may find it. I'm reminded of the saying "history is written by the victors".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"*B. A late comment on Zeus and God, mythology and religion: God = Zeus; according to some and at least but not necessarily when understood as a god. Even using expressions like God vs/XOR Zeus shows an inherent bias. Abrahamic religion from a non abrahamic perspective is or could be considered equal to mythology, at least if the reverse is considered acceptable to be said. So just like spinning philosophical/scientific concepts (A) to support religious paranormal untestable claims is absurd, it's also absurd to invoke religious persecution and bias against one's own religion when one is denying respect, plausibility etc to the religion of other people(which in this case was a propos practically eradicated through every means possible by the family of religions of the accuser of his or similar views being a victim of religious or atheistic persecution/bias against), claiming unique existence and credibility of one's own supposedly only true/real god and religion. P.S.Personal Note: In fact when things like interpretatio graeca are considered, i.e. when considering that the followers of Zeus (et al) didn't make such unique exclusive absolutist claims against the (various) followers of Jehovah (formerly in the company of Asherah et al), it's very very sad to some people that the Hellenes and the Hellenists lost (lost meant as at least to some degree), at the Maccabean period or later... ;-)"
 * Thanatos at, quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Specific Carbohydrate Diet
A restrictive diet promoted as useful for a number of conditions including autism and Crohn's Disease. The article has seen a bit of activity lately with questions of balance and neutrality being aired. May need more eyes ... Alexbrn talk 14:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (Update) I modify my final statement. The article does need more eyes. Alexbrn talk 19:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see evidence of notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of references in scholarly literature, mostly saying "it hasn't been checked out" or "we don't think it works." Mangoe (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits at Traditional Chinese medicine
Numerous outdated non-notable sources are being dumped inside the reference section for no good reason. QuackGuru ( talk ) 06:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how we're going to be able to referee an expertise battle on this. OTOH listing these as "references" is obviously wrong given that they aren't used as such. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of the references inside the reference section are the same as the references in the body of the article. But some of the references in the body are not formatted correctly. Now I am going to have to format the citations in the body of the article to verify the text.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, QuackGuru is trying to remove long-standing sources, in bulk, without consensus. A lot of these are actually cited in the article (e.g. as "Smith 1985, p.7"), so removing them is destructive. . Some of them are of very high quality. I'm sure the refs can be trimmed, but this is over the top.

QuackGuru is approaching TCM topics the wrong way: making changes without consensus, asserting there is consensus (or otherwise IDHT-ing and misrepresenting the situation), and running here prematurely. I know QG is respected for his work in other fringe areas, but Chinese medicine is a mix of fringe and legit science (e.g. ) and he doesn't grok the nuance, and is a disruptive influence. It's too bad that some editors support him reflexively. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The mass WP:EL violation and other disputed text has been restored. See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine for the current discussion. QuackGuru ( talk ) 01:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Calm down; you'll probably like the current version . None of this would have happened had both sides AGF'd more and been clearer about specifically what was going on.  --Middle 8 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We need more outside editors to review the situation.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued problems at Traditional Chinese medicine
Another editor identified the OR/SYN with some of the text. For starters, the part about the "heart-clearing" is SYN. There is also a bigger problem. The new section about Drug discoveries is a WP:WEIGHT violation. I explained on the talk page, I moved only the sourced text that is not about efficacy to other articles. I do not see a reason to have this section with all the low level details. The text about efficacy should stay but it should be merged back into the efficacy section IMO. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Research to develop antimalarial drugs led to the discovery artemisinin, which is extracted from Artemisia annua,[111] a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category.[112]"

"a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category.[112]" is a SYN violation. This was previously explained on the talk page. QuackGuru ( talk ) 00:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"After reading the ancient Chinese medical description, “take one bunch of Qinghao, soak in two sheng (∼0.4 liters) of water, wring it out to obtain the juice and ingest it in its entirety” in The Handbook of Prescriptions for Emergency Treatments by Ge Hong (283–343 CE) during the Jin Dynasty, she realized that traditional methods of boiling and high-temperature extraction could damage the active ingredient. Indeed, a much better extract was obtained after switching from ethanol to ether extraction at lower temperature."

The current text at Traditional Chinese medicine is misleading. Scientists are moving away from traditional methods. The drug is not a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category. QuackGuru ( talk ) 01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: After I neutrally written the text according to what the source said it got deleted. The main point from the source was whitewashed. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The place to discuss this, and much else that you've been posting here, is the article talk page.
 * You're misreading the source. More at talk page, this section.
 * You're too caught up in the "TCM ROX!"/"TCM SUX!" divide. --Middle 8 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Foo fighters
"The device, operated by special SS units, supposedly resembled a tortoise shell in shape, and flew by means of gas jets that spun like a Catherine wheel around the fuselage". Alexbrn talk 20:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's amusing, but if somebody actually managed to get that published, I don't mind it being in the article - as long as it's framed appropriately as Vesco's idea (OK so far) and given due weight (maybe needs trimming).
 * More generally, I think the article needs rebalancing, but it does already have some coverage of the skeptical position. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Vesco's "theory" gets a bit too much space ... Alexbrn talk 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Dubious text of the month
Articles for deletion/Gospel According to Seneca needs attention. I'm not finding evidence for this supposed heterodox scripture. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Klee Irwin: medical quackmeister or mild-mannered businessman?
Articles for deletion/Klee Irwin (3rd nomination) is up after a complete strip-out of negative material. In fact as you can see he has been hit with cease-and-desists from the FDA and local district attorney, as well as some SEC action. Scam watch blog posts on his enterprises abound. Personally I would like to save the article, but it actually has to tell the truth about him, which may be hard to source. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Mary S. Sherman
An editor is insisting that one third of the article text be devoted to fringe conspiracy theories that one of his own sources says there is "no solid evidence" supporting them. Attempts to truncate this section per WP:UNDUE and add a further reliable source disputing these theories are being reverted. Gamaliel ( talk ) 00:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The conspiracy stuff, if notable, needs to go in its own section rather than be sprinkled throughout the article, e.g. Jim Garrison's comments in a Playboy interview are not a reliable source of fact regarding Sherman's death. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Biocentric universe and Robert Lanza


I came across this little area of quantum woo on Sixty Symbols. I'd like some help in trying to contextualize, sanitize, and organize these two related articles. I'm not even sure the first one deserves an article, so work away and see what you think.

jps (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this is an idea which applies to art ?!? jps (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please review all prior discussions on the Biocentric universe, from the long RFC to do with the page title to various past edit wars, so that you are fully up to speed on the high number of hours that editors have already spent on this. It would be best to avoid repeating any work already done. See especially Archive 1 of the Biocentric universe talk page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Where was it discussed that this idea has anything to do with art? jps (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your comment on the need for a page for Biocentric universe and the neutrality of its current format--I'd like to ensure all people new to the page are aware of the lengthy process that has already taken place in terms of weighing the facts and opinions on the page. Not that fresh eyes on any entry aren't welcome. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * See my arguments upon why Lanza should not be regarded as an authority on physics at Talk:Robert Lanza. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to be ongoing ownership problems here. Lanza ought to be identified at least as a maverick if not an outright crank. How to do this with respect to WP:FRINGEBLP is the issue. Help would be welcome. Currently, there is a lot of pushback from people who want to argue that SixtySymbols isn't reliable even though this is basically the only place I've seen a quantum physicist comment on Lanza's rather, um, out there proposals that relate to quantum physics. jps (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists who disagree with science
Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy.

This list is an embarrassment. Obviously a knock-off of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which also deserves deleting.

jps (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the article should be deleted. Good luck if you want to delete the list of scientists opposing global warming. I fought hammer and tongs to get long quotes removed, which I see now has happened. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A trend has started: Articles for deletion/List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS. jps (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this trend with lists. If it is important enough that controversy about a particular subject is included, then it should be in prose, in the main article (or split off). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect that it is simply that it is easier to compose a list than to write a proper article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming now at AFD, pure OR and a BLP vio to boot. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely the key question is whether it is a list of those "opposing science" or of those critical of the mainstream view. Science will often have the latter type of scientist, fortunately as that is how science advances.  While the main Wikipedia articles should reflect the mainstream view, it is relevant and interesting to have such lists of critics on important topics. cwmacdougall 11:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between being critical and being in opposition to. For instance, on the talk page I provided a source from a BLP who in his own words said "For the most part I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations", however as this list is on fact, as was stated "about denial" it does not matter, as he has made statements which disagree with the OR "criteria inclusion" he gets bunged into a list. The entire this is OR and a BLP violation, you cannot make up an inclusion criteria, that is OR, and then decide which BLP gets bunged in there. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Help at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming would be appreciated. I proposed that the inclusion criteria be made a bit stricter, but other ideas would be welcome too. jps (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Slavic Vedism
This article is a mess and is up for AfD. Of particular concern is to us the section about Hindu idols supposedly found in Russia. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm getting pushback about removing the fringe material from this. I'm on the edge about deletion; I'm inclined toward it slightly because it's not that clear that there are outside sources about the modern movements, and it's too difficult to pick through the Russian sources to work out which ones represent genuine media reporting. There are a bunch of Indian media reports cited which are obviously crap. But the "see, there were Hindus in ancient Russia too" and "see, all religions are the same" stuff is, in my evaluation, junk. If I could get a couple of other people to check this out I would be very grateful. Mangoe (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sleep-learning
I added the category "pseudoscience" to Sleep-learning, we have the article Sleep and learning for any scientific information on any correlated activity between the two brain functions. Does anyone disagree? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A merge wouldn't be out of place. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The science one is about getting enough sleep to cement what you learned the previous day and having enough sleep to be alert to learn the following day. The pseudoscience is about learning new facts while you are asleep. If we keep them apart the "pseudo" tag will be correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that pseudoscience. I would call it dubious science, but there are people working on it who are using the scientific method in a correct way.  It isn't as if learning during sleep would be a miracle or anything -- there is plenty of organized brain activity during sleep. Looie496 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see a merger working, so that the article on Sleep and learning carries the following: the research showing that sleep is useful for alertness, thus for learning the following day; some research into how memories may be sifted and sorted during sleep (if we have good sources - I hope we do because it's interesting); how there was a notion from the 1920s that sleep was like hypnosis and people would pick up suggestions played to them; how that notion was completely discredited; how the sleep-learning notion was transmitted into literature. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a fan of the merger idea. The Sleep and learning article covers the scientific information and Sleep-learning covers a pseudoscienctific belief. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab
Thoughts on this please, ladies + gents.

No independent references as fas as I can tell. only papers are in notorious pseudojournal/unreliable source Journal of Consciousness Studies. AFD? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is pure puffery. A former PEAR staff member named Brenda Dunne subjected the article to an intense POV push, but even if the article is reverted to its previous state it still contains little to nothing of encyclopedic value.  76.107.171.90 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is still predominantly puffery, despite the edits that I and others did some time back, which were admittedly rather tame. PEAR is, however, a curious artifact in the history of science and probably deserves to be retained in WP in some form. Perhaps the best approach would be to eliminate all the self-promotion and unreliable material, then see what's left. If it's inadequate as a standalone entry, we can merge what remains into the Robert Jahn page, and redirect PEAR there.
 * Much of the lab's early experimental work is described in a 1982 IEEE-invited paper by Robert Jahn. Here's the info: Jahn, R.J., "The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective", Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 136-170, February 1982. This paper provides some broader insights into the overall field, but it has not yet been included in either the PEAR or Jahn pages.
 * (BTW, most of the existing references for the PEAR entry are not from the above-mentioned Journal of Consciousness Studies, which is a fairly respected academic forum. They're from the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is indeed quite unreliable and unindexed; probably all but one of them should be eliminated.) Cheers!  jxm (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

‪Noah and Abraham‬
According to our Wikipedia infobox, Noah lived to be 950. And I'm not sure what the parenthetical "Biblical dating" means. I have tried to clean this up, but have been reverted a couple of times by someone who feels that the info is properly sourced (to the Bible). LuckyLouie (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Found the same issue at Abraham. jps (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be in infoboxes, should say in the text that the Bible says so. Itsmejudith (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory
A favorite fringe subject forked off by an editor who seems to have a POV problem, judging from the fuss he kicked up at Ashkenazi Jews. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's pretty clear from the course of the discussion that this is going to survive, so those of you who are keeping an eye on this may need to adjust your watchlists accordingly. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a notable theory, and the editor in question only has a "POV problem" in the minds of some pretty entrenched POV warriors. Paul B (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I was beginning to suspect that was the case; I'm aware of the controversy but hadn't read through things to see where the article came out. If people think the current article content is OK then I think we're done and just have to make sure that main Khazar article doesn't pick up a forked bad version. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Gentech Pharmaceutical
Not sure whether this belongs here or not. Gentech Pharmaceutical appears to my research to be a company that markets pharmaceuticals that have never been described in peer-reviewed publications, which would place their product as a fringe medicine. Whether or not what they're selling is snake oil, I couldn't tell you, but as they've never published any research that suggests otherwise, I think we need to assume that it is. Their home page is of course replete with unsubstantiated claims about their products (the main one is apparently "widely regarded as the most advanced and effective Synthetic Amphetamine", although they don't ever tell you by whom, or indeed define what "synthetic amphetamine" actually means). 87.112.96.96 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or does Gentech sound confusingly similar to Genentech? I added a disambiguation hatnote. And what does ""Affiliated Organizations" mean? I suspect that it means that LA Fitness ordered some product to sell in their internal store.  --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I and another editor took a pass at cleaning it up. They actually have generated enough controversy that they probably are notable, but an editor with a declared COI wrote much of the article and it shows. Their product is legally classified as dietary supplements; not really fringe theory just reminiscent of a patent medicine. VQuakr (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sonic weapon
Begins "Sonic and ultrasonic weapons (USW) are weapons of various types that use sound to injure, incapacitate, or kill an opponent." The article contains a couple of instances devices used as a deterrent (e.g. a burglar alarm, or opera on the subway to deter teenagers), but the key claims about weaponry seem unsourced - the UK report cited in a section entitled "Demonstrated infrasonic weapon" refers scornfully to the "'mythological" phase" of speculation about infrasound. Alexbrn talk 07:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (Add) Relatedly: Infrasound, particularly Infrasound. Alexbrn talk 07:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Low frequency sound is a real concept and has been investigated and deployed as a less-lethal weapon. Obviously any dubious, poorly cited material should be tagged or removed though. The Infrasound ghost sightings section is about debunking a ghost theory and doesn't seem fringe to me. VQuakr (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the infrasound/ghost thing looks okay on closer inspection. But sonic weapons ... ? Are they a thing? Alexbrn talk 07:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weirder things have been deployed. I haven't fact checked every sentence in the article, but yes, the concept exists and has been prototyped, or less reliably here. VQuakr (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I heard there was a conference on it in Geneva, back in the mid 1950s. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Blistering barnacles! Alexbrn talk 15:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis
AAH is well-established fringe but persistent advocates are setting the standards on the talk page referring to "talk page consensus" (as far as I can tell) within the tiny group that are advocating it (everyone else gave up). The most arrogant and persistent advocate was reported on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#User:CEngelbrecht_making_false_accusations_of_.27vandalism.27_and_sockpuppetry. ANI] without success. I've reported AAH before and last time that page got chopped to pieces. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is irrelevant.  - have you warned the participants about discreitonary sanctions in WP:ARB/PS?  If not, please do so.  SPAs should be easily banned. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't warn anyone and I guess this means that I gave up AAH. I'll remove the page from my watchlist (like everyone else did). --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. Alexbrn talk 20:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, Fama, for cryng out loud, I'm not interested in bullying any one with valid points out of editing this article, just because I happen to support this idea. I've experienced too much bullying on this topic myself. What I've rebelled against is a long history of misinformation and distortion about AAH, on Wiki and elsewhere. I only wish to see a proper encyclopedic entry about this complex, and aparently divisive, topic. I don't see that as being arrogant, albeit perhaps I'm a tad paranoid at times. If you have valid points in terms of POV-phrasings or neutrality, let's just deal with that, especially if you're right. Just don't fall into a category of expecting ridicule of a misrepresented topic, and then frown on otherwise non-POV phrasings, that wouldn't support that. I'm not against representing the opposition to AAH (or though it's difficult for me to see what the hell it is at times), or for over-representing pro-AAH arguments where invalid. Especially if the hypothesis is so bloody wrong. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Owing to this extremely problematic comment, I have notified of discretionary sanctions that are in effect at aquatic ape hypothesis. Further disruption should be referred to WP:AE with reference to this notification. jps (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh? How in the hell is the above problematic?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:ADVOCACY. jps (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There were some image problems on that page. Please remind people that images should only be used when they can be directly connected to the content. A swimming baby is not an appropriate image at all for such an article. jps (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:NORN. jps (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
A false equivalency between global warming denialism and climate science was being asserted by using unreliable sources in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:PARITY, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. Please watch out.

jps (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And of course this is an area under discretionary sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin
Could use a few more eyes. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Historical2013" (whose account was created in 2013) is most likely a returned "History2007" (whose account was created in 2007). History2007 left of his own accord and had his user material blanked. He appears in edit histories as "VanishedUserABC". Paul B (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's very plausible, actually; the editing style is very different. Mangoe (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree now that I've looked at the contributions in more detail. "History2007" was quite keen on the T of S, but the new editor may be mimicking the name, which suggests s/he isn't very new at all. Paul B (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Artificial gills (human)‎
This article survived a November 2013 deletion attempt but I have my doubts about that. I deleted an initial section promoting one specific device but the whole thing strikes me as a stew of OR and promotion; it seems to lurch back and forth between "here's a new device" and "here's why the idea will never work." Googling seems to show that this is a ''Pop. Sci.'' perennial with a long string of new "breakthrough" devices that vanish as soon as they are introduced; it's not quite the cold fusion of diving but the material as a fringey feel to me. Any suggestions? I almost started another deletion discussion but gave that up, and I don't know that I could get away with an accurate stubbing. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Spirit possession
The article Spirit possession is loaded with statements made as if they are factual when the whole subject is fringe. There is a section on Islam that is glaring POV and cites only religious texts. There is a list of fringe books in the article and the titles of the authors are cited and listed. If someone wants to wade into this there is a salvageable article in there. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't find a citation for the claim that demons can posses a person (not that I actually looked for one), but I have indisputable photographic evidence that a person can posses a demon here. I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I dunno - there's plenty of evidence in that link that those people worship their Demons and are decidedly more fanatical than reason would suggest! SteveBaker (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll ask User: John Carter to take a look, as he has the most experience with religion-related articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Gynostemma pentaphyllum
So very many claims. According to this article, it can treat your cancer, cure Parkinson's, help with diabetes, fix your high blood pressure, and lower your cholesterol. Source: Low-quality Chinese in vitro and mouse studies, mainly. 86.129.152.82 (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Robin Heath
Described as "a British historian, astronomer, archaeoastronomer, astro-archaeologist and author", he actually seems to have an academic career teaching Mathematics and Engineering which he left to become an author and astrologist. He has no qualifications in history, astronomy, archaeology, etc although he writes about the subject. His website says he "teaches astronomy at an Oxford University FAS summer school but our article on the FAS Faculty of Astrological Studies doesn't suggest it is part of the university - they simply use Oxford University facilities, eg Exeter College, to hold their summer school, so that's a bit economical with the truth. Since I've just reverted an edit by his brother, I'd like other eyes so it doesn't look personal. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking through some of the web pages listed in the Robin Heath article, I found several fringe historical interpretations. The real giveaway, however,was Heath's assertion that "Archaeologists have in general closed their minds to this approach to prehistoric sites." This both ignores the publication of reliable archaeoastronomical studies in the mainstream archaeological literature and smacks of the common claim of fringe scholarship that the mainstream ignore my interpretations.
 * The article itself falls under the problem of Wikipedia:Notability, and seems a reasonable candidate for an AfD. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly not an astronomer, historian, archaeoastronomer, or astro-archaologist. I also cannot find any independent sources and think that deletion may be in order. jps (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

BlackLight Power
There's a lot of editing currently on BlackLight Power. I don't have the time to check all the changes. The article has just come out of a three day protection. Bhny (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again?
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 33
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 32
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 16
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 22
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive191
 * Reference desk archive/Science/February 1-7 2006
 * Articles for deletion/Scalar field theory (pseudoscience)
 * ARBCOM user notification #1
 * ARBCOM user notification #2
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Helios
I'd appreciate input on the Alexander Helios page. I'm the (previously) anonymous editor who removed a small section from that page, which has been reinstated by user Til_Eulenspiegel. The relevant section alleged that Helios, who was born in 40 BC as the son of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, may have sailed to the US state of Illinois where he "ruled over a secret colony" and left artifacts in a cave.

This claim has two citations: 1) an episode of America Unearthed, a mystery investigation show on cable TV, and 2) an article in the peer-reviewed journal Public Archaeology. A peer-reviewed article might be a decent source, but in fact the abstract seems to indicate that the article is only a discussion of mainstream archaeology's dismissal of these Illinois claims, and not a source backing the claims themselves.

I removed this section, writing: ''An episode of a cable TV mystery investigation show is not a reliable source. The Illinois cave thing is a textbook fringe theory. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. The user Til_Eulenspiegel reinstated the section, writing: Undid revision 591083228 by 174.70.43.85 (talk) rvv anonymous editor removing cited information basically because they disagree with it and DONTLIKEIT''

I don't often edit on Wikipedia, and don't know the procedure for handing these issues. I look to the community for advice. Thank you. IbisNext (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if the rebuttal is a legitimate academic rebuttal, the claim it is rebutting is so fringe it should not be given any light of day in the article to begin with. I have removed it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "so fringe it should not be given any light of day in the article" -- Just how exactly do you arrive at these determinations??? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, are any credible archaeologists supporting the theory? -- Neil N  talk to me  20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * by the fact that it is complete and utter nonsense for starters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Trpod, That would be a subjective pov of yours since clearly some people disagree, including A&E Networks. NeilN, no, that is what makes it fringe, but my understanding of wp:fringe is that this was correctly covered without undue weight as being of relevance to the article topic Alexander Helios. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO - reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. A&E sent their reputation out the window long ago. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A bit about Til's "reliable source". And the specific episode. Garbage reality TV. -- Neil N  talk to me  20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe that this really is a theory, check out one of the main sources, the appropriately named Alexanderhelios.com, which not only demonstrates that this is a theory but that there are hundreds of photographed artifacts with inscriptions. Many (perhaps not all) say it is a hoax, but if so it is a genuine hoax and of enough relevance to an article about the historical Alexander Helios for a brief mention in line with WP:FRINGE such as we had.  If this is such blatant hogwash, I don't see what there is to fear from letting more finding out about its existence here, since otherwise they will elsewhere anyway. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you ever thought about a career as a stand up? HIL-arious! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where would that response fit in on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement I wonder? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * on the scale point: "the proposition is too ridiculous to merit a serious response" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
 * From the link, "Harry Hubbard, is co-owner of Alexander Helios (formerly called Ptolemy Productions), an organization set up in the 1990s to financially exploit the Burrows Cave “mystery” (and that of competing nearby caves) across a series of media properties, including books, DVDs, on-demand video, etc., in which Hubbard claims that Alexander Helios, son of Cleopatra VII, brought Egyptian treasure to Illinois. He also the body of Alexander the Great rests in the caves. This financial conflict of interest really ought to have been disclosed since Hubbard stands to gain massively from national television exposure. But don’t take my word for it. Alexander Helios put out a press release directing viewers to its online shop and the variety of products available for purchase. At one point, Alexander Helios was attempting to sell allegedly “authentic” Illinois Caves Egyptian and Roman artifacts for prices ranging from $45,000 to $2.5 million. If the artifacts were genuine and retrieved after 1989, sale would be illegal under Illinois law (20 ILCS 3440) because the state forbids the removal of grave goods without a permit and Alexander Helios claims that the cave is Alexander Helios’ tomb, complete with skeleton. Today the company settles for selling Hubbard’s books for $10 a pop. Obviously, Hubbard can be relied upon to declare any Burrows Cave or “Egyptian” material authentic since it goes directly to his bottom line."
 * All that (for starters) and all you want to put is, "The existence of this cave is disputed"? Seriously? Why not put an ad out on the Main Page inviting every huckster to add a sentence or two to articles about what they're shilling? -- Neil N  talk to me  21:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The mention was perfectly in line with WP:FRINGE since this is also a theory relevant to the article topic (not just espoused by Hubbard but there are others who do so as well), and no advertisement or sales contact point was ever in the content in question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note -I just revisited AlexanderHelios.com and it is now a related marketing site; the site with more info that used to be there that I was referring to, may now be found at http://www.illinoiscaves.com Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, your application of WP:FRINGE is incorrect. "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." One sentence at the end of the paragraph does not come close to showing the theory is regarded as hogwash. -- Neil N  talk to me  21:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which evidently not everyone agrees is hogwash, see http://www.illinoiscaves.com Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Owned by the company promoting the theory and shilling "artifacts" from it. Are you being serious? -- Neil N  talk to me  21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like trolling to me - and if it isn't, Til probably needs blocking per WP:COMPETENCE. As fringe as the Time Cube, though not nearly as entertaining... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a fringe theory about Alexander Helios that exists, like it or not. It has been covered on A&E recently. Consumers will be forced to conduct their research about this elsewhere if it is ignored here because in your subjective opinion it is nonsense.  As usual, you know what this makes wikipedia look like in the eyes of the consumer.  Whereas having a simple line explaining that there is such a fringe theory in connection with Alexander Helios doesn't make us look bad at all. Who the fuck do you think you are to threaten me with a block, you can't block me for expressing my opinion just as you have a right to express yours. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making a threat - it was an observation. Which seems to be borne out by your suggestion that Wikipedia should be promoting websites flogging bogus 'artifacts' to 'consumers'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, there was nothing whatsoever about that sales website in the offending material, sherlock... The content was mainly about the recent attention this has been getting in the media. Also that's not the only website trying to profit from the story of this sudden horde of gold said to be worth millions, there are competing websites squabbling over who gets to do that, and a sizable amount of evidence of this being considered significant, at least enough for a line acknowledging it here. Hubbard didn't originate this story, he is one of the profiteers, there is also the guys who claimed they know where the cave is, the guy who published his analysis of the script used in the Latin inscriptions, Greek, etc. The fringe archaeology magazines that ran stories on it, etc Do you often make "observations" that editors who dare disagree with you be blocked? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also when I say consumers I mean consumers of wikipedia - our readership. I was not referring consumers of internet bullcrap. Consumers of wikipedia cannot find any mention of it here and are forced to get their info from elsewhere, because of your attitude, basically is what I'm saying. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. My 'attitude', and that of Wikipedia (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That the loony fringe theory exists is completely irrelevant to anything under discussion here - and no on has said there are not idiots who may believe or shysters who may be trying to profit from it. The question is whether or not the theory has enough academic adherents to make it a relevant addition to this or any article. To claim that the answer to that is anything other than a thunderous NO  is tendentious or incompetence. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

On the article of the historical figure, I would have to agree that this topic is so WP:FRINGE that it should not be mentioned. However, I could see a potential article on the hoax/tourist attraction/person, as there does appear to be coverage of the guy/place (A&E, and then meta coverage thereof) http://thesouthern.com/news/caves-to-appear-on-america-unearthed/article_3a59ed62-66df-11e3-bbb9-0019bb2963f4.html, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=707411015945461&set=pcb.707422965944266&type=1&relevant_count=1. If the academic article is debunking the hoax, then it of course should be used in that context as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A few more sources indicating notability of the guy/hoax (but certainly not that should indicate support for inclusion in the historical article)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=LDxgE6EpE8EC&pg=PA131&dq=Russell+Burrows+Hoax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eqbdUvGtLaa52wXNrYHYAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Russell%20Burrows%20Hoax&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=gE4P1bhDCB4C&pg=PA38&dq=Russell+Burrows+Hoax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eqbdUvGtLaa52wXNrYHYAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Russell%20Burrows%20Hoax&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=xmDnhPNLwYwC&pg=PA49&dq=Russell+Burrows+Hoax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eqbdUvGtLaa52wXNrYHYAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Russell%20Burrows%20Hoax&f=false

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, this has got plenty of attention in the real world outside wikipedialand for sure. But suppose you did write a "persuasive" style article debunking the concept.  Then you are supposed to look for other articles to link it from so it won't be an WP:ORPHAN, and surely it would end up on the historical article as at least a see also. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have created a stub Burrows_Cave. The article may be orphaned, but there may be ways to link to it from other related fringe theories, as most of the Pseudoarchology category articles I assume are linked together. . WP:ONEWAY I think can handle keeping it out of the Helios historical article. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

New Chronology (Rohl)
Would anyone else care to take a look at New Chronology (Rohl)? In reading through the article it seems to me that it has serious problems with WP:Balance. Particularly the section on “In Egyptology” which contains six quoted paragraphs, five of which of are favorable to Rohl. I was under the impression that a pseudoarchaeologist doesn’t generally get to “have the last word” on Wikipedia, yet even the radiocarbon dating (which scientifically refutes Rohl) receives a “rebuttal”. Thoughts? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

America Unearthed, while we're at it
Looking at the article on the TV series, I see nothing that indicates a reaction from the archaeological community, though a quick read through the list of episodes suggests that such reaction would be profoundly negative. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * its been discussed before  - its right up there with the ancient astronauts and "real ghostbusters" shows. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there sources we can use to tell the truth about it? All I could find was Colavito; I don't know that we could use him as the sole but authoritative critic. Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell what it is yet?
Someone is complaining about the article on, on the basis that it is reality based. Among their arguments, they threw in the fact that we have essentially uncritical articles on and. Since these appear to be credited to Andrew Taylor Still, back in the days before osteopathy morphed into something a k-soundinlg, I suspect they may contain merda bubula mother tincture that could do with some dilution and twerking to achieve the homeopathic level of nonsense which is generally preferred.

Sorry about the Rolf Harris reference. I couldn't resist. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Myofascial release and some other OMT-related articles are in need of attention, it's true. As for your reference: ROFL! Alexbrn talk 15:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw what you did there ;-) Guy (Help!) 17:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

On Voltaire
Referring to Voltaire, there are some quotes, claimed by Inayity that Voltaire's "view seriously changed to one of praise once he realized possible the Islamic Golden Age", however it seems to be contradictory to the tons of sources, where he is only criticizing them. The given sources by Inayity are as follows:-

"{{cite web|url=http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23044965?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103367361423|title=The Enlightenment Qur'an: The Politics of Translation and the Construction of Islam|accessdate=27 June 2009|author= Ziad Elmarsafy|quote="Of all the legislators and conquerors, there are none whose life was written with greater authenticity and in more detail by their contemporaries than was than of Mahomet." EM, vol 1, page 255."

And:-

"According to René Pomeau, in the Essay on the Manners, Voltaire "carries almost entirely favorable judgment" about Muhammad and "shows full of praise for the Muslim civilization and Islam as a rule of life"(ref)René Pomeau, Voltaire en son temps, Fayard, 1995, t. 1, p. 407.

Yet there are no results of any of these qoutes/comments, either in high amount or presented by any reliable sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are unlkely to find those quotations by google searching, as they are a) from a French book b) translations from the original French. Paul B (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed any of ref given? B/c I think that would be the best place to start. Also you are commenting on a remark by another user, none of those comments appear in the actual article. I also do not think Malise Ruthven article  is in conflict with what you are now calling Fringe because it does not align with your previous held belief that he absolutely hated Islam.--Inayity (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need a French Translator.--Inayity (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't refute whole argument, neither changes the point that there's only one source that seems to be claiming so. Malise Ruthven makes a unpopular claim here, which is obviously not backed by anyone, other than himself. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there another scholar making a claim which clashes with Malise? Because that would be something. If you had 20 scholars saying No and only 1 saying yes. It is not unpopular then, it is just unique. And If you read the antisemitism section you will see an identical argument by another scholar-- but for Judaism this time. So Malise argument is hardly fringe. And he is an expert on Islam in the Western world so that is some serious weight to make these statements. oh did i mention Malise is the person writing the foreword to the book in question?--Inayity (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because it's written in book, it's not enough, now because Malise posts something on his website, it makes him reliable source? You realize its over 200 years of his death, and yet it is hard to even find one source that regards Voltaire having "revised views", i dont know if any contradict. But this seems enough, there are some sources that site his letter to King of prussia, but nothing more than that. Malise writes that on his website, but not on the book,, he cited those quotations by Voltaire, that are critical in form. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear me, this certainly is one of those cases in which what Voltaire would call religious "enthusiasm" does not help Wikipedia. We get a messed up section on Voltaire and Islam, which is less about illuminating his view and more about cherry-picking bits of sources by pro and anti-Islamic editors. We have the line "according to René Pomeau, in the Essay on the Manners, Voltaire "carries almost entirely favorable judgment."" Right, that would be a favourable judgement of what exactly? The Essay on the Manners is not about religion as such, and it does not discuss Islam as a religion, but rather the courts of some Islamic rulers, about which he has some favourable things to say. But the way the quotation is used does not illuminate the reader. It's cut to create a vague idea of a "favorable judgment" without telling us anything of substance. But on the other side, we have a letter to the Pope, clearly an egregious piece of flattery, quoted to represent his anti-Islamic views. I doubt that any of this is fringe, just that it tells us next to nothing useful about Voltaire's actual views, and a lot about the weaknesses of Wikipedia in this aspect of the coverage of history. Paul B (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * THis is what I am struggling to tell BladeMulti, whatever the issue is (and there are issues) FRINGE does not capture the problem. BladeMulti also has no problem finding favorable quotes to show Voltaire LOVED Hinduism. The sentence on "favorable" has been removed. Blademulti is randomly picking things to throw at the section which do not apply. I think representing his negative and positive views per RS is the only way forward. After all he was a polemic.--Inayity (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Citations from Pomeau without page numbers are worthless. It's 1934 pages long. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Paul, I posted 2-3 attributed quotes, they seems to be "fringed", actually, since there are no sources for any of them. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ruthven is a reliable scholar on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk page on French wikipedia mentions a book: "Voltaire et l'Islam de Magdy Gabriel Badir publiés aux SVEC". This would be worth looking up to see if it is scholarly. I read French well enough to do this and I think Paul may do as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ruthven is not even the point here, the other named 2 issues on the main post are. The quote Ruthven referred, it is not even his own research either, and the quote remains unpopular(not even one source other than his own webpage), only Christopher Todd(not ruthven) has claimed. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Studies on Voltaire in the Eighteenth Century is where the Badir article is. This appears to be one of the major scholarly works on Voltaire and should be used throughout the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The source has anything similar to these contents? I hope you describe on the talk page better. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's well worth looking at the fr.wiki article, which is FA, and much longer (too long to my mind). The section on Islam is tagged as possibly non-neutral, nevertheless it is much better than ours, and sourced. I will bring most of it in translated. It has a page reference (p157) for Pomeau. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Link it here? I just found what he had wrote to King of prussia, he writes that;-

{{quotation|"But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him."}} Published in Oeuvres complètes de Voltaire, Vol. 7 (1869), Author is Georges d'Avenel, there are few more sources than this one, rather than other claims, that are backed by not even 2 sources. And the play, to which this user is referring to, Voltaire defended the play by telling that "I tried to show in it into what horrible excesses fanaticism, led by an impostor, can plunge weak minds", (noted in "Voltaire,Lettres inédites de Voltaire", Didier, 1856, t.1, Lettre à M. César De Missy, 1er septembre 1743, p.450) He wrote to King of prussia again, he writes that:-

Muhammad is "whatever trickery can invent that most atrocious and whatever fanaticism can accomplish that is most horrifying. Mahomet here is nothing other than Tartuffe with armies at his command", on 20 january 1742. Tells enough that his view for Islam, or Muhammad, never changed. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not interested in whatever you can pull up on Google. See here for SVEC and its scholarly importance. This whole discussion is out of the scope of the board. There are no fringe theories being discussed. As I said, I will pull the version from fr.wiki into our article and then we can discuss on the talk page whether it is an improvement or not. WikiProject Philosophy may be able to help. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories includes these unknown quotes and section of Voltaire#Islam, since you have presented 0 sources. Read WP:REDFLAG, you can't add any information which is not covered by multiple reliable sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bladesmulti, you going to have to learn more about the tools of Wikipedia, b/c I also told you, this is not the right place for your dispute. It is not Fringe at all. Just like those Dispute labels you misused. If you use tags wrong they will be removed fast. Fringe is for like Egypt was built by aliens.--Inayity (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably you are right here. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect actually, because you are promoting and edit warring over some quotes that never existed, and what you and Itsmejudith have presented till now, except primary sources, with no page numbers. Since the timelines of Voltaire's commentary tells enough that he never said any of these quotes, it confirms your claims to be Obviously WP:FRINGE. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Another point, though: if Pomeau is all we have to work with on this, then Voltaire's opinions on Islam are probably not worth noting in the article. It isn't as though lots of stuff hasn't been written about the man in English. Most of the passages I came across lumped Islam in with religious belief in general, suggesting that a particular focus on Islam in the article is a little WP:UNDUE. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are loads of sources in the French text that I am bringing in. Let me finish that. The section will end up rather long, possibly imbalanced that way, but the solution is to bring material for other sections in from French Wikipedia. I was mistaken, the article is an FA candidate rather than FA at the moment. It's more developed than ours, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory
I've just reported an editor there to AN3, the article could use some eyes. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't link . Editor blocked but I imagine will be back. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is the guy who emailed OTRS (2014012110017638). Guy (Help!) 09:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The current editor was blocked after those emails to OTRS, and other details don't match. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential
Article could use some more eyes, a couple of brand new accounts have come in adding dubious sources and removing material critical of this fringe program. Yobol (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

‪Maury Island incident‬
Huge blocks of unsourced narrative, alleging…I'm not sure what. Includes a bonus section of WP:OR that attempts to tie the history of UFOlogy with a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I've tried once to clean this mess up but was shortly reverted. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is a largely unsourced wreck. It desperately needs clean up, it is regrettable that LuckyLouie was reverted. I placed the refimprove tag. Much of the article is subject to deletion as unsourced. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 25
This could use attention. I think JPL has a point about neutrality and suggestions for renaming would be welcome. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Rosen Method Bodywork
... what there is of it ... needs eyes ... Alexbrn talk 20:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Terence McKenna
What do you get when you combine Numerology, 2012 Eschatology, and tripping on 'shrooms? You get Terence McKenna's "novelty theory", something so absurd that few have bothered to criticize it. Fortunately there is a source stating, "It is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community." A couple critiques with sourcing via WP:PARITY are also provided. Incredibly, there is pushback at Talk:Terence_McKenna, where editors wish to say that "some" members of the scientific community regard it as pseudoscience, as if some do not. They have found a physicist and a mathematician who are sympathetic to 2012 eschatology/numerology voodoo.

I may need to find a reliable source stating that 2012 has passed and the world has not ended. vzaak 03:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

voice to skull
This new article, which unfortunately was approved at AfC, contains about 10% valid information and 90% fringe theory, by my estimate. I'm reluctant to take it on single-handed. Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup - I've removed the most glaringly-obvious hogwash, though I suspect that AfD is probably the best solution. The whole thing looks like synthesis to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It also seems to me that whoever approved this at AfC should be asked to explain how this got passed. I'll look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like a POV FORK of psychotronics recycling much of the same material but with an emphasis on tinfoil hattery. Someone please send it to AfD. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nominated: Articles for deletion/Voice to skull. Alexbrn talk 02:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The result was deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Microwave auditory effect - another AfD candidate, probably ...
 * (Add) Allan H. Frey - "he microwaved cats and found that it had a huge effect on emotions". Alexbrn talk 10:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that the article has been deleted (and I then redirected it), continues to add links to it. He is also failing to get the point on auditory hallucination if anyone else wants to try to explain it to him. I was done with him during the AFD discussion. Also, I'm about to redirect Allan H. Frey to Microwave auditory effect as Frey is only known for that one piece of work. GDallimore (Talk) 15:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I don't understand why you think I shouldn't add links to Voice to skull. It's the term I prefer to use and it gets redirected to a section in MAE, which is fine with me. What I am doing is to integrate Voice to skull into Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Auditory hallucination
Help at Auditory hallucination please. GDallimore (Talk) 23:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic
is a pleasant person, an advocate of the school of which rejects most of the blatant pseudoscience. Unfortunately, Puhlaa keeps trying to reframe the article in terms that describe an idealised form of chiropractic to whihc this school aspires, rather than the wretched nest of quackery that it usually is in practice. I have proposed, following the most recent set of edits and reverts, that Puhlaa propose changes n the talk page and achieves consensus before making them; if this does not hapen then unfortunately I tink we're going to need to ask for pseudoscience arbitration sanctions.

On which subject, I am advocating reinstating chiropractic in template:pseudoscience, see discussion. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On the template: if RS are sufficient to put chiro in our "generally considered pseudoscience" category -- per WP's own "demarcation" standards at WP:FRINGE/PS -- then yes, use the template. But there may sufficient RS saying that chiro is instead in a borderline or grey category, such that chiro falls into WP calls "questionable science" instead; in that case, we don't say it's unambiguously pseudoscience.
 * One such source is Michael Shermer, in a book chapter edited by Massimo Pigliucci and M. Boudry (2013), who classifies chiropractic as "borderlands science", in between science and pseudoscience. He also says demarcation depends on a variety of factors, including evidence for efficacy, which can in fact be a determining factor:  "Since membership in these categories is provisional, it is possible for theories to be moved and evaluated with changing evidence."  Shermer and Pigliucci are undoubtedly important thinkers in demarcation.  Pages 205-206 and 216-217 (or so) are worth a read.  Other sources that might affect demarcation of chiro might be found by doing a Google-books search for chiro and terms like "demarcation" abd "grey area". --Middle 8 (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I should copy it there, and to Talk:Chiropractic. --Middle 8 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The question about the status of chiropractic has been asked before. See a thread from 2008 in Administrators' noticeboard/Archive171. Here is a [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=pseudoscience&prefix=Talk%3AChiropractic%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search search] for pseudoscience in the archives of Talk:Chiropractic. The WP:ARBPS case log has a separate section for blocks and bans related to chiropractic. The word 'chiropractic' also occurs in the main case log. Since 2008 some ARBPS enforcement has been carried out for chiropractic. This enforcement may not depend critically on whether the main article is labelled as pseudoscience in article space, for example, whether chiropractic is included in a template. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A user has made a large number of edits over a short period, each restoring or inserting material that is favourable to the idealised view of chiropractic which does not reflect reality. This may require discretionary sanctions. Please review this article and its talk page. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Genesis flood narrative
Despite essentially no sources calling this story the "Genesis flood narrative" directly, we have Christian POV-pushers successfully removing all instances of identifying the story as a myth except for the first sentence. The entire article is actually a WP:POVFORK of Noah's Ark it seems. I AfD'ed it, but would appreciate more eyes on it and Genesis creation narrative.

A trend has started, folks.

jps (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems like that little wild bee in your bonnet is already saying "I haven't had enough soap opera this month, let me start some more" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This was split off because a feeling that the article on the ark itself could not handle the larger narrative well. I'm not getting the sense that it's a POV fork so much as that the narrative article deals with the theological readings more, and generally on a traditional typological model than on a more modern literalist basis. there's a lot to be said for merging them back together, but I'm not seeing a lot of material that needs to be deleted outright. I refuse to get caught up again in the myth/narrative madness in any case. Mangoe (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the title of the article is horrific. I can't find any sources outside of Wikipedia that call it the "Genesis flood narrative", and yet we seem to revel in this neologism. jps (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you even check Google Books? Did you see the reference I added to the article? StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A myth is by definition also a narrative. Per Mangoe, not getting any more mixed up in the madness. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Deletion is too extreme, as both articles contain valuable material. However they are both somewhat incomplete as they stand, so I would strongly support a merger. Both articles are small, and the combined article would also benefit from some slight elimination of duplication, so the size of the combined article would be quite manageable. Wdford (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merging the useful content is indeed agreeable, but it is certainly weird that the Genesis Flood Narrative references Islamic beliefs since many Muslims don't think Genesis is particularly reliable in the telling of the tale. jps (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? You'd better add that info to tawrat then - I hadn't a clue from reading that article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should look for a more reliable source. jps (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Til Eulenspiegel, I recommend focussing on the content, not the editor. bobrayner (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Holy anointing oil and cannabis
An editor is pushing a theory that what is variously translated as "sweet cane" or "calamus" in various bibles at Exodus 30:23 is actually cannabis. I'm finding no serious support for this (i.e., not outside the weed community) but then I can't find significant support for calamus either. Lots of edit-warring going on, not a lot of citing. Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure that that species of plant did not exist in that geographical area during that time period. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe they are pushing the theory that it was imported from the east. Mangoe (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the biblical verses to make mention of keneh bosem says it was imported in the East, which is cited to support that it was not calamus, a local plant, but cannabis, an import from the east. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of this is out of the WP:RS ballpark, however one of the things which has come up which at some point will need to be dealt with (once we get past Til Eulenspiegel's constant stream of personal attacks on any editor wanting to use academic sources) is what to do with a comment by an academic out of his field. The academic is Carl A. P. Ruck, an unquestioned specialist on mushrooms in Greek religion who with Blaise Daniel Staples and Clark Heinrich produced The Apples of Apollo: Pagan and Christian Mysteries of the Eucharist 2001, ISBN 0-89089-924-X - which per WP:RS criteria should be regarded as a relevant and notable argument for transfer/influence of entheogen use in Hellenistic religion into some sects of early Christianity. So far so good. In this area Ruck is within his field, and also within a certain minority stream of argument from John Allegro (1956) The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross - albeit a stream generally rejected.

The problem comes with extension backwards into Ancient Israel. The suggestion of cannabis in Exodus is something limited entirely to the theory of one non-(paleo)botanist writer, Sula Benet. Benet's lexicographical (not botanical) argument is either rejected or ignored by lexicographers. And it seems totally considered unciteworthy by post-Sula Benet botanists such as Michael Zohary, James A. Duke and Hans Arne Jensen (I regret I'm not aware of any specialist paleobotanists/Hebrew Bible reference works outside these 3). When a theory/claim of an outsider is publicized popularly but then doesn't even get replied/addressed/mentioned by relevant scholars in any field this is usually a sign of the theory/claim being known, but not considered worth reply/addressing/mentioning.

The other problem is the format of Ruck's opinion - in a Sunday Times article he wrote rather than a peer-reviewed academic paper. His view came to everyone's attention in this area back in January 2003 with comments reported in various newspapers:

I believe there's a US newspaper soundbite of Ruck in December 2002 prior to The Guardian mention - which looks like a cross-Atlantic telephone interview soundbite, but cannot locate it. In any case the main publication from Ruck is an invitation a week later to submit an article to the Sunday Times: “Was There a Whiff of Cannabis about Jesus?” The Sunday Times, January 12, 2003.

These claims by Ruck are notable enough to be placed in his own BLP, and linked in 2 areas - relating to Moses and Jesus. However the problem is that Ruck is more out-of-his-field in the Hebrew Bible than the Hellenistic environment. How much WP:WEIGHT is given to an out-of-his-field source in context like this? So my question is: How much content goes in the main article, how much in the BLP of the writer? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Til Eulenspiegel's constant stream of personal attacks on any editor wanting to use academic sources" - No, I am not attacking your academic sources. You are the one attacking my academic sources.  I am ok with ALL the academic sources and hypotheses being presented impartially without endorsing our personal favorite. That is a mischaracterization that might fit better as self criticism rather than criticism of me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the language on the Talk page quite clearly constitutes personal comments escalating in some posts to personal attacks. I have made several requests for this to cease.
 * As regards Ruck as a source I was the one who raised him, having been familiar with and having some time for Ruck's work in relation to classical Greece. The issue as above is how to treat a newspaper cutting from an academic out of his field. That's all. At this point I believe the BLP article is the correct place. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For those who are making personal comments, please stop. They are unseemly and unhelpful.
 * So, no seeds or leaves found in any ruins from that period, and no peer-reviewed sources claiming that that species of plant existed in that geographical area during that time period? If that is correct, why are we having this discussion? If it isn't correct, let's look at the source and see whether it says that that species of plant existed in that geographical area during that time period. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, in case you missed it, one of the biblical references for keneh bosem depicts it being an import item. This is cited by proponents of the idea that keneh bosem was not locally grown and therefore not calamus, but was an imported plant not native to the region, ie hemp. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking a bit deeper, http://www.cannabis.net/articles/jesus-cannabis.html claims that "Residues of cannabis, moreover, have been detected in vessels from Judea and Egypt in a context indicating its medicinal, as well as visionary, use." Where is the peer-reviewed paper by whatever scientist allegedly discovered this? --Guy Macon (talk)
 * I'm sure there is one, Egyptologists know all about cannabis residues I can assure you - but that claim isn't even the scope of this dispute over Holy anointing oil and no one is even trying to add that claim to the article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk)


 * Ruck doesn't give a date for this. See this paper which mentions "Carbonized residue from 4th century Judea, containing phytocannabinoid elements, as a presumed obstetrical aid. It also mentions cannabis used in Egypt medically much earlier. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 4th century, eh? Interesting, but of course it is the wrong time period. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "There can be little doubt" is Magisterial Scientist Speak for "what I'm about to say has no substantive support and nobody else agrees with me." I agree that this isn't acceptable sourcing for a claim. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the section on "Keneh bosem" was an utter mess. It just repeated itself constantly, and then contradicted itself. Much of the content was endlessly recycled from this passage in The Living Torah by Aryeh Kaplan:

Passages from this paragraph were copied word-for-word in the main text, then repeated with variations, or chopped up in ways that made it meaningless. The two main identifications, Acoras calamus, Cympopogan martini were mixed up in such a way that it was unreadable. Then we had the largely uncited section on cannabis, which was certainly giving undue weight to a minority view. However, it's clear that Kaplan treats that theory as legitimate, if relatively marginal.

There is a sentence asserting that Kaplan endorses Maimonides' view, identifying the plant as Cympopogan martini. A footnote quotes a source to support this claim. However, I am inclined to think that the source has been misinterpreted. I think Kaplan is simply endorsing the view that Maimonides meant to refer to Cympopogan martini (using whatever pre-Linnean name he did), not agreeing with him that it's "Keneh bosem". Certainly nothing in the quoted passage suggests that Kaplan is endorsing Maimonides. Paul B (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Major Plato rewrite
Every Plato related image, template and article is being refocused to 'Socrates'. This is counter to scholarship, and it undermines the credibility of all philosophy articles in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy) editors can't manage the issue. Admin intervention is required. BlueMist (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Blue Mist is referring to edits by User:Mercer.philosophy, who has been changing articles on Plato's dialogues to attribute the theories espoused in them to Socrates, who is, of course, the "voice" of Plato in his writings. User:Mercer.philosophy has also added a picture of Socrates to the Plato template. Of course, since all Plato's works are in the form of dialogues between characters, if this approach is taken to its logical conclusion nothing whatever can be attributed to Plato, and the word "Plato" should be replaced by "Socrates" in all articles, except biographical ones. This is, of course, not what should happen. Paul B (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A long starter list of affected articles can be found at File:Plato_and_Socrates_Composite.jpg, but many other articles may have also been renamed, re-linked, and re-referenced. BlueMist (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this belongs at WP:NPOVN. I have moved Allegory of the Cave back to that name after finding it had been moved to Analogy of the Cave without discussion. A quick check of reliable sources shows "Allegory" to be easily the most used name. And this editor even changed "Evolutionary biologist Jeremy Griffith's best-selling book "A Species In Denial" includes the chapter Deciphering Plato’s Cave Allegory" to read Analogy, even though Griffith uses the word allegory. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Far-right politics in the United States from Category:Tea Party movement
There is an editor, User:Adn1990, who has repeatedly removed the category Category:Far-right politics in the United States from the category Category:Tea Party movement, initially without comment, but later with angry edit comments. I have been reverting the deletion per WP:PROFRINGE. After two reverts, I was initially advised that WP:3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism/profringe. But after four reverts, it's turned into an edit war of repeated deletion and reversion, as you can see here. I'm not entirely sure what to do in this situation. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems Category:Tea Party movement has now been locked from editing, as I suspected might happen. What is to be done with it now? - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is really an issue for the fringe theories noticeboard. Neither viewpoint in a debate as to whether the TPM is 'far right' or not is really 'fringe'. As for WP:3RR, I'd be careful - the exception applies to "obvious vandalism", but not to content disputes, and it says nothing about WP:FRINGE in the listed exceptions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh... Alright.  I was recommended to come here with this, so I wasn't entirely certain what the best course of action was. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think you were poorly advised. StAnselm (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was the IRC channel #wikipedia-en on FreeNode. I wanted to talk with someone interactive, not just play comment tag on a talk page.  I went there after I started the thread in Talk:Tea Party movement. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am amazed that there was no discussion on the category talk page. I have started one now. StAnselm (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

UFO sightings in outer space
Should this article exist? It is rather poorly sourced and seems like a slapdash amalgamation of trumped up conspiracy theory claims. I already removed one "incident" which was referenced solely to a youtube video.

jps (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can someone tell me if User:Obankston/UFOs contains anything coherent? (Note the references at page bottom are all UFO related.) If this does not have the potential to be in article space, it will need to go to MFD. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also User:Obankston/telxonator. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yikes, rantings related to reptoids. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Much of what are described as flying objects are flying only in the sense that they haven't hit the ground yet. To be honest all of this is self published except for the Gemini 7 mention and Phil Plaits mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've put both up for deletion as naked crankery. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Psionics
Please let me know your opinion on this article, I believe it should be redirected to parapsychology.

Also these should be delete/redirected (no reliable references):


 * Place memory
 * Pre-birth communication
 * Death-warning

Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've redirected the other 3 for starters. Unreliably sourced stubs with dubious notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Psionics has the possibility of being reliably sourced and seems from a short search, to be notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, good work. I will search for some sources for the Psionics article. I have also found this article:


 * Jude Jaxon

I can't find a single reference for this person, they seem to be an unknown parapsychologist. Goblin Face (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't verify a single thing on that article. It is possibly a hoax as none of the organisations mentioned appear to exist, or at the very least things are not as stated. For example, no Mulberry medical centre appears to exist in Illinois, but there is a Mulberry centre in the Harrisburg medical centre, but no one in staff called Jude that I can see (from using google to search the site and from their list ). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it might be a hoax article. There's no evidence he works for Mulberry medical. It also says he's the head of various hospitals but his birthdate is listed as 1984 so it makes it unlikely, it also says he owns the company "Psychologists Using Necromantic Kyriolexy LLC (PUNK for short)" yet no internet search engine turns up any results. Goblin Face (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I put it up for speedy deletion as a hoax and it was deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Booya Stones
No references for these stones outside of the fringe writers Colin Wilson and David Hatcher Childress. No idea how this article has survived this long. Goblin Face (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Its now at List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Booya_Stones -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not notable, of course, but it doesn't seem to be a hoax article. The booya stones are mentioned in the source provided, though the title of the book was not quite right. vzaak 23:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2416789 It's from an obscure 1936 short story. Sure, there's a note saying they're real. There's also a note like at the start of Fargo (film).  Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * its not a "hoax that an editor made up from whole cloth", but trying to pass off such nonsense as "real" (even if concept was stolen from a book) is pretty much an attempt to pull off a hoax in my book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks to me that the creator of the article was just naive/enthusiastic/etc, not setting out to pull a fast one on Wikipedia. The book cited is part of a series called "The Unexplained", so the book title in the article is right after all. vzaak 06:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Narragansett Runestone
is a new fringe archaeology article based almost entirely on sources that fail WP:RS, eg the cult archaeology magazine Ancient American, edited for years by Frank Collin under the name Frank Joseph, and a pdf by RM. de Jonge (coincidentally an editor here, see Articles for deletion/Early discovery of the Faroe Islands and User:Dr. R.M. de Jonge and his website. The pdf downloads automatically but is from the Migration-Diffusion website - the copyright status of the pdf is unclear but it hosts complete copies of articles from the hyperdiffusionist journal "Migration & Diffusion - an international journal". Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These say that the owner of the website was producer/editor of the journal, so it appears that copyright is a non-issue. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is blatant crackpottery beyond the Rhode Island State Attorney General's office rather bland press release. What I find especially amusing are the simultaneous claims that the thing is pre-Columbian and that it references the name "Rhode Island". Primary source documents should not be used in such a way. jps (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Better name possible?
This looks like we're somewhere between a list and an article. The content references so many different and disparate sources it's hard to argue it is not WP:SYNTH. Perhaps it's not conducive to being on Wikipedia? jps (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If its a synth of sections, is it worth breaking down and splitting it amongst the parent articles? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Although it would be tempting to break it up, we would then have arguments about the scope and the titles of the child articles. IE. Can we call X a pseudoscientist just because they write mystic screeds about a completely made-up planet? I think that the current article might actually be the least-bad way of dealing with a topic that has infinitely malleable definitions and, often, weak sourcing.
 * Surely there's more that could be added? bobrayner (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Alien abduction entities
Article is sourced to rather dubious sources. And is it ever thorough!

jps (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Part of a small walled garden that is Category:Alien abduction phenomenon. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Family systems therapy
Hello all, What do you think of Family Constellations and Systemic Constellations? I'm concerned that, although they appear to have plenty of sources, there are plenty of buzzwords and claims borrowed from other fields, and some rather idealised borrowings from Zulu culture. bobrayner (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic
The article was reverted to an old version which included dated sources and original research. NPOV is not a "blatant bias" article. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Bioresonance therapy
Two new accounts (socks?) adding content lately. Alexbrn talk 20:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Watchisted. If they continue, consider providing an WP:AC/DS notification (non-admins can provide them), IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

AFD nomination for Michael_Talbot_(author)
Article for deletion on the Michael_Talbot_(author) page. Proposal for deletion removed on basis that it survived a previous AFD so listed as second nomination but no record in AFD of first. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
More eyes needed at ‪Conspiracy theory‬ to evaluate recently added POV that "theories on small and large-scale conspiracies are often correct" or "many small- and large-scale conspiracies are indeed real" etc. Also review Talk:James H. Fetzer for similar arguments seeking to portray a conspiracy theorist/theories as someone "seeking truth regardless of how it makes anyone feel." - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Three AfDs on "mental health literacy"
Per discussion at the Help Desk (saved revision), three articles on what seems to be some fringe theory in mental health (with some sort of deconstructivist flair) have been nominated for deletion:

Articles for deletion/Meaning-making Articles for deletion/Inverted synergy Articles for deletion/Cultured resonance

This seems like it would be of interest to those who monitor this noticeboard. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mike Adams, (head editor)
As a relative newbie, I have never nominated an article for deletion before, but this should go imho. A puff piece, unreferenced, and adequately covered on the Naturalnews page. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good find.
 * I agree with you, so I redirected to NaturalNews. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to nominate an article for deletion, you can follow the procedure here.
 * Some of the technical stuff is a bit awkward, though - personally, I use tools like twinkle which automates some of the tedious technical bits. bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, Twinkle is the way to go. Its (new?) 3RR reporting option is a great time-saver too. Alexbrn talk 21:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmph. I have Twinkle running all the time.  Never thought to look properly.  I bet you two have left it for me. I'll look. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Alice Bailey
A brand-new editor has turned up on that page and is reverting edits, making accusations of vandalism. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I warned them about edit warring on their talk page, since they may not know the policy and the fact that they are reverting the same edits from two separate, logged-in editors should be giving them pause to think that there's a good chance that these edits (which were explained in edit summaries and which don't look like vandalism) might not be vandalism. Hopefully they will take the discussion to the talk page. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 16:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also keeping a closer than usual eye on the page until the furor dies down. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Now SPAs tag-teaming. Even after IRWolfie's very reasonable edits, more work is needed to keep this article to what is notable. It was once part of an extremely large walled garden that covered every detail of the subject's views from an in-universe perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The SPAs were all sockpuppets and have been blocked. This will presumably reduce the burden in editing somewhat, Second Quantization (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC) (Formerly IRWolfie-)
 * Good call, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
For those of you who don't keep track, this list survived an AfD in no small part because it has a large number of fans. While I do not understand the motivation of these fans, it is clear the list of people (if not the framing material) is in stark violation of WP:FRINGE including a number of completely unreliable sources being used (World Net Daily, Newsmax.com, and any number of blogs) because "they're only demonstrating the opinion of the person, not promoting the view". This is a classic coatrack situation. When I tried to move the list to only include peer-reviewed opinions (it is, after all, a list of scientists), I got a rather absurd result which was reverted by one of the fans of the list. Consensus on the talkpage is almost impossible to come by, mostly because the fans of the list are experts at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Help would be greatly appreciated.

jps (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this follow WP:CANVASS - not really. --Kim D. Petersen 23:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a perfectly appropriate use of this noticeboard.
 * I agree with the assessment of the editing environment. IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:CONLIMITED, and WP:FOC problems...
 * As for FRINGE, we're trying to get around the FRINGE problems by changing the inclusion criteria.
 * We're discussing making "scientists" apply to scientists who have published peer-reviewed articles on the subject of climate science. This solution, though a huge improvement, might still have problems with how we define and follow the new inclusion criteria. I'm not aware of any similar lists in Wikipedia (for good reason).
 * Multiple editors have at times suggested removing "scientists" from the criteria as inappropriately giving weight to the well-known deception of presenting "scientists" in lists to try to confuse scientific consensus. Having simple lists, if any list is allowed at all, is the only solution that has broad consensus across Wikipedia.--Ronz (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides tightening inclusion criteria -- for which, btw, WP:GEVAL (as in: oy gevalt?) is pertinent -- I think it would be good to sharpen the lede in order to be as clear as possible about how extensive consensus really is. I've made an edit to the lede importing the last para from Scientific opinion on climate change; see what you think.  (also mentioned at list's talk page) --Middle 8 (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gautama H. Buddha! That got reverted within 5 minutes! I see what you mean, jps. :-P --Middle 8 (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that revert was justified. The addition was an attempt to change the WP:WEIGHT between the article describing those who oppose and the article saying that they are wrong. The weight issue has been through a lot of discussion, and there are many strong opinions that it is too far one way or another. In a case like that, you can't just go in and change the weight without someone reverting it to the uneasy-truce status it had before your edit.
 * I also think that highly controversial pages with lots of eyes on them are poor candidates for discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Guy Macon, Yeah, actually I think you're right, I had tunnel vision and was overfocusing on the wrong bits. Actually ended up in a small edit war -- in which both parties were part right and part wrong -- saw my error and self-rv'd.  Note to self: don't be hasty. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the general consensus is just the opposite - Noticeboards are a highly effective way of getting relevant viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ...because we have such a huge scarcity of expressed opinion on climate change. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Because the article needs to follow our policies, regardless of people's personal opinions on climate change. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * True statement, wrong noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories." Seems like the right noticeboard to me given the concern is that the list gives undue weight to climate change denial. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you claim that the list gives undue weight to climate change denial. It is a demonstrable fact there is no consensus for your claim. You sought advice, I gave you good advice, and you rejected it because it wasn't the answer you wanted. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A discussion was opened here. We are discussing the matter. We don't shut down discussions by claiming there is no consensus on what is being discussed. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is in opposition to Wikipedia's stated aim to be a serious encyclopedia with a scientific focus. WP should describe the arguments that deniers use, but that's not the purpose of this article. The content is something I would expect to see on special-interest blogs. I see that the article has had six deletion nominations. Has anyone noticed off-site canvassing for the article? vzaak 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the content too, but the Wikipedia community has made the consensus clear though extensive discussions, RfCs. deletion discussions, and an Arbcom case. Nothing said on this noticeboard is going to change that. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the consensus is not clear, especially when we look at the relevant policies/guidelines. Hence this discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wrong noticeboard for seeking consensus on climate change. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No one is using this noticeboard for that purpose, except possibly the person claiming the consensus is clear when it is not? --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Except that is is. The result was No Consensus. Deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how "no consensus" can be interpreted to mean the consensus is clear and we should not be discussing the relevant matters here. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the article title be "List of climate scientists opposing..."? I don't see how the list is useful if it is scientists in general rather than people that have actually studied the subject. Bhny (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As the mainstream view is comprised of many types of scientists (geologists, biologists, chemists etc) discussing the ramifications of global warming using their specialties, limiting the scope on the dissenting view is not neutral - however, there would perhaps be merit in limiting people who are commenting primarily within their area of expertise.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it would be helpful to limit the scope. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That, and/or have one section for scientists speaking within their specialty, and another for those speaking outside their specialty. Or somehow organize or annotate the list so as to indicate differing degrees of subject expertise.  There's already a discussion about organizing it according to exactly which aspect(s) of consensus each scientist contests, which sounds like a good idea.  --Middle 8 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree limiting scope is appropriate. A list of scientists speaking outside their specialty is not encyclopedic. Only those with expertise on climate should be listed for their position or commentary on climate change. For example biologists opinions on geology is not encyclopedic material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That would depend on what you are talking about: Sociologically, historically and politically both of the groups ((speaking inside of), (speaking outside of)) are of interest. Scientifically (ie. climate scientifically) the latter group has no relevance at all, and the former by the definition of the list has little relevance. What makes it encyclopedic is that it is a notable subject, there are papers being written about such people, there are outside lists.... There are people interested in: Who are the contrarians? --Kim D. Petersen 22:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We know there are people interested in confusing the science by promoting the contrarians - it's a common tactic in all science denialism. However, we shouldn't take part promoting a select subset of contrarians, and don't for any other case of science denial except for this one. Why is that? --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What we are concerned with when adding topics to the encyclopedia is: Is it notable? Once that is established we can create an article/list/category/... about the topic. Once we have done that, and start writing about the topic, we need to follow WP:NPOV, WP:V and all other of our core policies and guidelines. But nowhere during this process does thoughts such as: do we think that we should not write about this because people may get the wrong impression enter the process ... because that would be pure and unadulturated WP:POV. Unfortunately i read your comment as being such WP:POV. You seem incapable of understanding that it is possible to cover tiny minority -> WP:FRINGE topics without giving credence to them. The list is not "promoting" anything ... --Kim D. Petersen 02:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. If merely having an article on a topic meant promoting that topic, we'd be promoting a lot of bad things.  (Thinks of examples, realizes Godwin's Law looms, retires from discussion) --Middle 8 (privacy • talk) 09:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem comes when the article topic enshrines a POV, something which is a particular danger for list articles ... there was a recent problem with a spate of articles being created like "List of Jewish fraudsters" for example. The article under discussion is a (more subtle) example of that kind of problem, I think. Alexbrn talk 09:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that -- I personally hate global warming pseudoscience more than any other kind, and more than many things in general, but isn't there a qualitative difference between bigotry and tiny-minority science? (And this isn't even a case of conflating the two, a la "theories" about racial inferiority, for example.)  One can be wrong but not evil (although in this case, the latter enlisting the former complicates things).  Shouldn't we frame the list properly as we would with any tiny minority view a la WP:WEIGHT (2nd para)? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 13:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * General consensus is that such lists don't belong in Wikipedia. When I asked why this exception exists, the response was to focus on me. Funny how editors expect that such an answer is going to stand. It is typical of "consensus" that supports the existence of the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that while this is indeed a minority view, the larger viewpoints are not being given the same or similar treatment, nor the scientific viewpoint. We only have this one list. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If then, as you claim, "general consensus is that such lists don't belong in Wikipedia", how do you explain the six deletion discussion that all concluded that there is no consensus that the list in question doesn't belong in Wikipedia? The consensus went against you on the article talk page, so you decided to WP:FORUMSHOP it here. It is unhelpful to raise essentially the same issue on multiple pages in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Explained in the opening comments of this discussion: IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:CONLIMITED, and WP:FOC problems - as are being demonstrated here. Editors want to shut down discussions by claiming there's consensus. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion should be closed as an obvious case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by editors who are not satisfied with the result of SIX AfDs or the consensus on the article talk page and want to retry their failed case here. This noticeboard has no authority to overturn the results of a deletion discussion. Those on both sides of this content dispute should argue their cases at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, not here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "no authority"? I do agree with part of your argument, but a noticeboard is a place for editors to discuss concerns and reach a consensus. Any conclusion from a discussion on the article talkpage should also be the result of a consensus (albeit among a narrower group of editors, and global consensus trumps local). It's OK for people on the fringe theories noticeboard to discuss concerns about an article with WP:FRINGE problems. bobrayner (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, attempts to stop proper discussion are being made. This is another typical example of the "consensus" of the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't close this discussion. It's one of the few places where actual analysis is being made. The article talkpage is a morass as are the AfDs since many editors have been scared away. jps (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * When you have a problem like "the article talkpage is a morass" (I am taking your word on that, I have not looked at it myself) restarting the discussion on a noticeboard where it really does not belong is not the answer. We have seen again and again that in such cases the editors who made the article talkpage is a morass discover the new location and make the new discussion a morass. that is why we discourage the practyice.


 * Wikipedia does have a way for you to have a productive conversation without the problems I describe above. Create a sub-page off of your talk page, invite those editors who you think are productive, and have the discussion there. On such a page you (and you alone) are allowed to delete any comment that you don't find to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you point to an instance of that technique working? I've been here for ten years and have never heard of such a practice being used. jps (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
vzaak 17:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The 6th nomination for deletion closed with no consensus, with an explicit mention that further nominations are not precluded.
 * The article exists to promote WP:FRINGE scientific views, contrary to Wikipedia's goal of being a serious encyclopedia in line with respected scientific thought.
 * Fringe views should be given coverage in Wikipedia. Describing dissent on global warming is appropriate; presumably this goes in Scientific opinion on climate change.
 * A list of scientists not appropriate, and is more in line with what one would expect from the Discovery Institute website. The list exists to advance fringe views, not describe them. Fringe views should be described, not advanced.
 * I suggest another deletion nomination citing these and other policy violations, with suggested action to move the article to a subpage of Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change.
 * Scientific opinion on climate change can then be supplemented with whatever can be scraped from the old article.
 * Perhaps propose a merge for this? It might be less fraught. Alexbrn talk 18:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. The raison d'être for the list according to its fans is to serve as a navigational aid. They won't accept a merge as a viable alternative for that reason. jps (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's mainly supposed to help with navigation, what about just using a category? cf. WP:CLNT --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 05:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that would eliminate all the framing material and therefore create a massive WP:UNDUE problem. (Why not have a category for all the scientists who support consensus on global warming)? jps (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP may have a more flexible meaning of "merging" than I realize. Some information from the article would be useful in writing Scientific opinion on climate change, but little would be cut & pasted. Also, there wouldn't be a redirect in this case, which suggests that it's not a merge. vzaak 22:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose on procedural grounds. The fringe theories noticeboard is not the place to re-argue a highly controversial and hotly-contested content dispute, especially one that has already been through multiple deletion discussions and an arbcom case. Nothing we decide here has the slightest chance of having any effect on the article content, and those who in good faith insist that such a discussion belongs here are well-meaning but misguided. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The article appears to violate WP:FRINGE and so belongs on FTN. What is the arbcom case? There's this, but it only mentions the article in passing. vzaak 22:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for that claim, but feel free to post an RfC on the article talk page asking "does this article violate WP:FRINGE?" and see for yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Before posting to WP:BLPN regarding an article, it is not required to create an RfC on whether the article violates the BLP policy. That's not how the noticeboards work, to my knowledge. vzaak 23:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting that you not be allowed to post your attempts to use this noticeboard to re-argue something after the consensus has been made clear elsewhere. I am suggesting that your attempts be ignored. There is no consensus that the article in question violates WP:FRINGE and no evidence that anything said here will make any difference, but of course you are free to keep claiming otherwise, and you are free to avoid putting your claim to the test. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in the first bullet point, there was no consensus on the last AfD. I don't believe I have "claimed" anything apart from the article being a violation of WP:FRINGE. I've outlined my proposal to nominate for deletion again, this time with (what I consider to be) more compelling policy-based arguments together with a plan to move forward. In particular I've identified a problem that cannot "conceivably be addressed through the editorial process" (quoting Sandstein). I believe the proposal or something like it can succeed, and I've solicited feedback to help refine it. Sandstein was right -- arguments not based on policy should be dismissed out of hand, such as "speedy keep because it's the n-th nomination". vzaak 04:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus among the Wikipedia community that the article is a violation of WP:FRINGE and there is no consensus to delete the article. Those are observable facts and easily verified by referring to the six deletion attempts and the countless RfCs. (I personally disagree with the consensus if anyone cares, but I follow consensus even when I disagree with it) You are free to claim otherwise and to attempt to make this noticeboard a secondary climate change battleground, but, Ronz's threats below notwithstanding, I am equally free to advise others to ignore your attempts and to advise them to get back to dealing with articles with non-disputed fringe theory problems. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "I am suggesting that your attempts be ignored." Perfect! Let's remember to use this for arbcom enforcement under WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DR, and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You are threatening me with arbcom enforcement concerning an article that I have never edited, with a talk page that I edited once in 2011, simply because, in my opinion, the fringe theories noticeboard should not become a place to re-fight the battles from Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and advising others to ignore any attempt to continue that battle here? Yes, please do report me to arbcom, and get a first-hand experience of WP:BOOMERANG. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm trying to prevent this and other discussions from being disrupted. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support U|Vzaak's proposal (am dubious re the second point but agree with the rest). Maybe (to assuage doubts) we should first import the list's most salient entries to Scientific opinion on climate change and then AfD the list? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 13:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not quite yet Discuss proposal more thoroughly on article talk: I think it's a bit soon to start yet another AfD. We've finally have editors offering potential references that may address some of the problems that have been pointed out in the past few AfD's. Minimally, we should investigate how those potential references might be used and what their use would accomplish. I think it would also be helpful to get arbcom enforcement involved with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:CON, and WP:DR violations demonstrated here, at the AfDs, and on the talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed my response, requesting a more thorough discussion. While I like the proposal, I'm not sure what another AfD will achieve given the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:CON, and WP:DR problems. The discussions on potential sources appear to have come to a halt. I don't think we've made a convincing enough argument here (yet) that will get us over the "no consensus" results since the 2009 Afd. Are we giving up on attempts to address the problems in the article? --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

'''Stick a fork in me. I am done.''' I have posted my advice that this blatant attempt to recreate the climate change debate here should be ignored, and I am now going to follow my own advice and stop reading or replying to this section. One can only hope that they will grow tired of shouting into an empty room and go back to the article talk page where this discussion belongs. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support U|Vzaak's proposal. However would be open to supporting the merge suggested up-thread if consensus is leaning that way; either might be an appropriate course of action to protect WP:FRINGE Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Perennial bad article: The reason that it keeps coming up for deletion is because of bad closes by admins. The 4th and 6th nominations had more votes in support of deletion, and no good arguments on the keep side. However, a small group of users have been abusing Wikipedia to push their point of view that a few scientists opposing the mainstream consensus should get a full article on Wikipedia. Frankly, that Wikipedia can't successfully delete this says more about the problems Wikipedia has at dealing with coherent groups of editors who (however good their work elsewhere) care more about enforcing their own ideas than policy in specific cases. I don't, of course, imagine that this is intentional, but it's very easy to rationalize such things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I see lists are the new fringe frontier!
Articles for deletion/List of Big Bang Cosmology Dissidents.

Read. Comment. Argue.

jps (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that the article's creator was warned a while ago about the Fringe arbitration decision and that it covers plasma technology (we all must remember this). Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have filed an arbitration enforcement request at WP:AE. It is rather annoying that this editor is still POV pushing after Stellar metamorphosis was deleted and creating extra work for everyone to clean up after him. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic professional ethics
Has just appeared. Not sure yet how this might fit into the topic of chiropractic as a whole, or the ethics of chiropractic in particular - but this is likely to be of interest to this noticeboard. Alexbrn talk 20:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC) (Add) Some other recently-created articles in this space, which may have some fringe aspects: Alexbrn talk 21:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Chiropractic oath
 * Association of Chiropractic Colleges
 * American Chiropractic Board of Sports Physicians.


 * This particular article has great value, so it should not be deleted. Interestingly, the editor did include properly sourced negative material, and that's what makes it somewhat NPOV, and that content should be kept. The article does need work in the form of a much shorter lead and some headings.
 * I suggest that its creator
 * be watched. As a previously banned editor and chiropractor who even used sock puppets to edit, he has a strong penchant for self-promotion and promotion of chiropractic. Looking through his contribution history, it appears he may be returning to previous behaviors. Basically he just needs to be more careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm about to go to bed, but I noticed from a quick look that Chiropractic oath seems to be illustrated with a 12th century manuscript - which speaks of an impressive feat of time travel maybe ... Alexbrn talk 22:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Much of that article is synthesis. I have removed some large chunks which seemed to appropriate the hippocratic oath for chiropractic. Once we set aside any sources that don't discuss the chiropractic oath, there is very little to establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Much of that article is synthesis. I have removed some large chunks which seemed to appropriate the hippocratic oath for chiropractic. Once we set aside any sources that don't discuss the chiropractic oath, there is very little to establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this really just be merged into the main article? Seems dubious as an independent article on its own and would flow better within the main article, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW: the past issues... FOUR years ago, Brangifer was certainly one of the ringleaders of the movement to obtain the community ban against me. This occurred despite that there was never any significant evidence that I used "sockpuppets", other then the following: A.- once early on in my editing, I admittedly and erroneously tried to help a friend in Arizona with setting up his talk page, and logged into his account to do ONLY that. A CU, I think instigated by our friend, found the connection and it was that, and an inferred charge against another person, also an alleged "Sockpuppet", who was  BTW: CLEARED. b.- I did make some edits without logging in, so the CU showed that, and they thus listed my ip address as a "sockpuppet".  The friend, who was really innocent of anything except asking me to help him, was himself permanently banned for that,  and never again tried to post anything on Wikipedia.  But Brangifer and his cohorts nevertheless cleverly used all this to get the ban on me approved. The whole thing was so vicious and unfair, that Jimmy Wales himself felt it appropriate to intercede to get the ban removed. As I promised then, I have refrained from working in this field for four years. How long does the stigma remain??? Brangifer, who's opinions on my profession are no secret, has opposed virtually everything I ever did here, and clearly has a very long memory, and despite my self imposed exile, will apparently forever continue to attack anything I do in Wikipedia and keep smearing me with the past, because of his unique belief system. I personally think he would do well to back off and let my current work just speak for itself. If I violate Wiki policies again, let others come after me. I don't think I have done anything particularly controversial, other then to create a few new articles on major referenced, notable, professional associations, and on professional ETHICS. Really? (I understand Brangifer thinks we have none). Oh, and BTW the illustration  with reference to TIME travel IS still on the page for the Hippocratic Oath does that mean MD's have unique patent on time travel... maybe then medicine should be listed under fringe belief systems too ??? Д-р СДжП,ДС  17:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we stay on topic? In reference to " Oh, and BTW the illustration with reference to TIME travel IS still  ...  ". Medicine as a topic is much older than chiropractic, this is known. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The one thing I see here is that Chiropractic oath has been turned into a redirect, however I can find a few dozen RS that would support the page. That said, it was written badly, so while I think a future article there is appropriate, there wasn't one worth saving yet. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-physical entity
I can't find anything worth saving in this article either. But maybe you can?

jps (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a philosophy article. Not covered by this noticeboard. If you have problems with it, I suggest going to WikiProject Philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny you should say that... I actually showed this article to a professor of philosophy and he basically said it looks like it's based on someone's naive and peculiar interpretation of dualism. It is, apparently, pseudophilosophy. That's certainly covered by this noticeboard. jps (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it must depend on the school of philosophy someone comes from. Naive it certainly may be. It may also not be very good philosophy. It's not well expressed. But it's not pseudophilosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This, as a topic, seems vaguely reminiscent of Articles_for_deletion/Ethereal_beings but now attempted from a philosophical style angle. I think this article should just be redirected to Spirit. I notice it was up for deletion itself some time ago until rewritten Articles_for_deletion/Non-physical_entity. It looks like someone took a stab at rewriting it and didn't do a great job. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is was a rescue attempt arising out of Articles for deletion/Non-physical entity. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article as it stands looks likeAbstract and concrete meets Ghosts and Spirits. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the article was a product of the scuffle over Ethereal being. There are still shreds of it floating around as a POV fork, e.g. User:Uncle G/Non-physical entity. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've separated the three distinct types of things which are being grouped together to more clearly illustrate that we have a synthesis here. That the three sections use references that don't overlap, I think the synthesis here is quite apparent. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if we handed it over to WikiProject Philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Who over there would you recommend? I don't have a particularly high opinion of the philosophy coverage on Wikipedia, but if there are certain editors who are worthy of consideration, I'm happy to oblige. In particular, I'm very concerned by the fact that there are so many advocates of transhumanism who seem to own large swathes of this website. Just my 2 cents, mind you. jps (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that transhumanism was particularly popular among early editors, but there has been a shift in the last few years, and a lot of our content is more balanced now. If you can point out any other articles that seem to advocate humanism, I'd like to try helping... bobrayner (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. Start with Integral theory and work your way out of the rabbit hole, I guess. jps (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've fought many battles over transhumanism in the past, and found the series of articles to be a jealously-defended walled garden. On the non-physical entity I thought just notify the project itself, and also alert User:Maunus.
 * Might not be of too much help, but the Jaworski reference used doesn't lead to what it purports to lead to if you read it here here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nick Pelling
Nick Pelling may or may not be notable as a computer gaming guy. He's also a Voynich Manuscript guy. The AFD is turning into a bit a mess, including an appearance by Mr. Pelling himself. I'm still forming an opinionon the AFD but it could use attention from others, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks notable as a computer gaming guy (just barely) but I removed the Voynich stuff. There are notable scholars for that book. He doesn't look like one of them.Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Gray (writer)
Anyone ever hear of this Ron Wyatt and New World Order conspiracy theories advocate? Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look notable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend taking both Wyatt and Gray to AFD, as I do not see how either pass notability. The Wyatt page in particular has a great deal of primary sources. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Created an AfD for Gray. Ambivalent toward Wyatt - he's borderline but not enough so for me to pull the trigger on an AfD. Find it here. Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gray (writer) Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikiversity
Is Wikiversity subject to the same editorial policies as Wikipedia? Some UFO stuff as well as Paranormal stuff  appears to be growing there (the latter proclaiming that "Edgar Cayce is probably the most effective psychic that has lived in the last 100 years.") - LuckyLouie (talk)
 * It's a bit of a haven for fringe stuff - people get sent there whose material is unacceptable here. "Instructional and study guides that make use of original research are allowed on Wikiversity. Wikibooks also allows instructional guides, but that resource doesn't allow original research." "Wikiversity is the place for original research, including primary or secondary research. This includes interpreting primary sources, forming ideas, or taking observations. Ethical guidelines must adhere, see Wikiversity:Research ethics. Pages with original research should be marked with the original research or research project templates." So I suspect there is a lot of rubbish there. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See this on Atlantis, it starts "This article is about whether Atlantis existed and the possible locations of Atlantis. 10,000 years BC water levels were lower than they were today. The legend of Atlantis was in existence around 9600 B.C. before it was claimed to fall into the sea. Ancient Greece was not in existence around this time, so accounts of Greece interacting with Atlantis may be fictional, but based on a real account of Atlantis." Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And then there's Astrosociology... LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The sociology of outer space isn't fringe. There's lots to say about how and why people go into space, what they expect to find there, how space travel fits with other social phenomena. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The number of arguments pleading for academic acceptance of astrosociology that turn up in search results must have thrown me. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity is the home of the fringe. Compare and contrast Breast enlargement supplements and . Second Quantization (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Controversies_in_Science/Water_fluoridation#Low_IQ_.26_Cancer "There is a proven negative effect of fluoride which affects the body when ingested. It ranges from cancer to the lowering of the IQ, mostly in children. [14]" - What the fuck is this shit? The source is Alex Jones!!!! Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Does Wikiversity have any policy/guidelines related to fringe and/or sourcing? Or is it basically just a massive groupthink blog? Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It has fairly minimal policies, but and  do set out some minimal standards. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Basically, as far as I've seen, it's anything goes. The site isn't very active either. Considering how terrible the content is, long may that continue. Second Quantization (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)