Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views/Archive 1

Retrocausality AfD
Retrocausality is up for deletion here. Tim Smith 20:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Electric universe (concept) AfD
Electric universe (concept) is up for deletion. Tim Smith 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Smith has an RfC
User:Tim Smith has been the subject of a new User request for comment. --ScienceApologist 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
Discussion is ongoing here about whether Christopher Michael Langan's "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" deserves a section in his article. Outside input appreciated! Tim Smith 20:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
I propose that we should get Wikiproject userboxes involved to identify users. I also feel that we should expand our project page to make it more like other project pages. (example: related projects section)Lighthead 21:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining and for your input! I've started a "Related projects" section.  I wouldn't mind a userbox, and an image on the project page would be nice.  Do you have ideas for these? Tim Smith 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late answer; I think that first we have to have a related logo for the project, that would kick things off. User:Lighthead þ 20:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We do now have a userbox, thanks to John Carter. A graphical logo would be great.  WikiProject Paranormal has some good ones—maybe something in that vein, but illustrating a notable non-paranormal alternative view, or the wider tension between dominant views and alternative views? Tim Smith (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: Our project page and userbox now have images! They depict Aristarchus of Samos, who  proposed a heliocentric model as an alternative view in Ancient Greece.  His ideas were rejected in favor of geocentric theories for over 1700 years. Tim Smith (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Photon Belt
I have proposed a deletion review of The Photon Belt if anyone wants to contribute their comments about it. -Eep² 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal
There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at WikiProject Council/Proposals that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Con AfD
Conspiracy Con has been nominated for deletion--even after extensive sourcing. Please give your comments/vote. Thanks. -Eερ² (t 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

New thing
Hi guys. I just wanted you to know I began a page today of interest to your project: Category:Alternative Views articles needing expert attention. This is part of the expert finding process. Goldenrowley 04:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Goldenrowley! Tim Smith (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment department is an essential part of a WikiProject
At least topic-oriented WikiProjects such as this one (and most all others as well). It is a well-proven mechanism for recruitment to the project, and it provides a central focus helping us to identify where specific work is needed. The basic form of an assessment department rates articles by quality (from Stub to Featured Article). Many WikiProjects also include an importance (or priority) scale. More advanced features such as requests for peer-review, photo, infobox and alerts for pages in particular need of attention can be added also. For more ideas about how we can shape this project, take a look at WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject. I have set up assessment departments for two other WikiProjects (Rave and Alternative medicine), and I will do it here also if this move is approved of. __meco 10:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had similar concerns myself, and have also set up assessments for other projects. The only thing that has to date inhibited me from doing so is not knowing the specific "scope" of this project. In a case like this, where the project's goal is to ensure that what might be called the "minority opinion" gets fairly represented, I have trouble determining exactly which articles should and should not be included. I have a feeling that maybe the best way to go would be to set up a specific list of articles which the members feel are of importance to this project, and then tag them. But I am virtually certain that I as an individual am not qualified to address that sort of matter across the board. Having said that, I might be competent to deal with articles relevant to religion and philosophy. If anyone else could indicate which articles in that, or other fields, they believe require such NPOV representation, I think that would help immeasurably. I've started a page at WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles which can be used to indicate which articles are in need of attention by this project. That might be the best way to start. John Carter 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work and input, guys! Compiling and assessing a list of all articles relevant to this project could be a monumental task.  Our scope is broad, encompassing alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities.  Of articles of interest to us, I think we can distinguish three groups:


 * 1. Articles directly about alternative views, e.g. Marlovian theory, New Chronology (Fomenko), Aquatic ape hypothesis.


 * 2. Articles about people, books, events, etc. largely concerned with alternative views, e.g. Terence McKenna, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, Conspiracy Con.


 * 3. Articles not largely concerned with alternative views, but in whose context such views are notable enough to receive mention, e.g. Great Pyramid of Giza, Tunguska event.


 * It might be best to hold off on assessment for now and start simple, with a basic project banner that just lets editors know we exist. The banner could be added to articles in groups 1 and 2; articles in group 3 also deserve our attention, but wouldn't necessarily need the tag.  I see our tasks as including the following.  For groups 1 and 2, to create articles about notable topics, work to make such articles comprehensive, and prevent them from being deleted.  For group 3, to give relevant alternative views due weight, but not undue weight.  For all three groups, to make coverage of alternative views accurate, verifiable, and neutral. Tim Smith (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Related?
Goals of Rational Skepticism:
 * 1) To create new articles relating to science and reason.
 * 2) To create new Wikipedia articles regarding those topics not yet covered by Wikipedia, but which are covered by The Skeptic's Dictionary.
 * 3) To place {Rational Skepticism} tags on articles related to Rational Skepticism, fraudster tags on articles concerning convicted fraudsters, and add to criticisms sections where criticism is due.
 * 4) To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported.
 * 5) To improve those articles which need help.
 * 6) To serve as a nexus and discussion area for editors interested in doing such work.

Goals of Alternative views:
 * 1) create articles about notable alternative views
 * 2) work to make existing articles about alternative views factual and neutral
 * 3) prevent articles about notable alternative views from being deleted
 * 4) ensure that significant alternative views which are notable in the context of other articles
 * 5) receive adequate, factual, neutral representation in those articles
 * 6) assist in the formulation and clarification of policies, guidelines, and other project-space
 * 7) infrastructure relating to alternative views
 * 8) provide a support group and help forum for editors who are interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of alternative views, but who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules and conventions

I see no relationship between the two, but different goals with very different ideas. Thus I am removing the Rational Skeptics from related. --Northmeister 12:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They are clearly related, asserting otherwise is mere sophistry. __meco 12:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How so? I see contradictions and conflicting points of view. (Although, if members of this project wish to restore the linkage, it is their project and they have a right to do so. My wish is to inform members of this project, of a recent addition to related, from a conflicting project with very different goals.) --Northmeister 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True. It should however be noted that the changes to the "Articles" page, if that is what you are concerned with, were made by someone who is a member of this project. As there is no clearly defined scope to the project as it currently exists, that does serve as at least a basis for a start. John Carter 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My wish was to alert this community to the change - it is this projects discretion to reverse my decison as SA (originally a member of Rational Skeptics) has done. I have no qualms with this. I've stated why I made my decision to remove and if any member disagrees or the project as whole (better for many reasons) then that would be fine. I do hope this project succeeds in its stated goals, without uneccessary conflict of interest arising, and wish everyone the best in the project. --Northmeister 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The two projects aren't conflicting at all. I am a member of both projects and restored the link. ScienceApologist 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternative views, particularly those involving paranormal phenomena, are a focus of skeptics and skeptical organizations; indeed, it is to examination of these views that scientific skepticism is in practice most commonly applied. When skeptical commentary on an alternative view is notable, it deserves a place in our coverage of that view.  For that reason, the aim of improving Wikipedia's coverage of alternative views overlaps the aim of improving Wikipedia's coverage of skepticism, and projects with these aims are related.


 * That said, I and other users have expressed concern about WikiProject Rational Skepticism's factionalism, apparent entry condition, and resemblance to a "skeptic's club". Since then, the project has made some changes: it no longer casts itself as "the central hub for Skeptical Wikipedians to get together and work on improving Wikipedia" (my bold), and Category:WikiProject Rational Skepticism members is no longer a subcategory of Category:Skeptical Wikipedians, which was deleted.  The project does, however, still host "Skeptic watchlists", a page "for skeptics to post their watchlist suggestions, or links to their watchlists" (my bold).  The use of the term "Skeptic watchlists", rather than "Skepticism watchlists", and the phrase "for skeptics", rather than "for editors interested in skepticism", is a continuing cause for concern. Tim Smith 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this removal qualifies as a violation of WP:POINT and I have reported it here. Northmeister should know better. ScienceApologist 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please show fellow editors some respect and assume good faith. My intentions were the best, and it is the projects call. --Northmeister 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally have no reservations whatsoever to seeing any individual try to revert vandalism wherever he sees it, and thank you for your alertness. I personally have no doubt about your intentions, and thank you for also starting this thread explaining your edit. I personally wish all editors acted as well, because I think we all know several who don't. John Carter 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Northmeister made one edit, explained it, and when faced with disagreement, left the decision to the project, even inviting me to reverse his action if I and other members disagreed with it. Assuming good faith, I don't see a WP:POINT violation. Tim Smith 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Related new project proposal
There is now a proposal at WikiProject Council/Proposals for a group which would work to help ensure that our content complies with the principle of WP:Undue weight. One of its foci could definite be the so-called fringe theories, including fringe scientific theories. Any editors interested are encouraged to show their support there. Thank you. John Carter 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview
''What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience?'' Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Project needs a project template
Before we get a project banner template to stick on articles' talk pages, I don't think we are going to make very much headway. __meco (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've created a basic banner and corresponding category.  The next step might be to go through WikiProject_Alternative_Views/Articles, adding the banner where appropriate. Tim Smith (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A very questionable list
We have at WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles a list of articles which several editors have deemed to be within the scope of this project. I have initiated the work of adding our new talk page banner to these articles, however, I am finding so many entries which I cannot with my best imagination understand could possibly have anything to do with this project. I have however tagged all articles without letting my second thoughts interfere. This has been done up through Black people, which again made me balk. Perhaps we should discuss, and possibly prune, this list before I proceed further? __meco (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The scope of this project is fuzzy, to say the least. As Meco notes, inclusion of Black people into the scope of this project would mean that you could probably auto-add each and every article on Wikipedia. Tell you what, how about tagging those articles (if any) not falling into the scope of "alternative views"? You'd be done much sooner.

Now, if we see this as the private project of some Wikipedians, a list of "here are some articles we like to keep an eye on", fine. In this case, move it to user space, and refrain from tagging talkpages. But like other Wikiprojects, you seem to be keen on letting the world know "we were here", leaving your tags at the top of random talkpages. If this is to be the way it is done, let the scope of this article be defined very clearly. E.g., only articles on topics directly attributable to a notable controversy. Perhaps only those articles that qualify for Category:Controversies, and perhaps Category:Hypotheses (but, if WikiProject Alternative Views simply equals Category:Hypotheses, what is the point? People can already navigate by category). Otherwise, the project tag will mean nothing. Alternatively, as I said, you are perfectly free to userify this and then do as you please, just as long as you refrain from advertising on article talkpages. If this project is simply a counter-project to WikiProject Rational Skepticism, as I daresay it appears, it should be scrapped, or merged: we don't need turf-wars-by-project-templating. If there are two sides to a given field or topic, interested editors should unite within one Wikiproject and try to collaborate, they should not create party-line Wikiprojects vs. counter-Wikiprojects. All we want is proper enforcement of WP:DUE. If a minority view is notable, let it have its own article. If not, prevent it from having its own articles. I am disturbed by the implication that this project will try to "save" minority view articles from deletion if notable, while the obvious alternative: make sure that minority view articles failing our notability criteria are duly deleted, is conspicuously absent from the project goals. If you have any experience at all in this field, you will agree that creation of minority view articles isn't a problem, they get created at a staggering pace. The difficult part is figuring out which to keep, which to merge, and which to delete. If you take a "keep by default" attitude, you are not "free of bias". The proper attitude dictated by our policies is "keep if notability is established, delete or merge otherwise". --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Meco, thanks for your work tagging articles with the project banner! And Dbachmann, thanks for your input.  For my thoughts on the scope of this project and what articles to tag, see my post in this section above, where I distinguish three groups of articles of interest to us and recommend tagging the first two.  Let's just skip anything in WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles that doesn't seem relevant.  We can delete that page when we're done with it, now that we have Category:WikiProject Alternative Views articles.


 * For discussion of this project's relationship to WikiProject Rational Skepticism, see this section above. I think the aims of (1) improving Wikipedia's coverage of alternative views and (2) improving Wikipedia's coverage of skepticism are related but distinct, and can overlap without conflicting.  I agree that editors should not create party-line WikiProjects.  In fact, I've expressed concern in that regard about WikiProject Rational Skepticism, whose primary aim refers to "Wikipedians who wish to promote science and reason" and which hosts "Skeptic watchlists", a page "for skeptics to post their watchlist suggestions, or links to their watchlists" (my bolds).  In contrast, WikiProject Alternative Views is not about promoting alternative views, but about improving Wikipedia's coverage of them, and membership is for everyone, not just proponents.  Granted, the project's stated goals do not include ensuring that articles about non-notable topics are deleted, but neither do those of WikiProject Rational Skepticism; I don't think that necessarily indicates bias. Tim Smith (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been on the sidelines watching this project. I think the concept of this group is outstanding.  I think that the so-called and self-proclaimed "rational skeptics" do need a counterbalancing force on wiki.  Personally, I've given up on wiki contributions, and for that I apologize, but wanted to offer my 2 cents of encouragement.  --Mbilitatu (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can this project be applied to conspiracies
Can this project be applied to conspiracy theories?Smallman12q (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Preeminently. __meco (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it could be justified on pages about conspiracy theories themselves, but not related pages. Such as a fiction adventure film (eg Toxic Skies) which makes reference to a conspiracy theory (eg chemtrail conspiracy theory). Verbal chat  13:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot
There is currently a discussion on the talk page of the above article which I believe would be of interest to the members of this project. Any and all input is welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed: Project discussed at Talk:AIDS_denialism
Over on the AIDS denialism talk page a new user is giving a description of this project which seems to be at odds with what this project says it is about, and also at odds with wikipedia policy. If some people with more experiance of this project could take a look, and point out any inaccuracies on the article talk page and perhaps to the user as well, I'd be very grateful. I'm pretty sure he is wrong in his interpretation of this project, but clarification would be helpful. All the best, Verbal   chat  13:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am likely on the side of Haytham2 here as I would be on many similar battles. I'm not going to exhaust myself getting involved though. Merely keeping abreast of these discussions easily becomes a full-time occupation in and of itself, and there are simply too many worthy causes. My perspective on the opposition is that for many, fending off opinions that threaten to shatter their paradigm and hence their entire weltanschauung is so deeply existential that they are going to expend energy levels several orders of magnitude beyond what I would be willing to volunteer in these debates. Sure, this means that they somehow have Wikipedia in their grip. Does it change the trajectory of the underlying trends that they so frantically and with such vehemence want to get rid of? No, it doesn't. Concede to them every hard-won battle, because the war they have already lost. __meco (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For what reason should the wikipedia article not reflect the use of the term in reliable sources? Wikipedia is not a place to right perceived wrongs. Are his summaries of the aims of this project correct? If so this project needs to change its aims to be in line with wikipedia policy or be disbanded. Also, has this editor other accounts, as you seem to know him well? Wikipedia is not a place to "further causes". Thanks, Verbal   chat  16:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who this editor is, and I only read the one post of his (or hers) which shows up immediately when you load the talk page using the link in the section header above. I agree that it cannot be the cause of this project to right wrongs. That would be a general cause of Wikipedia and all editors. __meco (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to the policy or foundational issue that states that? The AIDS denialist article is appropriately named and neutral. Which policies does it contravene? Verbal   chat  22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Meco, I'd still be interested in hearing your answer to the two questions I posed above. Verbal   chat  09:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was inaccurate in this statement. I was thinking that this is an imperative of a greater magnitude, so I inflated it from the level of this wikiproject to Wikipedia and editorship. Now, that is also wrong. It would be something we are impelled to do as ethical human beings. __meco (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Alternative Views makes it pretty clear what boundaries we're working within. Correcting great wrongs, promoting a particular minority view, using articles as a platform, and so on are all out of scope for Wikipedia. Proper coverage is not at all the same as sympathetic coverage. We still follow all normal policies when reporting about minority and fringe views. Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty clear in my posts on that page that I am not promoting my view (although ended up defending it in response to other posts), but rather trying to correct an "unfair" and "biased" term that is consistently used on Wiki: "denialist". While I understand that the majority of the scientific orthodoxy uses this term, it is also an intentionally pejorative term simply never ever used by dissidents (which is what they/we are called). "Denialist" brings to mind Holocaust deniers and also the unscientific frame of mind of denial itself. So since "AIDS denialist" is neither accurate (no dissident denies AIDS, but only HIV or its role), nor respectful, it seems to me to fall well within the scope of this project. Any more experienced editors here please correct me if I am wrong. Haytham2 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:ADVOCACY. The term is the one used in the real world, so it is the term that should be used in an encyclopaedia. Verbal   chat  09:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For topics where there is a clear majority name for a topic, we defer to that. The majority of reliable sources, which includes scientific orthodoxy and mainstream news sources, refer to the beleif/group as "denialism". Thus, Wikipedia refers to the subject by the same name. The introduction explicitly notes what those holding the position prefer to name themselves. Redirects are used to ensure that these alternative names link to the article (for example: AIDS dissident). Due to the nature of Wikipedia, our coverage will naturally be biased towards the mainstream point of view and naming conventions. This wikiproject exists to help ensure minority views are covered appropriately within the rules of Wikipedia. While this means making sure significant and notable minority views receive proper coverage, it is not meant as a counterweight to mainstream views, intended to correct gaps in reliable source coverage, nor correct any great wrongs. As an example noted on the project page, minority views are often excluded simply because Wikipedia editors are unfamiliar with them or simply not aware of them (and their coverage in reliable sources). This is the type of error we should aim to correct, but we are not free to correct "errors" in real world coverage. Vassyana (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A project looking to cover "alternative views" on Wikipedia would see to it that there is an article on Aids denialism, not to try and give it any credibility it does not have. Wikipedia is a platform to document the most lunatic, extremist, dumb or eccentric views there are, if only they are notable. But it will always label them for what they are. If they are pseudoscience or hoaxes, they will be labelled as 'pseudoscience', or 'hoax'.

This is why the heliocentrism icon is an extremely poor choice for representing this project. The implication is that "an idea that may sound stupid today may still turn out to be correct in the future". This is what every crank will tell you about their pet theory. That is an inversion fallacy, of course. Ground breaking ideas are often ridiculed. From this it doesn't follow that if your idea is ridiculed, it must be groundbreaking. It is astronomically more likely that it is ridiculed simply because it is ridiculous. --dab (𒁳) 13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Astrologically well put (I agree). Verbal   chat  13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this project for or against OR?
Here are some thoughts to get a discussion going:


 * "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." -- No original research policy


 * "Rouge admins are a cabal of administrators, governed by five pillars of evil and the Five Pillars of Untruth, who stand in the way of Wikipedia’s true purpose, which is to disseminate new and controversial theories, publicise hitherto suppressed views about establishment figures, document the stories which the news media refuse to touch, help the small businessman to achieve the Armenian Dream, and bring to public attention the “Holy Grail” which the said groups refuse to endorse." -- Rouge admins


 * "I act to mitigate, redesign, and occasionally destroy the offerings of users who think that a particular "breakthrough" or "notable idea" deserves more consideration than it has gotten in the academic world. Such grandstanding is forbidden by a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:REDFLAG to name just a few). Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. If Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, his ideas would have been subject to my incisive commentary and editorial braggadocio -- even if I agreed with him. I am a status quo promoter. NPOV-PUSHER." -- ScienceApologist

So, what think ye? Are you here at this project intent on ensuring that NOR is upheld and that the policies regarding the proper treatment of Fringe theories/alternative views are upheld, or do you think that they are getting the raw end of the deal and so you are here to ensure that they get more coverage? -- Fyslee (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no reason it cannot be both! :-) WikiProject Alternative Views supports the first. At the same time, WikiProject Alternative Views supports the second. This project's purpose, as I understand it (an interpretation I believe is supported by the main project page), is to make sure neglected minority views have their coverage improved within the bounds of established policies. There's plenty of "alternative views" areas that need a lot of attention, and even expansion. Some are horrible stubs. Others are fluff pieces or hit jobs written by editors looking to share The Truth. Sometimes a significant minority (of coverage in reliable sources) may be excluded, simply because the previous editors were not aware of it or were not aware of its extent. I'm sure you can imagine plenty of other examples. The key is that this all should be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct the horrid wrongs of the orthodoxy or any other such nonsense.


 * tl:dr version: Both. Follow policy. Improve neglected areas. :) Vassyana (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good answer. Thanks. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, how can it be both. The project is for OR? When does that not contradict policy? It's not a good answer, it's a meaingless non-answer.YobMod 09:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On the surface it's a bad answer, because we obviously shouldn't be for OR, but I consider it a good answer because he revealed he was thinking of other aspects of the subject that aren't covered by my question, IOW my question was too limited. Either/or questions often are too limited. It's true that some fringe views might not get the coverage they should get, and that can be done without violating OR. His final qualifier is what saves him: "The key is that this all should be done while following our basic content principles."
 * My question is designed to elicit comments and get people thinking, so there can be more than one answer. Maybe others have thoughts of other angles that aren't yet covered. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- Maybe the section WikiProject Alternative Views should get tweaked with the addition of Vassyana's qualifiers, because there are newbie editors who are so simplistic that they might interpret this project as license to engage in OR. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fully agree that this clarification is needed given some interpretations I've seen. Verbal   chat  14:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Continuing below. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Does medical cannabis belong here?

 * ''Moved discussion from User talk:Meco

<-- copy begin --> I see that you added WikiProject Alternative Views back into Talk:Medical cannabis. That's fine, but I originally removed it because I'm not sure how it fits into your project. It's already tagged as a member of WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, and WikiProject Alternative medicine. How does tagging it with "Alternative Views" help the article? Or to look at this another way, how does "alternative views" apply? Just consider me ignorant on the matter; all I ask for is some form of education on the topic, as I'm not familiar with the AV project. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed that it had been taken off the project. Well, it's a judgement call, and there is decidely significant overlap between some projects. I figure it belongs as the topic encompasses some significant conflict between its proponents and the scientific/medical establishment. I consider a topic being prominent conflict material to be one major criterion for deciding that an article belongs to WP Alternative Views. __meco (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. If that is your position, then I disagree.  The conflict does not stem from the scientific nor the medical establishment, but is solely a political and governmental issue concerning the use of illegal drugs.  Looking at surveys that measure public opinion across the board, those in favor of using medical cannabis or at least allowing it are a significant majority, so I don't see how this is an "alternative view" at all.  Yes, it is now considered alternative medicine, but until sweeping drug laws were put in place across the globe in the early 20th century, cannabis was once part of the medical establishment.  I really don't see this as an "alternative view" in any way.  The right to self-medicate, to alleviate pain and suffering, is a basic human right that no government can regulate or take away. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You state your position in an interesting manner. As I read you you are actually advocating that medical cannabis should be perceived as an uncontroversial subject. It is my clear perception that this is a controverisal issue, and simply shifting the controversy from the realm of physicians and scientists to that of politicians and government figures does not suffice to make it an uncontroversial issue. I'll be glad to discuss with fellow Alternative Views project members this particular article and whether there is consensus to have it included in our project if you insist that it doesn't belong. __meco (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is controversial about the issue? Surely, you should be able to describe the controversy in a sentence or two?  I think you will find it very, very hard to show any controversy when discussing the use of medical cannabis by people suffering from serious diseases, and that is exactly what this topic is about.  I think I can safely observe that there is no controversy.  What there is, however,  is the political and legal will of a very small group of people who wish to prevent others from alleviating pain and suffering.  No, that is not controversial by any stretch of the imagination; The correct word for it is criminal.  Which is an alternative view? Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- copy end -->
 * I'm not convinced it belongs, in fact I think there is a lot of cruft in the list of tagged articles. It could do with a spring clean. Verbal   chat  18:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Motivation" section needs qualifiers
<-- Copied from above:

There's no reason it cannot be both! :-) WikiProject Alternative Views supports the first. At the same time, WikiProject Alternative Views supports the second. This project's purpose, as I understand it (an interpretation I believe is supported by the main project page), is to make sure neglected minority views have their coverage improved within the bounds of established policies. There's plenty of "alternative views" areas that need a lot of attention, and even expansion. Some are horrible stubs. Others are fluff pieces or hit jobs written by editors looking to share The Truth. Sometimes a significant minority (of coverage in reliable sources) may be excluded, simply because the previous editors were not aware of it or were not aware of its extent. I'm sure you can imagine plenty of other examples. The key is that this all should be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct the horrid wrongs of the orthodoxy or any other such nonsense.

tl:dr version: Both. Follow policy. Improve neglected areas. :) Vassyana (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

...


 * Maybe the section WikiProject Alternative Views should get tweaked with the addition of Vassyana's qualifiers, because there are newbie editors who are so simplistic that they might interpret this project as license to engage in OR. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fully agree that this clarification is needed given some interpretations I've seen. Verbal   chat  14:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- '' End copy. Continue below.''

Let's give it a try here. The section currently has this wording:

Version 1 (current version):


 * Wikipedia's policy is to write articles from a neutral point of view describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability.  This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors.

Here's an attempt to tweak it and enlarge it:

Version 2 (Fyslee):


 * Wikipedia's policy is to write articles from a neutral point of view describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views and often suffer from a lack of coverage in verifiable and reliable sources, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability.  This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors. This should all be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct supposed suppression from the mainstream orthodoxy, or engage in original research. Other Wikipedia policies and guidelines that are relevant are WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:REDFLAG.

That's a start, and I'm sure it will need more tweaking. Please propose your version(s) below and number them. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me. Perhaps the list of relevant polices should go in Policies and guidelines section, which can be expanded. Verbal   chat  07:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(Note: I'm a he, not a she. *chuckle*) I'm good with most any revision close to the mark. Please be sure to remove or merge material from other sections, so the page doesn't become redundant. To me, the essential point boils down to: "We are not here to correct real-world coverage. We are here to report real-world coverage. We are not here to counterbalance real-world sources. We are here to balance according to real-world sources." --Vassyana (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * SIR! My apologies. I have just performed sex reassignment surgery on my previous comment ;-) I like your remark here very much. That's the essence of what NPOV and NOR are about. That is our job. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:44, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Socionics not an alternative view
It's intriguing that the military recruitment tools of East European nations qualify as "alternative" views. Another example of Western bias on the English Wikipedia?

I mean did you even read the external link to the Socionics INSTITUTE? Any of you? Did you even think about this?

I realize it's not fair to blame all of you for this insult to the history of East Europe scientific acheivement, but to those who are more competant about these things do speak up next time. Also, I like how MBTI merits inclusion on the CD, yet socionics doesn't despite its much more advanced model. I wonder if there is a conflict of interest afoot? Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With that said, I think you should either take the socionics article off of the alternative views list, or consign MBTI to it as well. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT
Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename of Category
Some of you may wish to participate in the discussion on renaming the category Armenian Genocide deniers to Armenian Genocide skeptics. The discussion is here.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How broad is the scope of this project - does it also include potentially imbalanced views on popular topics
Obviously I understand the goal of any project here is defined by its members individual opinions of what it should be, so this might not have a definitive answer, but I'll propose the question nonetheless.

As I understand it, the main current goal of this project is to look for small underdeveloped articles "needing attention" (possibly stubs), or to create new articles, for subjects without a lot of coverage on Wikipedia, owing to the fact that those with knowledge of them or with interest in these topics are in a minority and thus under-/un-represented. Or not fluent English speakers and mainly contribute to projects in other languages.

My question regards large existing articles that receive had a lot of attention, are on topics of great popular interest. When viewed by an "average" English speaking white male American (just using the typical en.wikipedia editor according to statistics as an example) the topic of these articles might seem well represented in their contents, but in reality the views of minority cultures, nationalities, etc. might not be well represented.

What are people's views on this? It's an area that might not show up on radar as easily as small under-developed articles might. ɹəə pıɔnı  09:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Timewave zero
The article on Terrance McKennas Timewave zero has just been through an Afd which it survived with no concencuss. A user is now trying to merge it into another article where it is reduced to a paragraph. Any comments on the debate are welcome. Lumos3 (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice for Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
nominated Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Raëlism GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Raëlism for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on merger of Bristol Indymedia with Independent Media Center
An RfC has been opened - discussion at Talk:Bristol Indymedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve Lightfoot
Hello. I am getting in touch with you because I am after some advice, and this seemed the most reasonable space to ask. I have been involved in creating an article about Steve Lightfoot, who is a conspiracy theorist with some quite unusual views. I am of the opinion that Lightfoot is notable, but so far people are nominating the article for deletion. I am obviously prepared to accept the result of the discussion, but I am concerned that the only people involved in the discussion are Stephen King fans, who may well dislike Lightfoot (as King crops up in Lightfoot's most well known theory). I was wondering if you had any advice - I am aware that the very nature of Alternative Views is that they are often harder to source than mainstream ones, and despite Lightfoot's mention in several (both local and national) news sources, I am concerned I am fighting a losing battle.

I wonder if anyone could advise me:

- if there is a better way of sourcing my article to avoid its deletion or - if I'm just going nowhere and the article is likely to be deleted anyway.

Any help you may have would be great - I'm not overly versed in the policies of Wikipedia (but I have been reading up), and any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

Thalweg &amp; Nimbus (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh well, he was deleted anyway. I am made unhappy by this. But I will return! Thank you for your help Thalweg &amp; Nimbus (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Members fighting each other over project scope
I have in recent times been in several confrontations with User:Verbal over the placement of the project banner on talk pages of articles on topics such as a Chemtrail conspiracy movie, an academic promoting reincarnation research, and most recently, an article on alternative media.

I think these skirmishes are highly unnecessary, and they also become disruptive when the evolve to bickering and revert wars. Since this is obviously a question which goes to the core of this project, i.e. which articles belong within the scope of this WikiProject, this page is the place where a thorough discussion should take place – a discussion which aims to revise our current scope description into something less ambiguous and having the broadest possible consensus in support of it.

The current scope of the project is defined to be:


 * ''..those theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations which, though notable, lack widespread acceptance, and which may challenge a "dominant view" which does have such acceptance. The project encompasses alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities.

I hope as many project members as possible will see the importance of conducting this discussion without further delay. __meco (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal sounds good to me. The only thing I would add is that it might also be a good idea to try to specificy which category or catgories such articles should be placed in to get the attention of the project. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If challenged we should be able to justify on each article the existence of the banner. Verbal chat


 * If we had a clear and unambiguous project scope that had been conceived through a thorough consensus-making decision process, sure. Since we don't really have that, taking our differences of opinion out on the articles' talk pages gets very messy. __meco (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Either justify it on each page or remove it. It does not deserve to be on Toxic Skies (or The hunt for Red October, which also involves a CT as a central plot device, for example) and nor does it deserve to be on indymedia (that's taking alternative view too literally, and is not the kind of alternative view outlined in our scope). Note I discussed the Toxic skies film in the thread above. Justifications must be provided when asked for. Verbal chat  07:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem very little interested in developing this project but only in having your interpretation in a rather myoptic, coercive and unyielding way. I am not interested in fighting you on every article talk page where you feel the project banner has been placed in error simply because you are more interested in doing that than discussing the basic issue here. I will continue to work for a consensus among all project members on a revised project scope and aim description. __meco (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this project should be extended to include every article which either has the word alternative in it (such as indymedia, which is clearly outside our scope) or touches upon a fringe view (which is a better name for this project) such as films like Toxic Skies, The hunt for Red October, Men in black, etc. Documentaries about fringe views, yes, fiction like Toxic Skies, no. Please don't say I'm pushing my own POV, as you do in the edit summary, when you have so far failed to justify your placing of the banner. If you can't justify the project banner then it should be removed. If you want to change our scope to justify the banner on pages outside of our scope, then propose changes to the scope. In the meantime the banner should be removed from any article where a member or non member questions it, and no one justifies it. Verbal chat  16:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What should this project's scope be?
The scope section is not very clear. It should limit itself to describe the scope, i.e. which areas and topics are covered by this project.

I will put forward a suggestion that this project could become a parent project for some other projects dealing with fringe topics and disciplines, such as the Paranormal WikiProject, Alternate History WikiProject, WikiProject Alternative medicine, WikiProject Alternative education, WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants and WikiProject Cannabis. I am not proposing this, but merely presenting the idea here for others to comment on or discuss.

When it comes to conspiracy theories I would propose we cover articles on these, on conspiracy theorists and on media which promotes them in an earnest fashion, whether they be documentaries or fictional films. Movies and television that deal with conspiracy theories in an exploitive fashion, such as the movie Conspiracy Theory or the X-Files TV series should be outside the project scope.

I think we should consider subjects that are often ridiculed and demonized, whether that be the Myth of the Flat Earth or pedophilia advocacy, as well as alternative culture such as the hippie movement. We should cover drug policy reform and white supremacy.

These are my thoughts for now. Nothing hewn in rock, so please don't bring out your artillery quite yet. __meco (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why people have alternative views
I think it might help if the project had some kind of discussion on why people have alternative views and why others reject them. The general assumption of the project seems to be that most people are honestly trying to find the truth and can have an honest disagreement about what the evidence is saying. That is probably a reasonable assumption in most situations. But if you look at genocide denial, it is mostly about the motivations for genocide denial and pretty much assumes that deniers have some conscious or subconscious motive that blinds them to the evidence. I don't know what the best approach is here. Most of the time this is probably true... but is that a fair way to represent an alternative view? Yaris678 (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think any assumption that those who oppose an established mainstream position do so because of psychological factors is extremely dangerous to assert. We could and should present opinions from relevant experts on such possible delusions or psychological impairing factors, but generally not from proponents of the mainstream position that consider the other side "nuts" or who as a mere point of view present a bad faith characterization of the other side. As for the term denier that is a totally POV term that Wikipedia shouldn't be using at all. Unfortunately there's a strong lobby for maintaining it within our accepted terminology. __meco (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you say. I think that alternative oviews should firstly be evaluated in terms of the evidence for and against.  But we should we not document the fact that people ascribe these alternative views to psychological factors?  Especially if such analyses are put forward by reputable people (such as George Orwell in the case of genocide denial.  So I think, applying my preferred approach to that case, we would start the article by stating that some people do not believe that some genocides took place.  We would probably then state that reasons vary from case to case but that it is often believed that the claim of genocide is being made to ruin a reputation and is based on evidence from unreliable sources (or something like that, I'm not an expert on that particular topic).  Only then would it present the counter claims, e.g. that the deniers choose to believe the sources are unreliable so as to preserve a reputation in their own mind.  Finally, the article would link to various cases and the particular evidence for and against each being a genocide would be presented in each separate article.
 * I'm not sure what I think about the word denial. To me it doesn't really imply a psychological disorder, but I know that is how some people read it.  For example, I deny the existence of God, which makes me an atheist but I don't see that I am admitting any kind of mental aberration there.  That is just my assessment of the evidence.  I guess this all comes from Freud using the word denial to describe a defence mechanism in the face of overwhelming evidence.  I wonder if their are any more-specific terms for Freudian and non-Freudian denial.  That might help us to be clearer on this subject.  An alternative approach might be to explain at the begining of the article that, genocide denial or AIDS denial is such and such a belief.  But then go on to explain that "the term is often used to imply denial in the Freudian sense and hence imply a psychological aberration on the part of the denier" or something along those lines.  Yaris678 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Afterthought - the article on denial does actually give some cases of the whole concept being unhelpful. But these bit aren't very well written.  Maybe we need to start by looking at the denial article, since the whole Freudian concept of Denial is often used to attack alternative views.  Yaris678 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Article clearly belonging to this project
I find that the article Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell clearly falls within the scope of this project. User:Verbal disagrees. Any takers? __meco (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say it belongs to WikiProject Rational Skepticism instead. -- &oelig; &trade; 23:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS
It seems to me this whole project can be shut down by the reliable source policy on "Extremist and fringe sources". It says "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals." In my experience, a source in the minority is barred completely because editors will revert it saying the source is "extremist or fringe". I have tried to cite a tenured professor who was hired to research for the US Senate and was unable to do so on the grounds the source was "fringe". The policy does not appear to allow any counter-arguments. If it is "fringe" (or, more accurately, subject to the possibility of being deemed "fringe" by other Wiki users) it is out! I suggest working to change that reliable source policy before going down this road of trying to ensure that "alternative" views get a hearing.Bdell555 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hear hear!  --Mbilitatu (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * These guidelines do seem overly restrictive. I agree we should work to change them.  I can see a balance has to be struck but they don't seem to strike it in the best way at the moment.  My preference on alternative views is that they should be given their own article where they can be described and the evidence supporting the theory or otherwise can be presented.  A good example of this would be the article on Homeopathy. Of course, if you had an article on absolutely every alternative view, there would be an enormous amount of rubbish that it would be difficult to verify.  So we need some rules on notability.  But again, I think the current guide on notability  is too restrictive.  At least, I would probably allow theories that are a bit less notable than those given as examples.  Yaris678 (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What seems to have gotten Bdell555 started on this -- four years ago -- was not being allowed to use Holocaust Denial sites -- ihr.com, in particular -- as sources. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A holocaust denial site would be a perfectly reasonable source to reference from an article on holocaust denial. That would enable you to make a verifiable statement about what such people claim.  That all seems to fit nicely into the guidelines until you see point 4 - the source may be used so long as "there is no reason to doubt its authenticity".  I suppose it depends on what you mean by authenticity - the source may be an authentic account of the beliefs or claims of holocaust deniers but there are lots of reasons to doubt its authenticity as actual history of the holocaust.  If the rules could be clarified on this issue that would remove my main objection in this area.  Yaris678 (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree clarification would be needed. However, I think -- the edit that resulted in a polite conversation between Bdell555 and I -- is a quite legitimate removal of a Holocaust denial site from a non-Holocaust-Denial related article. My position might be extreme, but it's held up for almost as long as I've been here: holocaust denial sites are ipso facto unreliable sources, as they are dedicated to the propagation of falsehood. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made a change which hopefully clarifies the rule. Let's see if anyone argues with it.  Or maybe someone will improve upon it... that would be nice.  Yaris678 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it a "conversation" because when I've pointed out the logical fallacy of this "ipso facto" business it's quickly become, to my great frustration, "talk to the hand". The fallacy is that one cannot demand a logically necessary conclusion when the support for the conclusion is, in fact, merely empirical.  Empirical research can only support an empirical, contingent conclusion; in other words, jpgordan says he has gone into the field and noted that all observed birds are white. He then concluded that all birds are white. If I, or anyone else, were to come along and say look at this black bird I've found, jpgordan refuses to participate in any inquiry because he believes that he knows on a a priori basis that a black bird is impossible.  This when his knowledge is, in fact, only a posteriori.  It's like telling Galileo that the earth cannot possibly go around the sun because the idea that the sun goes around the earth has "held up for almost as long as I've been here".  The difference between the 21st century and the 17th is that the received wisdom has changed with the political tides, not that there is any less a received wisdom.  That a practice has "held up" is, of course, just a reference to the fact that at end of the day Wikipedia is mob rule and the mob has little appetite for dissidence.  This whole "alternative views" project cannot be expected to go anywhere when someone can just wield this "[your sources] are dedicated to the propagation of falsehood" argument as a trump card.  Like any community, the community of Wiki users develops a set of norms and any deviation from those norms is exactly that: deviant.  The final result is that the majority ensures that everyone is told what the majority wants to hear.Bdell555 (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bdell, I too can certainly relate to a lot of what you are saying. Who is the tenured professor you are referring to?

I am trained in science, have a couple of university degrees, and actually regard myself as a fairly mainstream person, but I do have an interest in the work of Ian Stevenson, who was a tenured professor at the University of Virginia until his retirement. On his death he received obituaries in NYT, Washington Post , and Daily Telegraph , so he is quite notable, and he has written 13 books, mainly published by the University of Virginia Press. He has worked in several areas, including reincarnation research. But there are sceptics on wikipedia who seemingly just don't want his work to see the light of day. And several articles relating to his work seem likely to be deleted, see, , and Articles for deletion/List of books by Ian Stevenson. I have never seen deletions being pursued so vigorously as here; it is like these people are on some sort of righteous crusade. It seems to me that sources such as the Journal of Parapsychology and Journal of Scientific Exploration are just not being seen as reliable in any circumstances. Johnfos (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fear not, they have become redirects to the only notable article that was notable. The way I came across them was by using the "related" and "what links here" tag. The list of books article was never going to stay here. I also am a scientist with several university degrees, etc. I would also agree that neither of those publications are reliable, without corroborating RS. Ian Stevenson is notable, although a sad case of wasted talent. Verbal chat  20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Johnfos, as per my remarks above, what one has to do is ensure that Wiki policies focus on PROCESS and thereby preclude the possibility of community norms coming in to shut down the conclusions of sound process that happen to be socially deviant. The "extremist and fringe" policy is a big green light for norm enforcers to come in and eliminate "alternative views".  It ought to be entirely irrelevant how "extremist" or "fringe" a source is.  What ought to matter is how scientific, sound, and logical its processes are.Bdell555 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing Wikipedia's policies do not do and should never do is focus on process. The spirit of the policy matters much more than the words. --TS 10:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it is certainly common practice for people to first decide whether they want material in or not and then work backwards to rationalize their decision. Hence the "words" become irrelevant and policy becomes whatever the mob says they feel its "spirit" to be.  Sadly, some users don't even feel compelled to share their rationalization, let alone reasoning.Bdell555 (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's an unnecessarily jaundiced description of how things work. The problem with process is that, whilst it has its merits,  it's slow and tends to hamper necessary action.  On Wikipedia, typically a single person will take the initiative and do something that ignores all rules,   In a rulebound system, the response would be that his action is undone on the basis that process wasn't followed, even if it was the right thing to do.  On Wikipedia, on the other hand, we tend to accept the action if we agree that it's the right thing to do, where "right" means "improves Wikipedia."  That is what "Ignore all rules" means. --TS 14:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you see what the consequence of that is for "alternative views"? It means they are eliminated because a majority of Wiki editors "agree" that they are extremist or fringe.  The only defence against that is de-particularized rules such that consistency of approach is required across differently particularized situations; that binds the whim of the majority creating some space for sound but unpopular views to given credibility.Bdell555 (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the logic I often see on Wiki. ==>  Statements must be backed up by citations. Citations must be from reliable sources. But everyone knows that Fringe Topic ABC does not exist. Therefore, any citation claiming evidence for the existence of Fringe Topic ABC must be from an unreliable source, and therefore may not be used to support a statement. Delete unreliable source.  Now all statements claiming evidence for the existence of Fringe Topic ABC are unsupported, and must be removed.  Delete evidentiary statement.  Since there is no remaining evidence, propose that Fringe Topic ABC be deleted.  QED.


 * It follows the rules, but it's circular at the core. It involves enough steps that an aggressive Wiki-lawyer can hide the circularity behind a smoke screen of validity from all but the most dedicated of editors who has time and open mind enough to wade through pages of discussion.  Anyone with a life probably doesn't have that kind of time.   --Mbilitatu (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why you have to change the policy that renders a source "unreliable" simply because it not mainstream. There is no logical connection between how popular a source is and how objectively reliable it is.  That's why this whole "alternative views" project is not going anywhere.  Proposing "ignore all rules" is not going to work, or shouldn't work.Bdell555 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrance McKenna's Timewave zero in danger of backdoor deletion
A group of editors has proposed that the article Timewave zero be replaced with a REDIRECT. The article has been in existence since 2004 and has survived 4 attempts at AFD; I feel the redirect proposal is a way of circumventing Wikipedia process as it does not require discussion by the wider Wikipedia community as an AFD or Merge would. I has set up an RFC to discuss the propriety of using REDIRECT in this way see Requests for comment/Policies. In the long term we need to set a precedent that replacing an established article with a REDIRECT requires as wide a consultaion as a merge or deletion. The article is already tagged as within the scope of the Alternative views project; contributions to the RFC would be welcome, go to Talk:Timewave_zero. Lumos3 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been some confusion - looks like an AfD for an article on 'Novelty Theory' was the one being called the first AfD - it was merged into Timewave Zero which already existed. The first 2 AfDs resulted in Keep, the 3rd resulted in No Consensus. I think it is 6 editors vs Lumos3 at the moment, hence presumably Lumos3's posting here and elsewhere to recruit support. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replacing a page with a redirect is not as serious as deleting it because it can be easily undone. Of course, it's not that easy if every time you try someone undoes what you have done.  I think it makes sense for this to be a separate article linked to from 2012 millenarianism since this gives space for the arguments for and against to be placed near each other.  As it is, the 2012 article just has a brief summary of arguments against several of the theories but that section doesn't mention timewave zero.  I think this is an example of people having unnecessarily high standards in terms of notability.  Yaris678 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

2012
For anyone interested, there's a discussion currently in play over at talk:2012 millenarianism (recently renamed from 2012 doomsday prediction) about what should be the most appropriate name for this article, with its scope covering various 2012-related speculations/predictions/theorising/phenomena. Arguments for/against various current title proposals are at Talk:2012_millenarianism and Talk:2012_millenarianism, and there's an open poll at Talk:2012_millenarianism. Contribs & thoughts welcomed.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 03:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages
I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

List of religious organizations
Hi. The article List of religious organizations is in need of serious help. It was in an abandoned state and discussed for deletion, however I feel it has strong potential to become a useful list. But it needs lots of help and collaboration. Is someone of you interested? -- Cycl o pia talk  23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

HIV dissent
Hello! HIV dissent is being changed to a forward for AIDS denialism. HIV dissent is about those who question the practices used in HIV research. It is not about AIDS denialism (HIV and AIDS are not the same thing), nor is it about HIV denialism (denialism isn't actually a word anyway). I believe that HIV dissent qualifies as an "Alternative View" not traditionally accepted by the mainstream. AIDS denialism is widely accepted by the masses, particularly in regard to the political issues in Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this is forum shopping and canvassing. I also believe the redirect is correct, as this is a POV fork of both AIDS denialism and HIV that doesn't use WP:MEDRS, and the consensus seems to agree. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the Alternative Views page. HIV dissent falls under alternative views. AIDS denialism is not an alternative view, but mainstream. The idea of asking others involved in alternative views to review the issue with HIV dissent id not canvasing, or forum shopping. To imply otherwise is a form of strong arming, or threatening, others into maintaining a biased viewpoint simply because you feel enough threats and intimidation will make someone go away. It won't. Furthermore, you cannot reach a consensus in 24 hours. Give it time for others to weigh in on the article before declaring a consensus, as very few have contributed. Neuromancer (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * AIDS denialism is mainstream? How does that work.  I agree with Verbal that the subjects of these two articles are just variations on the same theme.  The main difference is the point of view.  Some of the stuff from the old "disent" article could go into the denialism article, once checked for POV.
 * That said, not sure if denialism is the best word. I raised the issue of the word denial above (see my later comments on ), although I wasn't aware that there was an article on denialism at the time.  Yaris678 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Alternative Views to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Alternative Views/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You should really have the Sun orbiting the Earth on your logo
/discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.181.12.52 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism at GAH
Anarchism has been nominated for Good Article status. I have assessed it and placed in on hold so that some points I have raised can be dealt with. I see the article has this project's tag, so am informing people here. My comments are at Talk:Anarchism/GA1.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed new section "Alternative medicine as mainstream"
Please comment and help create a consensus version at Talk:Alternative_medicine. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts
Announcing an RfC at Talk:Ghost. The questions being discussed are:

1. Whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs".

2. Whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject.

See you there! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD:Reverse scientific method
Please, go make your voice heard in the discussion Articles for deletion/Reverse scientific method! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Announcement of RfC at Talk:NPOV regarding use of Category:Pseudoscience wikilinks
Please weigh in there. This is just an announcement. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Field Influence Telepathy Report
"Pharmaceutical Telepathy and the Human Biofield", March 2010

JohnDoe489 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Defining news organisations
Hi, I am trying to start a debate about defining what news organisations, as a reliable source, are good for and/or not good for. It is not as clearly defined as other similar reliable sources policies and it should be. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources ~ R.T.G 19:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unbiased Reporting of Political Issues in the context of Climate Change
I wish to express concern at the bias presented towards those who are not in favour of current 'accepted' popular climate change theories, and particularly towards the pages related to Climate Change and Global Warming. While there are arguments both for and against climate change, and on these I will not take a stance in this respect, but it is abundantly obvious that the page in question could be considered to be propaganda. My primary argument for this, is that all images on such pages only provide information which is consistant with the view of climate change lobbyists, whereas if, for example one was to compare levels of atmospheric carbon from the end of the Permian period to today, one would discover that during the Permian period, instead of 300ppm from today, it was closer to 3000ppm.

For an indicator of my claim to bias, a majority of the article on Climate Change Skepticism, details groups whose interest it was in to discredit climate change. Further indicators are found throughout pages of books published about such topics as "The Myth of Climate Change" one such case being the book Heaven and Earth, where more of the article about the book is taken up by criticisms leveled at it and how, in the eyes of the press and the ever elusive, completely consenual group that in this areticle are referred to as Scientists, in the entire section titles Receptions from scientists, only remarks made in a negative light have been shown (bar one which is entirely neutral), and if one cares to look within the scientific community one may discover a range of other viewpoints, as opposed to a collection of mathematicians, astronomers, astrobiologists and geographers. While I am not defending the book in question, I merely state that given a large enough group of people, there are bound to be differing views found within, as opposed to the concept portrayed within the article of a single unanimous viewpoint.

In Conclusion, the purpose of wikipedia is to allow a user to gain knowledge. Knowledge should be objective and not subject to bias. In such examples as is found here, instead of informing the viewer, it instead supports one viewpoint in favour of another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.110.240 (talk) 13:05, April 24, 2010


 * This project is not in place to counter biases as such, but to develop and systematize articles about such topics and their protagonists. __meco (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The climate of the Permian Period is covered, not too surprisingly, in the article Permian Period. More depth of coverage, from reliable scientific sources of course, is always welcome. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Review of draft article requested
I have completed a new draft of Shakespeare authorship question, a problematic article about a minority viewpoint. I see that the article is assessed as High Importance here at this project, so I would sincerely appreciate input from some uninvolved editors who would be willing to review the article for its overall structure and format, as well as any NPOV or WEIGHT issues that have not been addressed.

Does the article progression make sense? How about the section heads? Are the in-text attributions handled properly? Are there any major issues that jump out at you?

Here is the latest draft that I am requesting comments on : []. Please leave comments here or on my talk page. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

1421: The Year China Discovered the World
FYI, has been controversially merged into Gavin Menzies. An RfC has been opened on the issue, see Talk:1421: The Year China Discovered the World

70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement
A WikiProject has been created, for the topic with main article: Transcendental Meditation movement. The project page is located at WP:TMMOVEMENT. Feel free to list yourself as a participant there. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation bias is now a Featured Article
Confirmation bias, which is rated as high-importance for this wikiproject, has passed FAC. This brings the total number of FA-class Alternative Views articles to 3. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Views articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Alternative Views articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Views related Article nominated for deletion
The following article was nominated for deletion, The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism. Since the article is part of this WikiProject, please feel free to raise your opinions in the AFD debate. Marokwitz (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

harmonic convergence
With all due respect to the spiritual side of "Harmonic Convergence" [I spent my last big one atop Haleakala, Maui back in the late 1980s] the generic English words "harmonic convergence" have importance in the semantics related to the development of hybrid electric bicycles which depend on harmonic convergence to balance human muscle/gear power with electrical motor power.

I suggest disambiguation or some other way to work around a "spiritual" meaning getting in the way of technology. Any suggestions? Bobkiger (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Bobkiger


 * I've reverted it. It's unsourced and not related to the article Harmonic Convergence. You also signed it for some reason. To do anything with those two words you'd need a source. A dab page is for related articles. If you can find a source it might go in an article on bikes, but it needs a source using that phrase. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which is relevant to the subject of this WikiProject, should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment?
I notice that the Shakespeare authorship question article has not been assessed. How is that done and who does it? The article is currently in WP:PR with plans to try for FA when that is completed. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello? Anybody here? >crickets< Tom Reedy (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this project dead? In any case it appears that the assessment and priority ratings of this project are meaningless, as no member has responded to requests for article review from me or previous editors. If that is so, we might as well delete the AV template from the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I propose to remove WikiProject Alternative Views from Talk:Shakespeare authorship question, and possibly also from Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and Talk:List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, because it is just clutter and does not seem to be maintained. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do it now. Tom asked three weeks ago, which seems unpromising even considering the holiday season. If the project remains comatose, we might WP:MfD it later—say February or so? Bishonen | talk 02:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I'm a project member who hasn't been very active on Wikipedia lately, but I do still check this page and others associated with the project. Sorry for not responding sooner.  For the assessment aspect of the project, you might try meco, the project member who originally added assessment parameters to the banner and who still edits regularly.  I'll point him over here. Tim Smith (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Fringe
Fringe has been requested to be renamed, see template talk:Fringe. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia, subject Dacia and alternative views
Hi guys!

Great project idea!

I recently founded WikiProject Dacia out of good faith and interest for the Dacian history. Unfortunately, the knowledge about the subject is scarce and the controversy is high. Not soon after the completion of the project structure, I came under attack and falsely accused of Protochronism. One illustrative example is the conflict around the Dacian script, labeled as Protochronistic and fringe theory by some and proposed for deletion, although notable. The entire project is under attack as well.

A large amount of attempts to calm the situation has been done from the project level:       
 * clarifying the scope
 * clarifying the neutrality and position of the project
 * invitations to the collaboration on various theories regarding Dacian language
 * some of the invitations to use user space or project drafts space for high conflict articles, to avoid edit wars and prolong conflict

I would greatly value your input, as I am sure you are faced with similar situations. Thanks a lot and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not merge The Venus Project
Venus project has become a recognizable name. There has to be 100s of people like me who don't know when they are looking for "venus project" that it has an association with Fresco or Zeitgeist untill they discover it in one of the three sites. Links among the three is entirely appropriate. But disapperaing one of them into another one of them has to border on intellectual fraud. "Related" to each other does not mean "same" as each other!!! 64.118.18.55 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC) John
 * WP:GNG says that certain subjects do not deserve articles. This is one of them. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011

Nomination of Rumors about the September 11 attacks for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rumors about the September 11 attacks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rumors about the September 11 attacks (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Don't you guys notice a reoccurring theme here...

Check the bottom all the references are from a government agency or the so called "4th branch of government" the media...

They are obviously hiding something. No sight of this happening in China?

Come on guys do your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.4.177 (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Ebionites and related articles
There has been a long-standing dispute on the above article relating to some proposals, particularly by Robert Eisenman in his book James the Brother of Jesus (book), and James Tabor, and his book The Jesus Dynasty, regarding whether the sources named above qualify as fringe theories as per WP:FT. I had some time ago recused myself from editing the content because of some accusations of falsifying sources. However, I believe that an independent review of all the relevant articles by knowledgeable, uninvolved, editors, would be very useful. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, there does seem, at least to me, to be perhaps sufficient reason for a separate article on "Ebionite conspiracy theory", or some other similar title. Robert Eisenman, James Tabor, Barrie A. Wilson, Jeffrey Butz, Neil Asher Silberman, and maybe additional editors have all put forward in recent years some sort of proposals alleging that there was some sort of conspiracy in early Christianity, primarily led by Paul, to minimize the influence and attention given to James and the alleged original orthodox version of Christianity, which substantially differs from later Christianity. Wilson called the idea the "Jesus Cover-Up" in his book How Jesus became Christian. Some input regarding whether there is sufficient cause for a separate article on the idea would also be welcome. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fractal art
Can anyone from this project provide some insight into the discussion regarding Talk:Fractal art. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion
There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)