Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

British Israelism‎

There's an IP there trying to push a POV on a line in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle copied from Bede, where historians agree that the scribe, probably because the name Armenia was just a few lines above, wrote that the British came from Armenia rather than what Bede wrote, Armorica. His latest edit (his first was arguing that the mention of Armenia confirms the Declaration of Arbroath adds the word 'critics' to suggest that only critics think this. I've edited there twice in the last 24 hours, so... Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That whole section should go unless it's actually summarising the views of early BI theorists.which it does not appear to be doing. In any case, the Declaration of Arbroath does not seem to refer to Israelite tribes at all, except to date the migrations of the Scots. It never claims that the Scots are descended from Israelites. [1] Paul B (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the article a bit today, not specifically on that issue though. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Electrotrichogenesis

This article is very peculiar: it starts out with a medical study, but then has a bit criticizing the methodology and implying if not stating that the thing is quackery. I'm not sure whether this is a spammish article or not. Anyway, people with experience evaluating this sort of thing should take a look. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs some medical people on the case. I share your concerns. There's a reference to a paper in a bona fide journal but it is a) old and b) a small sample. Then someone has added their concerns not on the talk page but as text in the article. Who's around and knows about biology/medicine? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. There are moderately decent primary sources from the 1990s, but the method has received very little attention from MEDRS-quality review articles, and the couple that mention it don't make anything approaching a definitive statement. The tone of the existing article is definitely overstated in that there is no MEDRS source stating that the method is effective; however there is also no source stating that it is snake oil. Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've sent this over to the dermatology task force for some expert opinion. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Serpent (symbolism)

Repeated edition of stuff about Tiamat contradicted by the main article and not properly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is our generic "proto-article" of random material heaped up waiting to be turned into an actual article. --dab (𒁳) 05:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion of Ancient Israel

New article which I'm not sure is fringe or just weird/bad. If you look at the history or the talk page, it's about the "Religion of Moses and Israel " which seems to be something distinct from Judaism. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is original research. The original title was "Religion of Moses and Israel", which may have biblical roots but I know this phrase from Jewish wedding ceremonies, where I take it to mean simply the Jewish religion, or Judaism. The author of the entry in question also refers to the subject matter as "Moseic religion". This phrase is probably a misspelling of "Mosaic religion" which is just a very outdated synonym for Judaism, once again. There is nothing of worth covered in the entry that can't be covered in Judaism. I say blank and redirect it.Griswaldo (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

redirected. we'll see if it lasts. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the initiative.Griswaldo (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Religion of Ancient Israel" would be about the pre-exilic, pre-monotheistic religion and as such a sub-topic of Ancient Semitic religions. But this would generate needless controversy. It is probably best to redirect to Jewish_history#Ancient_Israelites. --dab (𒁳) 05:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.Griswaldo (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The original author[2] complained that already the move to "Religion of Ancient Israel" was a mistake, and I agree. What he was trying to create was an article on the term "Mosaic religion", which is indeed a synonym of Judaism, but which as a term does not seem to be addressed anywhere yet. --dab (𒁳) 06:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths

This is worth looking at I believe, at least for those who don't think the word 'myth' should be driven from Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The article seems like original research to me. Of course the word myth ought not to be driven from the Wiki but what's the encyclopedic value of that entry in the first place? What we don't need are Christian apologists and skeptics battling it out over their own non-scholarly understandings of "myth". Ugh.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look at the articles just skimmed the mediation. There's some serious argumentation about stupid things. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is pretty odd. I'm debating whether I want to wade in and rewrite it - It could use it, but I'm not sure the effort would be worth the subsequent headaches. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching it for a while and wondering what on earth can be done with it. At first sight there seem to be two completely different issues covered: the myths and religious beliefs of pre-literate and proto-literate societies, and the modern - 19th century onwards - potentially verifiable stories about long-lived people. But perhaps also social anthropologists might see a continuity, so that in remote areas even today people tell stories about their long-lived elders in much the same way that they have done for millennia. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:TNT. At least split the pre-modern stuff from the "unverifiable claims" of modern provenance. --dab (𒁳) 14:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I used not TNT but a big pair of shears. Please feel free to be bolder. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Shears help, but is there really a category of myth called "longevity myth"? Perhaps claims of longevity are a minor motif in some myths and other traditional stories, but not a category of myth as far as I can tell. Most of the examples in the entry are claims of human longevity found within myths and other stories. It really does appear that myth is used in the entry in sense of "urban myths" or other falsehoods that can be debunked. My gut tells me that there is a subject matter here, something that does connect claims of longevity in traditional stories and even in contemporary settings, but if this subject matter has found its way into scholarship I'm not seeing it in the entry, and I wouldn't imagine it was through the study of "longevity myths".Griswaldo (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that perhaps longevity has been a topic or an example in the social anthropological/cultural anthropological study of myth and belief. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

While I would expect so ... do we know this for a fact? Are their studies of longevity in myth, or are we assuming that sources exist are because we like the topic? Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I wonder as well. Like I said my gut says yes (at least in terms of motif) but some lazy research on my part hasn't turned much up yet ... though I emphasize the lazy part. Until something turns up I feel like this is original research.Griswaldo (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Longevity.2C_ticklish_situation. Forget everything I said above. Straight to AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The background of User:Ryoung122, who appears to be a primary author and defender of the entry adds more fodder to the "straight to AfD" suggestion as well. From what I can tell, his book uses the term myth strictly in the sense of "fiction" or "falsehood". In his book he "debunks" longevity claims. Of course skeptics also like to "debunk" some religious beliefs that originate in stories that are truly myths, in the technical sense, but I'm not seeing that part of the equation. Is anyone?Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As the author of the hoax question, I thank you for noticing this issue, which was first challenged in 2004. But permit me to hold that it's not an AfD or shears material. There is a basic consensus at this family of articles (this one, then longevity claims, then list of supercentenarians, and not to mention such titles as list of centenarians (educators, school administrators, social scientists and linguists)) that all 110-year-old claims are notable, although more rigorous monitoring has traditionally started at 113. However, because most editors of these topics are acquaintances of Ryoung122 through the Yahoo group World's Oldest People (also attempted as a wikigroup WP:WOP), their original-research classifications have stood all these years, even against numerous policies. For instance, the 18th-20th-century cases listed (and just deleted) at this article are here primarily because the Group doesn't want them counted as longevity claims. We are in a promising situation building toward agreement on the distinction between these articles, but the bold editing just shown needs to be enfolded into this discussion. Now that y'all have stepped in while there is an ongoing mediation, linked above, I would ask you to contribute to "new consensus" by working the following questions.

1. Are all secondary-source 110-year-old claims in fact notable? That is the old consensus, in that 110 is the disciplinary definition of "supercentenarian", there are a manageable number of cases (under 1000 living), and the semi-arbitrary age 110 has the benefit of longstanding acceptance. The sudden deletion of much sourced material is troubling unless the consensus changes that this information is no longer valid for WP. Because this one looks so obvious to me, I'll be doing a careful WP:BRD revert so as not to lose the essential content (primarily contributed by myself, cough). Note that because of the recentism bias of the Group, these and many more classical sources have been overlooked, and could and should be brought to bear to bring the big-picture view of past longevity claims that WP is noted for.
2. Is there a distinction between more "modern" claims and more "traditional" claims? We have agreed there is but not on what it is, a subject of the mediation. The GRG/WOP group has pretty well said the only distinction is that claims of 131 years, 0 days, are false and thus "myths" (in the sense forbidden to WP by WP:RNPOV). I have no problem discussing the mythos of longevity (in the permitted sense), but as this board has noticed, there is zero sourcing of the topic of "longevity myths" in sociologists or mythologists: it is all done by gerontologists, who routinely use the word "myth" in the verboten sense. (Ryoung122 has failed for 18 months to provide on-point sources.) You will note that the age 131 years, 0 days, is very arbitrary and subjective, and, I think, math abuse (Ryoung122 admits it is based on a statement by scientist Jay Olshansky that 130 is possible but not 150, which is only one POV). Having studied the case closely, I proposed a minimal-fuss objective division point that properly addresses WP's need to WP:SUMMARY the material into separate articles and that is both a clear distinction and not a significant intrusion. I said that we could file an uncontroverted claim at (modern) "claim" if updated after 1955 (the beginning of Guinness World Records modern standards) OR if earlier but containing full birthdate and deathdate; and at the other article ("tradition" or "myth") otherwise. This means swapping only a handful of names from one article to the other, but Ryoung122 has not commented on this proposal yet. While any distinction between the two articles would be a form of OR, a subjective one based on flouting WP:RNPOV should be replaced by an objective one that is not much different from alphabetical breakdown.
3. What should the "traditional" article be called? As you note, "longevity myths" breaks policy. My attempts to go to "longevity traditions", "longevity stories", "longevity folklore" and the like have been fought tooth and nail. Given that the topic is notable and the division is objective, the question would be how to name it, as well as its associated category (currently forked into two categories "traditions" and "myths").

The various subcategory questions at mediation need not be addressed by this board, but these basic questions above are apropos and worthy of a consensus by outside Wikipedians that has not materialized for 6 years. JJB 16:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have to say that I fail to see the encyclopedic value of anything associated with this category -- Category:Supercentenarians. Have we become the guiness book of world records all of a sudden? Talk about WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Griswaldo (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A significant rationale is that this area is rife for misinformation and that people who want to know what reliable sources say about any given supercentenarian they hear of would want a balanced article rather than to rely on the rarefied GWR, or any other nontertiary (noncomparative) source. If you see an unexpandable stub at any point, it can be merged back into a main article. But in general, most category members meet independent notability guidelines, or can be given to AFD individually in case you might disagree. Many of these predate GWR as well and WP is the perfect place to collate promoting mentions with debunking mentions insofar as both exist. And, yes, records in general are something we do quite a lot of, in our own way. Would you mind commenting more directly on my 3 board questions above? Thank you. This notability for individuals is not to preclude the axing of some of the regurgitative list articles based on WP:N and WP:NOR, especially when they can be shown to be overweight re-presentations of other articles. Dealing with the larger WP:WALLEDGARDEN of such articles needs many hands and is why my wife calls this thing "PickyWeedia". JJB 01:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The same rationale is possible for any piece of information that someone could conceivably want to know. We do not collect and publish all such pieces of information as I understand it. You say the area is rife with misinformation, but so what? How does that make the information encyclopedic, and really how important is it for people to have the correct information available at Wikipedia about any given centenarian supercentenarian? I said this before but there are hobbyists who are obsessed with all kinds of things, I don't think we ought to publish all the lists of information that every such group likes to collect. As to your points above I've already expressed my views on the article. It is original research and ought to get the axe. Salvageable information in it should go elsewhere. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I said supercentenarians, not centenarians; there are less than 1000 living supercentenarians and most of them do not appear in secondary sources. The issue of lists of notable centenarians is another topic entirely. But I fail to see the OR today except for the title (18 months ago it was quite obvious). JJB 05:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what the entry is based on. 1) A recent notion of maximum age and 2) an indiscriminate list of individuals (whether historical or mythical) whom someone claimed lived longer than they possibly could have. Mix and matching the historical and mythical is pretty "smack you in face" obviously OR. But don't take my word for it, take a good look at the big crater like hole in the entry's sourcing when it comes to reliable sources that actually treat this as a viable subject matter in its own right. I really don't know what more I can say about this, I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point, and not for the first time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge back into longevity is the only solution I can see. 2-3 paras in that article, with links to the Sumerian kings, the Biblical stories, any other things that have their own articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. Leaving aside the fact that those are all WP:SOFIXIT issues brought in by the 7 years of imbalance (there is no maximum-age notion left except for the one I am fighting in mediation; there is no claim of living "longer than they possibly could", as that makes a scientific judgment which scientists dispute; as for sourcing, other editors have ignored tertiary sourcing beyond Thoms, Boia, MPG and GWR, but I brought in the more comprehensive Haller 18th c., Hulbert 1825, Prichard 1836, Brewer 1905, Custance 1976, Wright 1996, Faig 2002), let me ask you a favor please. If you believe that not all people above a certain age (viz., 110) are notable for line-inclusion in lists, could you please start any AFD process by seeking consensus on some other article than this one that I've worked quite hard to bring up to standard? It looks like we have been spared some of the GRG specials like "last living people born in the 1890s", but here's some ideas for AFD:

• list of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service
• list of the verified oldest men
• list of oldest people by year of birth
• list of Belgian supercentenarians
• list of oldest twins
• list of verified supercentenarians who died in 2009
• list of centenarians (miscellaneous)

I almost merged that last one myself but just didn't have enough impetus. Also ping me on the AFD because I don't watchlist them! If you want to work on the OR walled-garden, it is a much bigger field than the patch I've been working on last year and this year. Thanks! JJB 11:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning all this up needs a collective effort. Many hands make light work, and I suggest that you take this through WikiProject World's Oldest People. Get agreement on what makes a list notable, etc. But also from time to time bring in people completely outside the wikiproject, because the article we started off discussing here might have seemed OK to someone deeply involved in the topic, but it definitely didn't look OK to people coming to it out of the blue. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Done already (note date, and response). JJB 14:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed merger back into the parent longevity article; please join in the discussion on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible solution.Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

More eyes are needed at this page. "Longevity myth", as defined on this page is simply not a viable subject matter. It appears that some record experts and possibly even medical experts use a very sloppy notion of "myth" to encompass both actual myths that include characters who could not have lived as long as claimed, and urban myths, rumors and various other false but more contemporaneous claims to old age. If we do indeed care about the retention and proper use of terms like "myth" here on the encyclopedia then sorting this mess out would be helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank y'all for coming in despite our disagreements. I agree more eyes are needed but I propose we do this by adjourning from this board and continuing at the hot topic WP:COIN#User:Ryoung122 on Longevity myths, as well as the articles and an RFC I am likely to start. I am counting mediation on hold due to mediator's last edit being 21:47, 1 Oct. JJB 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Did it without RFC at Talk:Longevity myths#Questions to Griswaldo, thanks. JJB 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is restarting, with a new mediator. I have posted on what I think is the main item for discussion (i.e. whether the article should exist at all, cf first posts in this thread). Please, all FTN people have a look and a say in the mediation. This has been too messy too long. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument about what "myth" means might benefit from a reading of The Power of Myth. Myth does not equal false. Nor does it equal, necessarily, religious. I was pretty sure Joseph Campbell acolytes as diverse as George Lucas and Bill Moyers had helped settle these questions. It's hard for me to see why these topics are worth the number of electrons wasted disputing them. One clear problem is pugnacious incivility. Others include obvious violations of WP:COI and, especially, violations of WP:OWN. Also a truly jaw-dropping, blithely wiki-ignorant effort to bolster an argument by citation to an editor's own doctoral thesis. Not to mention an "expert" who has been judged, by consensus, to be non-notable. Reasonable people can resolve their differences collaboratively. But that pre-supposes a condition that's clearly lacking here.David in DC (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Free space

See [3] Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

• List of conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

This is a landing page for several conspiracy theory searches (most notably, Jewish conspiracy), but the state of sourcing is very dire. I think a concerted effort to improve the sourcing for this wouldn't be too hard; as it serves the purpose of an index, we can use citations from other articles. In addition, we could include brief summaries of conspiracy theories we've just linked to in a bulletted list. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat shows three encyclopedias of conspiracy theories here and at least two of them look to probably qualify as reliable sources as per RS. They would probably be a good start for referencing, if anyone has access to them. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I own the third one on that list - Conspiracy encyclopedia : the encyclopedia of conspiracy theories. It's very long. Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And almost entirely avail on google books at http://books.google.com/books?id=4QBjaEMELSsC&pg=PA92&dq=Conspiracy+encyclopedia+:+the+encyclopedia+of+conspiracy+theories&hl=en&ei=pTPHTMaJKsT6lwfkuMTrAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Conspiracy%20encyclopedia%20%3A%20the%20encyclopedia%20of%20conspiracy%20theories&f=false Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And as a publication of the Penguin Group, it is certainly RS. I think it would make sense to reference everything possible from that book, and maybe some of the others, indicate all the others as unreferenced, and maybe add the Template:dynamic list to the page. Then, after some time, if the unreferenced ones aren't referenced, or referencable by those sources, remove them as unreferenced. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin

As he died recently this article is getting a bit of attention - including an edit warrior now on 4 or 5RR despite a warning. If people could just keep a light eye on it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are now a few other editors involved, but it's getting pretty messy with at least, I believe, one BLP violation (to do with a historian, not Sitchin). Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've place a 24 hr block for the edit warring, not to mention personal attacks. We'll see if that motivates any change in behavior. Looie496 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Israelites

This article's lead states " The term "Israelites" (or theTwelve Tribes or Children of Israel) means both a people, the descendants of the patriarch Jacob/Israel, and those who worship the god of the people Israel, regardless of ethnic origin." Not surprisingly, on the talk page it is being insisted, if I read it correctly, that the Israelites never had any other gods than Yahweh. Is this a fringe view or a different sort of problem? Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Israelites" and "Jews". "those who worship the god of the people Israel, regardless of ethnic origin" are known as "Jews" or "Jewish converts", not "Israelites". "Israelites" is a historical term, referring to the period of the 11th to 7th centuries BC. By the testimony of the Hebrew Bible itself, this people worshipped lots of deities, especially "Baals", and only towards the very end of the 7th century came to worship the "God of Israel" exclusively. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SAQ RfC-NPOV issues

An RfC is in process here, the purpose of which is to decide which version best fulfills this directive in terms of Wikipedia policies and standards. Version 1 Version 2

Comments are solicited from participants of this noticeboard.. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Greeks

Hi, I'm posting my concerns about the info box statistics in the Greeks article here because I am being completely ignored on the discussion page. I have been trying to discuss the matter for almost a month without having disputes or edit-wars yet there are no improvements. On 9th October 2010, I expressed my concerns (see here: [4]) about the inflation of numbers. In return User:Athenean placed the Turkish people info box on this notice board arguing that it was in fact that article which had numbers inflated (see here: [5]). I am not being taken seriously by this user, or anyone else for that matter. I have tried to use the discuss page but no one is replying to my comments. Furthermore, User:Athenean has already expressed that they will not discuss the matter of the Greeks info box with me (see here: [6]) as they believe that I am creating some kind of retaliation.

Here are my concerns:

• Greece: Greece's census does not collect data on ethnicity thus that figure includes all Greek citizens regardless of their ethnicity. As CIA states [7] 'percents represent citizenship, since Greece does not collect data on ethnicity'.
• Cyprus: The reference being used is the CIA which I am fine with. However, if one looks at the discussion page Greek users have objected to CIA being used for estimating the Greek population in Greece or Albania as it gives a significantly lower figure. CIA gives the following information:
  • Greece. Population: 10,737,428. Greeks: 93% = 9,985,808 Greeks
  • Albania. Population: 3,639,453. Greeks: 3% = 109,183 Greeks
  • Cyprus. Population: 1,084,748. Greeks: 77% = 835,255 Greeks

Currently, CIA is only being used for the estimated population in Cyprus- probably because of the high estimate. I don't mind either way if CIA is used or not BUT we must have consistency. If CIA is reliable enough for Cyprus then why not Greece or Albania?

• Australia: The reference being used is by the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs which lists the population of all the Greek diaspora in one table. However, the source is only being used for Australia as it gives a high estimate of 700,000 yet it is not being used for the other countries (some in which the source gives lower estimates e.g. the United Kingdom est 200,000 Greeks).
• Germany: This figure includes all Greek citizens including a noticeable Turkish minority from Western Thrace (see: Turks in Germany and Greeks in Germany).
• Turkey: a footnote has been provided in the footnotes section of the info box stating the following: There are over 1,500,000 Greek Muslims though most identify as Turks. I tried to remove this as there is no reference provided but it was reverted by an edit from User:Athenean.
• There are many more problems; some of the references are in fact dead links whilst others are questionable too.

I hope I will be taken seriously here. I must admit that I fear that the Turkish people article will suffer the consequences due to me writing all this here. Turco85 (Talk) 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ???

• The_Circus_(film)#.22Time_traveler.22_footage

Thoughts??? -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Did a little copyedit to reflect that the reaction to Clarke's interpretation of the clip is what's notable, not any actual controversy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And I cleaned it up some more. Not sure this is so much a fringe theory - no one is touting it as such (at least, not sanely, that is). Clarke is at a loss to explain what is going on, and is suggesting that the posture is that of someone talking on a cell phone. The time traveler stuff was added by reliable media. ignoring it seems , well, stupid. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree except for Clarke's role. When we have reliable sources reporting that "Clarke believes the woman could be a time-traveler", it's not our task to sort out the degree of Clarke's belief (or what may or may not have been added by media). - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've had to revert an editor who insists on inserting material in the article lead connecting this story to out of place artifact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUE: this is a recent internet meme, in no proportion to the notability of the 1928 picture. --dab (𒁳) 14:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Also it seems rather disengenuous to say that clarke does not think 'she' is a time traveller when she is using a piece of technology that would not exsist for about another 50 years (he also goes on to counter the susgestion that in the 1920's she would have no one to talk to by saying if she were a time traveller such things would not matter, so yes he does in fact make the connection). Its also begining to look like it might be a hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Update: Please see Charlie Chaplin Time Traveler is just an old Lady using a Siemens Hearing Aid. Not a hoax. Also, not time travel. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Does not explain why there are claims that other versions of the extra do not include the women, or that the film technique used in this clip did not exsist at the time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, most interesting. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with dab re WP:DUE. The old and very specious argument that it's another editor's burden to add material that offsets the overweighting toward recent events is being bandied about on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I completely disagree. The only reason someone has presented the UNDUE argument is that the article was anemic prior to this instance. Two sentences in the Lede were added (as the Lede serves as overview as well as introduction to the topic) to reflect the news stories from several reliable sources. Additionally, a small subsection regarding the matter was added to the article, one of only three sections in the 1800 word article. Instead of bitching about how this recently-added section is overcrowding the article, maybe take the hint and expand the article, so that the recent event doesn't appear to feature so prominently. That's like trick or treating at only three houses and complaining that the apple you got from one house is so much larger than the lollipops you got from the other two homes.

Also, i find the amount of Sherlocking going on here shocking and entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to engage in. Doing so creates an environment wherein synthesis can easily occur. Stick to the sources, which are reliable, notable and all over the place. Keep yourself and your personal views out of it. - Jack Sebastian (talk)

AGF, be civil and no one owns any page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All good practices, bu I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic being discussed, SS - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

One do not accuse others of alolwing personal views to affect judgement for a start. Also your attitude seems to be (I may be wonrg) 'I have decided it will, stay and it will becasue I have decided'. That could be seen (as well as certain other attituds you have shown) that you are exercsing a kinid of ownership, not of the page but, of the contentious material.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was definitely anemic before the "time traveller" section was added, but that does not excuse adding a section that would be disproportionate even in a long article. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree that it is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: How, precisely, is it undue weight? The way I see it, it is a brief reporting of a current bit in an endemic article. If anything, the article should be expanded. Other examples of similar instances in the articles (The Crow and Poltergeist and others spring to mind) actually go into greater detail thanes presented here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In the examples you give the stories relate to the production, not the showing. That is why its undue, ita not about the film.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I've tagged the article accordingly, though the "bold" instinct in me is to take it out completely. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I think that would be a mistake at this point, and would likely trigger an escalation of the matter. Contribute to discussion and realize that Boldness isn't going to be an effective tactic at this point - there's been too much of that already. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to wade through the voluminous discussion on the talk page, but do any other editors support this section other than you? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the discussion, and Jack Sebastian appears to be the only one endorsing a full-fledged section about the situation. Based on editors' response in that discussion and this one, I will be trimming down the section. I invite others to join and monitor the page. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All mention of this belongs removed from the article. It's an online fad a couple of days old. Wikipedia is not a blog. No amount of adding relevant material to the article will "tip the balance" and make this in any way worthy of inclusion.

Realistically, the article will just need to remain tagged for cleanup for a couple of weeks until the "meme" crowd has moved on to the next fad.

Inclusion of this item is leeching off the notability of the 1928 film even though the fact that the 1928 footage is from the premiere of a notable film is completely irrelevant. If people think this has any notability, let them create a George Clarke article and defend it on its own merits. --dab (𒁳) 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It all should go. I'm surprised it has remained there at all if only one editor wants it there, and it is totally against policy. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely where, Scotty, does it violate policy? It isn't Undue Weight - the article is in fact anemic. Is it OR? Nope, indeed, everything written is reliably (and often redundantly) sourced. Is it NPOV? Again, no. No views were espoused from any editor - except perhaps for an elitist view that current events surrounding something noticed in an old film apparently have no value whatsoever.

I am not sure what policy its violating, and am left with the distinct impression tha this is one of those 'I' don't like it, so we're getting rid of it' decisions that are both unencyclopedic and a step onto the slippery slope of personal bias. The encyclopedia lost today, folks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets get something clear. It was not seen in the film, but in film of the premiere (assuming its not a hoax). That is why its undue, its not about the making of the film or even how well the film did just some in incidental piece of trivia. There may be a place for it, but not here (indead an alternative place for it has been proposed). Also I have to say that your attachment to this is rather extreme and perhaps you should examine your own motivations.Slatersteven (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please do not presume to impart upon me any sort of attachment, Slatersteven; I've already noted how I don't subscribe to Clarke's opinion or conclusions. My motivations in regards to this have been only in regards to wiki policy and guidelines, which everyone - including Erik - chose to conveniently up and forget. We have solid precedents for these sorts of sections in a great many films - The Crow, Poltergeist, Atuk, and The Conqueror are but a few. It belongs in this article. The rest of you don't see it, and lost the plot about how to deal with it. Short-sightedness is one of the constants of the universe; I'll get over this example of it. And don't be fooled by some vague promise of putting it elsewhere. It's hasn't shown up there, and dollars to donuts say that most peole world prefer it vanish forever. Those are the same sorts of folk that treat the wiki like some fan forum. Like I said, more's the pity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to wind you up about this any more, Jack, but what the hell are you talking about? Precedents? "These sorts of sections"? HUH? The article on The Crow has a section on how Brandon Lee was accidentally shot during filming. Atuk is a film that's never been made. There's a section in that article describing how some people think the project is cursed. Poltergeist has a sentence or two on some kind of curse. The Conquerer contains material on how John Wayne and a lot of others on that project got cancer, possibly because they were shooting downwind of a nuclear test site. This is an internet meme about some guy who thought he saw something in one of the DVD extras, not even part of the film, that looked like someone talking on a cell phone. This is not even in the film, but in a DVD that came out 75 years later. So where's the similarity? It doesn't have anything to do with a "curse". No one died. Does any vague connection to the paranormal make it similar? The sections in the articles on The Conqueror and The Crow don't have anything to do with the paranormal anyway. You're not making sense. No, I mean you're really, really not making sense. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that "winds me up", Stephen is intransigence and rude jagoffs (Well, that, and clowns, but that's a different conversation.) Since you claim to not understand my reasoning, allow me to connect the dots a wee bit better.

The last time I checked, Wikipedia isn't in the business of debunking myths or Sherlocking stories for truth; indeed, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". We have verifiable sources regarding a genuine news story - a news story directly related to one of our articles. So we theorize that its a "flash in the pan" or just a "Halloween prank" or "a hoax" - all symptoms of speculation. We don't know it's nature, and it isn't up to us to determine the veracity of the claim; we simply ensure that valid, reliable sources are being used to substantiate those claims, and allow the reader to make up their own minds and explore how they will. To excise information because you disagree with the content is censorship, something I am fairly certain isn't one of our polices, either.

The prior instances or precedents indicate that we do allow for related information to be incorporated into articles, even when not absolutely related to the specific subject matter. Curses, radiation, bad luck, whatever - it's all allowed, as shown by example. So, it isn't about a supposed woman from the supposed future talking on a supposed cellular phone - it never was. It was about adding information about the same topic into the same article. As I see it, others obstinately sidestepped most of our polices to make an elitist decision about a reliably-sourced story that they didn't like. What I don't see as making sense is why you aren't aghast at this, Steven. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I fail to spot sections about time travellers walking past screenings of The Crow, or Poltergeist. I also fail to see how a 1928 hearing aid being mistaken for a mobile phone in 2010 has anything to do with Charlie Chaplin's film, or films in general. The statement "It isn't Undue Weight - the article is in fact anemic" alone is sufficient to establish that Jack Sebastian doesn't even understand what is being discussed. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

See, this is the part that pisses me off about Wikipedia; editors get a bug up their ass about the nature of a thing, and nothing short of a metaphorical machete can pry it loose, even when they are wrong.

Dbachmann, can you say with absolute certainty that the woman is talking to into a hearing aid? Maybe she's batshit insane and talking to a box of Cracker Jack. Maybe she works for CONTROL, and is talking to Maxwell Smart or Jesus via her shoe. We don't know what is actually going on, and yet you are already stating with specific certainty that the thing in her hand is a 1928 hearing aid. Not sure what experience you've had with these things, but I'm pretty sure you listen to hearing aids, not talk into them. Of course, if you were there,a nd can speak authoritatively on the subject, I'm all ears.

And, as I said above, it isn't about time travelers; it never was. It's about using cited, reliable information about a topic in an article about that same topic. Is a woman outside the filmed premiere of Circus directly related to the film? No more than a supposed curse is related to Poltergeist or radiation sickness is related to The Conqueror. When you start out with an article that's less than 1800 characters and add a normal (actually smaller than normal) section, of course its going to be larger than the rest of the article; the plot itself was only two sentences long.

I get what's being discussed; I'm not entirely convinced that some others do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Poltergeist and The Conqueror stories are related to production, not distribution. And no the sequence is not the subject of the article, the subject of the article is the film not its premier (which did not even have a section until this story was found). No she is not directly related to the film, any more then the number 29 driving past would be. She is at best related to the premier (not the film) by indirect association (IE in the same place at the same time). So the best we can say is that she is linked by an indirect association to something that is linked to the film (I hear occams razor being sharpened here).Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, where to start? The premiere was not for another film but this one - therefore, its related. The sequence was located on a DVD extras for the film, therefore its related. The #29 didn't attend the premiere, nor did the zebra - the story isn't about them. I could also point out that in the article about the musical Mam'zelle Champagne, it makes note of the fact that architect Stanford White was murdered by Harry K. Thaw on opening night. Not at all related to either the play, the music or the production of the musical. The same goes for Our American Cousin, the play at which American President Lincoln was assassinated while in attendance. Both completely unrelated to the plot, production or cast of the play, and yet, they still somehowmanaged to make it into the article. Why, because they were related to the subject matter. As Valenciano noted, tens of thousands of people have come to the article looking for info after the news story emerged. It seems...short-sighted (the kindest descriptive I could think of) to ignore that. We write an encyclopedia for the reader. We don't get to censor material because we don't like it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Was she attending the premier or just walking past? Also its been susgested by others (who have seen DVDs) that this material does not appear on other versions of the extra, so it may not in fact be actual footage of the premier. it is also very important no one questions that Lincoln was assisinated (also he is rathr more improtant this this 'time traveller'), Not the same with this time traveller where some major doubts have been rasied. the saem could be said of your other examples. I alsonote that you are still using other stuff exsists as an argument for retention, its not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your points (cross-posted in the article's talk page) are malformed, Slatersteven. It doesn't matter if the woman attended the premiere or was walking past - her appearance was caught on the film provided int eh DVD extras for a Chaplin film collection. As well, your assertion that this doesn't appear in other DVD extras is misleading; surely you are aware that more than one DVD collection of Chaplin's films exist, right? Some apparently have the Extras film in question, and some do not. Likewise, your assertion that one instance was "more important" than another is an example of failing to see the larger picture. Again, it isn't about time travelers or cell phones or assassinations. It's about reliably-sourced information related to a subject making it into an article about that subject. Complaining about how other demonstrated applications of this concept is simply wrong (other stuff exists) is semantical; most applications of OSE presuppose that it is the only argument being submitted. It is not. The info is reliably cited, is clearly notable, and has other examples of where the same underlying principles have been utilized to foster inclusion (rather than exclusion). Therefore, it should be included as a small section of the article.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack, you don't seem to get it. This has nothing to do with the film. The fact that she happened be recorded walking along when there was a premiere of this particular film is pure coincidence. It might as well have been any other film or any other occasion on which people might have been filmed walking down the street. In other words the link to the film is virtually non-existent. That does not mean that the incident is necessarily not worth discussing, but that it does not belong in this particular article. Many things have happened at films, etc. Sometimes these events become significantly linked to the movie and its reception - as with the death of Dillinger at Manhattan Melodrama for example, but this has no meaning with respect to the film itself at all. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That same argument could be applied to Our American Cousin and "Mam'zelle Champagne" - no meaning with respect to the actual subjects themselves, but related nonetheless. This wasn't a woman caught in a newsreel about life in LA, it was a very specific filming of the premiere for this film. As well, we don't need to determine whether the Extras DVD is related - it demonstrably is, as it was collected in a set of Chaplin DVDs. Therefore, we needn't place our own Sherlocking above the obvious choice by those marketing the DVD collection. It is our chief mission to keep ourselves out of the process of making an encyclopedia.

I'd also point out that Dillinger's death IS discussed in both the Lede as well as body of the article for Manhattan Melodrama (oops on your part, I guess :) )- Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you weren't so convinced you are so smart, you would look a lot less like a fool. I know it's discussed in the Manhattan Melodrama article. That's why I mentioned it, genius. The point I was making is that that event is sufficiently important to be relevant to the article on that film, being linked to its marketing and subsequent reputation. The same applies to Our American Cousin. I'm probably one of the few people here who've actually read that play, as I'm interested in its author, but I'd never suggest that the death of Lincoln should not be mentioned in the article. Paul B (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I f you find yourself unable to remain civil, perhaps you might want to consider taking a nap or something, Paul. At no point did I all you a moron or a fool for not following the hopscotch reasoning as to why the removal of this is a bad, bad idea. There was no call for you to act like a tool. Maybe you missed it, but I was pointing out that information related to a film belongs in the article for that film, just like film related to the Chaplin film belongs in the article for the Chaplin film. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to miss your point as you repeat it incessantly, and equally incessantly fail to engage with the substance of responses. This thread is not a debate, as you are not being responsive. Paul B (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What am I not responding to, Paul? I ask because I feel as well that others are completely ignoring/misapprehending the policies that we all have to follow, not just when we feel like it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• The passage in question has been removed, in accordance with the (almost) unanimous consensus of editors here and on the talk page. I think it's time for this increasingly circular discussion to be hatted.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• What, Scotty can't answer the question, so he wants it archived so he doesn't have to? Lame. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be hatted because the issue has been resolved. Your repetitious arguments don't make it unresolved. ScottyBerg (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And Clarke's Charlie Chaplin Time Travel Video is now in its rightful place as an Internet video meme at List of Internet phenomena#Videos right between "Dancing Matt" and "Charlie Bit My Finger". - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't belong there. If anything else comes of the video, you can bet it will be back. It's moronic in the extreme to remove that which drew attention to the article for the first time in almost 8 years. Extremely bad call. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The YouTube video of the Irish filmmaker showing a 4 second clip of a "DVD extra" is what got millions of hits, not the Chaplin film. The Chaplin film was never seen or examined. Yes, the film is peripherally related to this Internet meme, but so is Chaplin, time travel, cell phones, etc. and we're certainly not disrupting those articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, you might want to check the page stats for The Circus, LuckyLouie. The article received less than 1860 hits in September of this year. In October, the trend continued until the video was released on the 27th. At that time, traffic for the page peaked at 7600 times and for the month, the article was viewed 25.842 times - in three days. And again, I dismiss your usage of "internet meme"; it is an overused and oft-misapplied term that only serves to marginalize good data. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, our job is not to increase the page viewing statistics, but to write good articles on the topic. If only 6 people care, well, that's just the way it is. I guess I would be happy if more people were interested in Tom Taylor (author of Our American Cousin), but if someone claimed he was an alien, causing a brief blip of interest from the netsphere, that would not be a good reason to include the claim in the article. Paul B (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I already explained that to him. Look, the issue has been resolved. Let's hat this discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree and Jack seems to have decided its over too [[8]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Hapgood

Following the problems at the Sitchin article, we now have problems at this article, eg [9] (only fringe writers believe the Piri Reis Map shows Antarctica, Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This bio shows signs of once having been a coatrack for "Polar Shift", e.g. little sections for "Evidence" and "Continuing Work", stuff covered at Polar shift theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The USAF claim comes from one of his own books, that cannot be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic fringiness

Two new chiropractic articles have been transferred from a user's sandbox. Not only are they not NPOV and are promotional, they are pushing unscientific BS as if it were reality, all without proper references. The articles need more eyes on them and some working over:

• Bio-Geometric Integration

• Potential Energy Theory of Subluxation

-- Brangifer (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The second article was speedily deleted as a copy vio and I tagged the first article for speedy deletion because parts of it were a copy-paste of the FAQ section of the eponymous institute of Sue Brown, DC. [10] Mathsci (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Heim theory

An editor insists that this is an "emerging" physics theory. A previous version of the article called it "non-mainstream". There may be other issues too. Eyes on this article would be appreciated. Cardamon (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That same editor Terra Novus (talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced statements to the lede, as well as a template ("beyond the standard model", which I removed as inappropriate), that continue to give the reader the impression that this theory has been accepted in mainstream physics. As many users have indicated on the article talk page, this does not seem to be the case. In addition Terra Novus has added Heim theory to that template. [11] I have provisionally removed it. Terra Novus has been reported multiple times at ANI for these kinds of contentious edits; each time he replies that he will reform and then four of five days later continues with similarly problematic edits. Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

MathSci, can you do anything more to clean up the article? I don't expect to understand physics articles, but I do expect them to let me know where theories stand in relation to the mainstream. Does the article perhaps need stubbing right down? Or merging with the article on Heim? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a completely separate problem and not one I'll tangle with. The stub ECE theory was not dissimilar; however, it was easy to write because of peer-reviewed criticisms and the public editorial in a journal by the Nobel laureate 't Hooft. In this case, there has been almost no reaction in the scientific literature to Heim's theories since their inception. Speaking off the record, I believe that the unpublished criticisms of Bruhn on difference operators are probably correct; and up till now there has been no account in print of a consistent and rigorous theory of difference operators on an arbitrary manifold. It is not a case of the jury being out on Heim theory: here it seems there's nobody on the jury! Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tagged it for an expert in Physics but am not holding my breath because Theory of everything has been so tagged since 2008. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus has perhaps broken one promise to many, looking at his talk page he's still adding YEC viewpoints to articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how my edits at Heim theory have anything to do with YEC. It strikes me that the editors involved with Heim theory need to discuss instead of continuing edit wars. I see my edits (in this case) as productive and adding to an area of Wikipedia that seems to be purposely neglected...--Novus Orator 06:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith raises the very pertinent question of how a non-scientist can deduce if a topic in science is inside or outside the scientific mainstream. The answer is that it is in the mainstream if many scientists refer to it and it is outside the mainstream if few do. Nowadays it is easy to determine how much a subject is referred to by examining citations to it in citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. These databases record how many times the topic or person is cited in scholarly publications that are peer reviewed, these are ipse facto mainstream publications. A subject that is accepted as part of the mainstream is likely to have many thousands of citations, one that is not accepted very few. Heim theory, in the latter category, provides an archetypal example of this principle. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

See the ANI discussion for why your reasoning is incorrect. Having a theory in a certain database does not make or break its scientific status. Most scientists are very specialized, so they are only qualified to determine the status of a very narrow field, thus making that point misplaced.--Novus Orator 08:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What Xxanthippe wrote is perfectly correct and very well put. The notability and acceptance of a subject are assessed on wikipedia using WP:RS. In this case there are none. There are no review articles. As Cardamon has written elsewhere, wikipedia is not about gazing into a crystal ball. Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Update Fresh off his block Terra Novus has made the following statement.[12] The following two edits [13][14] are also not particularly encouraging. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

May I ask how they are not encouraging?--Novus Orator 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how my joining a WikiProject and requesting a citation on a sentence is contentious. My opinion statement was on a user talk page (where it is appropriate to discuss) and not on an article...--Novus Orator 13:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The last time things were explained to you was here.[15] Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how my joining a WikiProject and requesting a citation on a sentence is contentious. My opinion statement was on a user talk page (where it is appropriate to discuss) and not on an article (FTL editors are being encouraged to take the topic off article see here)...--Novus Orator 13:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci I am afraid I don't see how the ban explanation has any specific bearing on your complaint of my current contentious behavior. I have not edited contentiously on any article since the expiration of my ban, so there is no substance to this thread...--Novus Orator 13:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism which at the moment has not been submitted through the normal channels for approval by the council for wikiprojects. The only supporter at the moment seems to be Terra Novus. In addition, it is not advisable for a single user, with a known record for problematic edits to physics articles, to create a template for emerging physics in his user space [16] and then soapbox about it on Talk:Heim theory.[17] Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been submitted through the normal channels here. I have the right to have experiments in my userspace. I am afraid I don't see how this relates to the topic....--Novus Orator 07:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My advice to the users involved in this conflict is to assume WP:Good Faith and to contribute constructively to discussions, instead of bickering on noticeboards...--Novus Orator 07:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by a single person cannot be described as a "dispute". The WikiProject YEC page is up for speedy deletion. [18] Multiple editors have pointed out problems on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism (now copied to user space). The experiment with the template is listed in the category "physics templates". It is the only such unapproved "experimental" template to appear there. Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I will remove it from the category (Thanks for pointing that out-my bad). As for the WikiProject YEC, please take all discussion here. This is now a legitimate proposal so I suggest that you contribute constructively to the proposal thread.--Novus Orator 08:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And this fits in with your promise to avoid edting in "large areas of Wikipedia (such as Creation-Evolution related articles)" how?

The Collapse of the United States‎

The Collapse of the United States‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could probably bear closer scrutiny. The very skimpy sourcing includes Jeffrey Nyquist and some obscure apocalyptic Christian website. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed all the apcalyptic links, and now just have the Russian interview...--Novus Orator 09:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The content of the article is discussed at greater length and in its proper context in Igor Panarin#Prediction of the USA's collapse in 2010. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'll merge the content...--Novus Orator 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, it should never have been an independent article. Panarin biography should be reorganised so that it deals with each of his books/other major publications in turn, summarising the arguments of each, including review comments. That way readers can see how his ideas developed in context and how they were responded to. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity-cruft

Further to threads passim, what, if anything at all, is worth keeping from:

In my very humble opinion it is a walled garden guarded by WP:OWNers. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Don't forget everything here -- Category:Supercentenarians. Much of the material on these pages is sourced solely to the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), members and fans of which apparently belong to the same Yahoo group and edit these entries on Wikipedia almost exclusively.Griswaldo (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• On their website the GRG describe themselves as "Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers dedicated to the quest to slow and ultimately reverse human aging within the next 20 years." I know nothing about gerontology but I wonder if this means they are at the fringes of the discipline. As a layman I would imagine most people who study aspects of aging do not share this objective.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

From grg website [19] the prime mover is L. Stephen Coles. According to his bio he qualified in electronic engineering and then again in obstetrics and gynecology. But the source could be regarded as SPS. He has published mainly in Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine, now Rejuvenation Research, which seems to be the house journal of this group. It's starting to look on the fringey side. Are any of our resident biologists/medics around? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For most everything they cite here, i.e., world records, they are as skeptical as the best of this board. They are also skeptical about resveratrol, Okinawa diet, and swamis. But as you two have noted, what they are is qualified gerontologists and amateur folklorists and (maybe) statisticians, and the allied editors are editing folklore and statistics. (It is probable that they have some basic grasp of statistics, but I have already presented evidence the prime mover Ryoung122 doesn't.)

Please stop with the personal attacks. If you believe that Noah lived to 950 when the scientific record is 122, the real fringe theorist is YOU and the real person who does not have a grasp of statistics is YOU, JJ.Ryoung122 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the walled garden, I have been trying to rally for careful scope definition so we can determine what is WP keepable and what is plain vanity. As already said, I will back you up on the majority of AFD proposals. But I think a go-slow approach will work better to actually complete the massive job. I've thrown out all sorts of ideas for merge or delete in prior discussions. I would say, what do you two want to delete first, let me share my thoughts, and then we'll message WP:WOP and User:Ryoung122 and wait a couple days so we have a fair and notified start on AFDs. Going too fast would jeopardize a valid process by inviting accusations of, um, going too fast. JJB 16:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Actually I will make a recommendation: let's start with the three by-continent articles as the least defensible. I'd want to confirm I felt this way after reading the articles and histories, of course. (Yes I did just say delete prior to reading them, that shows how bad it is, hearing an inclusionist says that.) JJB 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a great map of the garden! JJB 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with notability criteria for lists, but something that really strikes me is the lists of centenarians. We have to draw the line somewhere, and since these days a lot of people live beyond 100... Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Read it as "list of notable centenarians". Those are actually tamer because they resemble the unimpeachable list of Eagle Scouts (notable), but their breakdown is arbitrary, the titles abysmal, and a merge-to-biglonglist not inconsiderable. Another take is that you could delete the main article as redundant with the template and keep it occupationally or alphabetically broken down. (An agreement on subarticle max size would be needed, 100K is accepted by many people, these articles are much shorter than that.) But "delete all" would be a steeper climb because there are more articles, and they're more of a WP-style topic taken over by WP:WOP and thus a fixit. As to supercentenary articles, they don't require notability, but the idea that they should require at least one secondary source per name is also often flouted and thus can be another entry point. JJB 17:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the list of centenarians, it might be best to turn the list into a list of only those centenarians who meet notability guidelines, specifically including WP:NE, which would mean that those who are only notable for having reached an advanced age would not be included. I have a feeling that might include a large number of them. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for looking at this area. I think the list of centenarians already met your suggestion of being limited only to those with WP articles, and due to their all having occupational categories very few are likely to be notable solely for being 100 (which I agree would delete them there if so). The problem on that set is not OR/SYN or unencyclopedicity, but only presentation. There are a lot worse problems afoot though. Feel free to dip in anywhere. JJB 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on User:NickOrnstein's activity (apparently favoring deletion) on these articles, I have completed and/or created deletion nominations on the following:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the oldest living men
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie McMenamin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva McConnell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Dolan Quinn
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dolan (centenarian)

JJB 04:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the usual suspects...JJBulten, Grismaldo, Itsmejudith and DavidinDC. I could call this the anti-supercentenarian attack cabal.Ryoung122 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"The anti-supercentenarian attack cabal"? Ha. I've seen it all. You belong to the GRG and affiliated yahoo group that I'm finding out controls the relevant wikiproject here that inflicts upon the encyclopedia your own unencyclopedic hobby. The editors you name are not a cabal, but merely a number of people concerned about your trivia cruft for different reasons. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that this stuff is crufty, I have to ask... why is it being discussed here, on this noticeboard? I don't see a Fringe theory being presented when it comes to these articles. I would think this would be better discussed at WT:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar: the original attraction of Itsmejudith and Griswaldo was the possibility that I might have been inserting creation science into the one article (currently called longevity myths) that deals with ancient longevity cases. I think the consensus is that it's fine to mention the views of Biblical apologists in a single graf of that article balanced by a skeptical graf. There was also some concern that I used apologist Arthur Custance as a source (balanced by a skeptical source) relating to the outline of the article, but that has faded with apparent silent consensus accepting him, as he is not quoted on a creation science point.

Anyway, without putting myself at risk of being considered a forum shopper, I think WT:NOTE might be a good next step, but you might enjoy Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Might_wanna_Wake_Up.21 and following. David in DC seems to agree on wanting a centralized discussion, but there may not be critical mass for one yet. JJB 20:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're a forum-shopper. You have an agenda (a nonstandard, non-mainstream, anti-science, pro-fundamentalist) agenda and it's not difficult to find other editors on Wikipedia who have too much time on their hands.

Let's take a look at some FACTS:

1. The death of Eugenie Blanchard, considered the world's oldest person by Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research Group, generated more than 1,000 news articles on Google News, even though her age of just 114 was slightly below average for the world's oldest person.

2. Discussion regarding the GRG has already mediated and legitimated its place in the scientific mainstream. That's why it's featured in mainstream publications like the New York Times, Tokyo Times, BBC News, and the Wall Street Journal.

3. Other people have lives to live, work to do, and you are on here far too much, making up unsupported allegations.

4. For some reason, editors like ItsMeJudith favor the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach to editing. To suggest merging or getting rid of the Oldest People article is tantamount to attacking Home Tree in Avatar. It's logically foolish because you don't merge a trunk-article into a branch-article.

That's enough for now, but I'm not done. To be continued.Ryoung122 05:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouija again

A user hell-bent (sorry for the pun) to disseminate warnings about "the dangers of Ouija" from a supernatural/religious POV has created a POV-FORK called Ouija Board Criticism. The material itself is cut and pasted from a copyrighted page so there are COPYVIO considerations as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The copyright issue seems to be spurious; from all that I can tell the places claiming copyright on it actually got it from use back in the days when this material was in the main article. That said the forking problem is very real considering that all of this material is stuff that was eliminated from the main article some time back. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual panic

I saw someone asking about this on the Ref Desks. In terms of psychology, this is pure fringe and ought to be merged into gay panic defense not offered as a separate article. I don't know enough about the legal side of it, however, to know if it has more legitimacy there. I'll mark it for the merge, but it could use some feedback from people who know more about it than I do. --Ludwigs2 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Nine Unknown

I think we may have a sock here. Some material was added earlier today allegedly from a book at [20] by Carroll Quigley. Now he died in 1977, so I find it a bit hard to believe he wrote about George Bush (do a search for Bush). The page seems to be a pastiche from various sources, eg the Asoka bit is from Childress [21]. I'm off to bed now and have some day surgery tomorrow, so if someone could keep an eye on this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Quigley's real book is at [22] and doesn't seem to mention these nine men, unless I've missed something. Dougweller (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Haven't the nine made an appearance here before? I thought that also resulted in a deletion, too. Hatchetfish (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am confused... The Nine Unknown is an article about a work of fiction. It was written in the 1920s... so how could it relate to Bush? Don't tell me we have a Dan Brown situation (people confusing fiction as reality?) Blueboar (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The website he claims is Quigley's book isn't his book, among other things it mentions Bush. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just needs reverting back to a version (eg [23]) where it's a work of fiction, not some in-universe cruft or whacko conspiracy theory. Matter of fact I think I'll be bold...--Misarxist 09:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ley line

Ley line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently written completely from the viewpoint of, and sourced to, proponents of this idea. It probably could do with extra scrutiny & balancing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The section on Alfred Watkins is sensible and informative. The rest probably needs to be dealt with by cutting down, although it is a very notable concept and we need to know how it was taken in a particular direction after Watkins. I will do a bit from time to time. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a mention of Norman Lockyer, who actually developed the concept earlier and who certainly must have influenced Watkins. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Mahabharata, Ramayana and other articles

We've got an editor changing cited texts to push a fringe view about the age of various texts, legendary events, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, you beat me to it (you're hogging my watchlist now:). I'd just posted on Dab's page asking him to take a look at these articles as I've been away for a while and I saw quite a few dubious edits. The damages extend to the other subsidiary articles too. —SpacemanSpiff 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll block him if he carries on like this, I've given him a final warning for [396330455=1&oldid=396286600 this edit]] where he carefully deletes part of a quote to push a pov. All his edits need scrutiny. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

He's got similar warnings (deliberate factual inaccuracies, copyvios etc) from 2008, my first warning to him was on Christianity in India a few months ago; he selectively deletes warnings from his talk page so the next person that goes there thinks that there's only a few warnings over two years. —SpacemanSpiff 16:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for paying attention to these articles, guys, you are an asset to the pedia. --dab (𒁳) 20:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oikophobia

Looks like a fringe idea, badly sourced, some unsourced. I got to this from Republic of Lakotah, searching for other articles mentioning Russell Means. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Scruton, who is credited with the notion, is a very well-known conservative British philosopher and cultural commentator. Sources seem sound. 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes, Scruton is a well known philosopher, but there is no source in the article showing that this particular neologism of his has caught on. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Would appear to be a WP:NEO with thin, though not nonexistent, usage. For myself, I'd like to see some detailed third-party discussion of the concept before accepting it as a valid article topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

One WSJ op-ed is all. The others are blogs. Dooley is introducing Scruton's thought so obviously has to cover it. Agree that it's a WP:NEO issue. Definitely not fringe, as Scruton is a mainstream philosopher, entitled to create neologisms and refer to examples of cultural byways (Means, if indeed Scruton mentions Means). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Google Books and Google Scholar do turn up usage (but not, AFAIK, discussion) beyond just blogs -- but nothing substantive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seems fair enough, but I'm pretty sure Scruton doesn't mention Means. I can't find any sources for it and there are none in the article. Maybe then if it isn't fringe it should just be a redirect and anything well sourced included in Scruton's article? Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, merge, good solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL turns up nothing -- so I would agree to merging to Scruton (as the Means material appears to be clear WP:SYNTH). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fallacious argument above. The notion has no essential connection with Russell Means. Seach Google for Oikophobia gives 6,900 hits together with a dictionary definition. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

I don't know if we can merge this with Scruton or not. It stems (at least) from the very early 19th century, and was used by writers such as Robert Southey to describe " the English rage for leaving home and going to watering-places, and for picturesque travelling." Scruton has appropriated it and given his own twist to the meaning of the word (and note he talks about 'oiks'. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We already have xenophily, allophilia, xenocentrism etc. Scruton's usage is idiosyncratic (it seems to mean social alienation or xenophily of which he happens not to approve) and the word oikophobia was already in clinical use to mean phobic aversion to home life ("includes fear of household appliances, equipment, electricity, bathtubs, household chemicals, and other common objects in the home") and as a synonym for Wanderlust. I would remove the pointless Taranto quotation as well. Xanthoxyl ^< 09:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Article should stay and not be merged. It is better structured after recent edits, but much removal of material leaves room for expansion. The subject is nowhere near fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

We've established it isn't fringe, but there seem to remain notability questions and also we are not a dictionary. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Language

Not sure if this is the right place. A dispute has arisen over the Celtic origins of Halloween [[24]]. The latest phase is to claim that Samhainn is not the Gallic word for November or Halloween. As its clear from multiplex sources that this is the case (both dictionaries and language courses) this seems to me to have strayed into a fringe theory (word do not exist). Thoughts please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Present what is said in reliable sources. If the sources disagree, note the disagreement... giving due weight to all views. Don't try to "prove" one view (or "disprove" another). So... the question here is: are there reliable sources that have noted the claim that Samhainn (or whatever) is not a Gallic (Gaelic?) word? If so, present that claim in a neutral tone... if not ignore it. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

He claisms they have (well actualy its rather vague and he just claims that all proof of a pagan link has been disproven. I shall ask him more directly for the quote.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a fringe theory, just a user who needs help phrasing his point with a little more accuracy.

It is true that there is no evidence for a pagan religious ritual associated with the Irish Samhain festival. Nevertheless it is probably undisputed that the term dates to the pagan period. "Samhain" was just the beginning of winter in medieval Ireland. This meant that the armies moved to their winter quarters and the warlords sat down and negotiated over a few ales at the fireplace. This probably goes back to the "pagan" period, even if there is no known connection with druids or gods or rituals or what have you.

What can be stated with certainty is that Samhain in this sense existed in 10th century Ireland, so it can hardly be denied that the word has "Celtic origins". Connection with the samonios of the Coligny calendar is of course more speculative, but as such well-referenced. Of course the Coigny calendar isn't "druidic" either, it just shows that the term is probably pre-Christian.

This user in trying to debunk fluffy Wiccan pseudo-scholarship ends up deleting valid scholarship on the topic. --dab (𒁳) 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am not saying his basic point is fronge (though it may be OR) but that his claim (or apparetn claim ) that his sources dismis the idea that Samhain is not the Gallic work for the festival. It may howeve now be the case the user may be mis-misrepresenting sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Chivalry

Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs) has twice re-inserted a paragraph into Chivalry attributing the origins of that institution to Arab contact, despite unresolved issues discussed on the talk page. In brief: the source relied on (Haines) is antiquated in its scholarship (late 19th Century), and appears largely to observe similarities between the honor codes of chivalric and earlier Arab culture without putting forth a plausible mechanism of transmission. Furthermore, Haines, in the full text of Christianity and Islam in Spain, A.D. 756-1031 (available on Google Books) attributes the appearance of chivalry to the reign of Charlemagne.

Compare a more relevant modern source: Maurice Keen's Chivalry (1984). Keen attributes the development of chivalry to a variety of military and social changes (the tactical rise of the charge with couched lance, the development of tournaments to train such warriors, etc.) taking place during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, well after Charlemagne, as giving rise to the chivalric ethos. This is consistent with the other source I can lay hands on at the moment (Koch's "Medieval Warfare", 1978): "Nor can it be said that all the virtues associated with the age of chivalry were present in the medieval knight at the end of the eleventh century." Keen, in 303 pp., says nothing whatsoever about a supposed Arabic origin for chivalry.

The existence of cultural norms of conduct for a military class, is, of course, widespread and the norms are often parallel (consider bushido, or Herodotus' description of Persian education), but the article deals with chivalry sensu stricto, the medieval European institution, and not with these cultural codes in general. Barring more reliable evidence, I tend to believe that the paragraph should be removed as unsupported by contemporary scholarship. Choess (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I explained the reasoning behind my changes in the talk page of the article. I apologize for not writing this earlier as I'm a new user.

Haines's quote on Charlemagne refers to chivalry as an institution or an organization. In fact, Haines followed this statement with a remark that this appearance was "nearly synchronous with the invasion of Europe by the Arabs". In the footnotes of P:152 of the reference you mentioned, Haines added: "The characteristic virtues of chivalry have so much resemblance to those which Eastern writers of the same period extol, that I am disposed to suspect Europe for having derived some improvement from imitation of Asia".

There are plenty of other sources that talk about the influences of the Arabs and their literature:

"It is the Arabic romance of chivalry, and may not have been without influence on the spread of the romance of medieval Europe. For though its central figure ['Antara] is a hero of pre-Islamic times, it was put together by the learned philologian, al-'Asmai, in the days of Harun the Just, at the time when Charlemagne was ruling in Europe."

"European chivalry in a marked degree is the child of the chivalry of Antara's time, which traveled along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and passed with the Moors into Spain (710). Another current flowed from Arabia to meet and to modify the Greeks of Constantinople and the early Crusaders; and still another passed from Persia into Palestine and Europe. These fertilized Provencal poetry, the French romance, the early Italian epic. The 'Shah-nameh' of Firdausi, that model of a heroic poem, was written early in the eleventh century. 'Antar' in its present form probably preceded the romances of chivalry so common in the twelfth century in Italy and France."

"The question as to the exact relation of the chivalry of Europe to the earlier chivalry of Arabia and of the East is a large one, and one which must be left to scholars. It is certain that Spenser and Sir Philip Sidney owe far more to Saladin than we commonly suppose. The tales of Boccaccio (1350) show that the Italians of that day still held the Arabs to be their teachers in chivalry...In 1268 two brothers of the King of Castile, with 800 other Spanish gentlemen, were serving under the banners of the Muslim in Tunis. The knightly ideal of both Moors and Spaniards was to be

Like steel among swords,

Like wax among ladies."

From a more recent source:

"Scholars have long noted the similarity between certain aspects of Islamic chivalry and the chivalric organizations of medieval Europe, normally understood in the context of mutual influence in Islamic Spain, as well as a result of Muslim–European encounters and interchange in the eastern Mediterranean during the period of the Crusades"

Regarding your statement that those were only "cultural codes in general" and not transformed into institutions as in medieval Europe:

"Although never fully transformed into the aristocratic type of social and military organization characteristic of chivalric knighthood in medieval Europe, the presence of chivalric brotherhoods in the form of various self-styled futuwwa organizations was a prominent feature of urban landscapes across the central and eastern regions of the medieval Islamic world."

Al-Andalusi (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The article about "Arab chivalry" is at furusiyya. That European contact with the Islamic world gave rise to the late medieval ideals of chivalry is a respectable hypothesis and should by all means discussed as one angle of the question (not as the answer, of course). The contact in question is however not the Muslim invasion of Europe in the 8th century, but the European invasion of the Levant (also known as the crusades) in the 11th to 12th. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any explicit causal attribution from one to the other except in an en passant comment in an outdated general survey of (now, because of its age) doubtful value: Charles Dudley Warner's Library of the World's Best Literature, Ancient and Modern, The International Society, 1897.

In fact, reading that source it appears that the author's point is being overstated, as he includes several disclaimers and equivocal phrases, and quotes another source to the effect that chivalry "is not unlike what we sometimes read of Arabian chiefs or American Indians." Noting a similarity is not the same as asserting one derived from the other. If there is a generally-accepted causal connection, it should be easy to find a modern source stating that. Based on the two sources quoted, certainly the original passage was OR, and even the present version, "The development of the high medieval notion of chivalry has in part been connected with the Euroepan contact with the Muslim notion of furusiyya during the crusade" reads like OR to me. If that connection is generally accepted, it needs to be sourced to a modern academic reference. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Pokotia Monolith

This is fascinating. Our article links to an article on the web by a fringe writer and has a picture of the statue, and a claim it was discovered In 2002 by Bernardo Biados and others. This article, which is an external link from a more reputable source says "On December 15, 2001, Biados and his team photographed the inscriptions on the front side of a stone monolith statue in the Buck Collection housed at the Museum of Metals (also called the Gold Museum) in La Paz." So the only source for the article is a fringe site with false claims about the sculpture and the article has no mention of the date attributed to it (rather later than the Sumerians). Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's footnoted to Clyde Ahmad Winters, a well-known promoter of fringe linguistic and Afrocentric theories. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

History of Barbados

Not sure if this is a fringe theory or just confused, but the article relies on Encarta and a tourist website to say that the island was first settled in about 1700 BC and then later by Native Americans. 1700 BC seems to correspond with the Olmecs civilisation in Mesoamerica, so a settlement in that period wouldn't be improbable, and it could only have been by Native Americans, although not the Arawak and other tribes who arrived later. Encarta has: "Archaeological evidence indicates that there was a permanent settlement on Barbados as early as 1600 bc. Native American occupation of the island began about ad 300, and there were later settlements by Arawak and Carib Indians. ", which seems either fringe-informed or confusing. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is just a terminological confusion due to forced use of the politically correct term "Native Americans". The intended meaning is probably that there was a migration from the mainland. Perhaps the original author of the Encarta article made sense, and then the Encarta board did a search-replace on terms like "Amerindian". --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking inside A History of Barbados: From Amerindian Settlement to Caribbean Single Market by Hilary McD. Beckles (Cambridge University Press, 2007 edition), which sounds like a pretty authoritative source to me. It says, "Barbados, unlike some of the other islands in the Caribbean, was not inhabited during the Archaic Age. Stone Age man, who did not practise agriculture but relied on fishing and food gathering for survival, never did settle on the island. Rather it was first inhabited by an Amerindian migrant group now called the Saladoid-Barrancoid about AD 350-650. These people have been so named after the places in the Orinoco Basin in South America where the artefacts of their ancestors have been found." --Folantin (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

so we need to apply some skepticism to the "recent archaeological discoveries", a claim based on linkrot. Encarta seems to have it, but then Encarta has been known to fall for dubious claims. An actual archaeological reference would be nice.--dab (𒁳) 11:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

See also The Peoples of the Caribbean: An Encyclopedia of Archaeology and Traditional Culture (2005) [25], which also plumps for "(Barrancoid influenced) Saladoid" settlement between 350 and 650 AD. Either there have been some major archaeological developments since 2007 or the Encarta theory of settlement (by whom?) from c.1600 BC is fringe. --Folantin (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

well, the burden of establishing that such a "recent discovery" is worth mentioning lies with those wishing to do so. They must do better than attribute it to an archive of a dead link to the encarta website. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to delete it. It conflicts with everything I've been able to find in reliable sources. The implication that the first settlers in 1700 BC weren't Amerindians is also bizarre. --Folantin (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Amerindian" is a strange term in this context anyway. The two groups inhabiting the island seem to have been Arawaks and Caribs. Since both these groups fall under "Amerindian", it is rather pointless to speak of an "Amerindian" population as if this was in contrast to anything. The discussion should focus on Arawak vs. Carib. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for clearing this up. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"'Amerindian' is a strange term in this context anyway. The two groups inhabiting the island seem to have been Arawaks and Caribs." I'm going with Beckles who expresses some scepticism about the idea that the "first settlers were a culturally distinct group of so-called peaceful Arawaks who were dispaced in the fourteenth century by another distinct group of so-called warlike Caribs." He continues, "Instead, archeologists have shown satisfactorily that the successive waves of Amerindian migrants to the island from the South American mainland were from the same basic ethnological background." --Folantin (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The "1600 BC" claim appears here 22+Barbados&source=bl&ots=EeSB57nAAM&sig=5paK9ZnAU9C0Ki-xa3907QaXvgM&hl=en&ei=mlThTMKkI9CEhQeLgpWNDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%221600%20BC%22%20Barbados&f=false in a Routledge book from 2001, though clearly not a specialist text. Something calling itself the "Pan Tribal Confederation" asserts that "The first inhabitants were Amerindian-type people who had several villages with a sustainable agriculture. These were the first Bajans. Many centuries before, their ancestors had migrated from what is now Guyana and Venezuela in big ocean going canoes to the Eastern Caribbean Islands. Recent carbon dating of their pottery showed they had arrived in Barbados around 1600 B.C." Obviously not RS, but they are getting this stuff from somewhere. There is some discussion of attempts to link pottery types to mainland Saladoid cultures in Venezuela the article Barbados's Amerindian Past, in Anthropology Today (Vol. 12, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 11-15), which discusses findings in a then ongoing excavation. It does not endorse the 1600bc date, but it's easy to see how a garbled interpretaion, or journalist's report in some newspaper could lead to the idea circulating. However, we have "EXAMINING THE DISPARITY BETWEEN TOURIST DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION ON BARBADOS" by Scott M. Fitzpatrick, Department of Anthropology and Historic Preservation Program. University of Oregon. He writes "Past archaeological investigations conducted at Heywoods [archaeological site in Barbados] have revealed substantial evidence of prehistoric settlement from the earliest preceramic period (c. 2000 B.C.) through ceramic periods (200 B.C. - A.D. 1500), as well as historic use as a plantation." Paul B (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, well now we're getting some more plausible scholarly speculation for an earlier date. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The evidence, summarised by Fitzpatrick, is as follows: "Perhaps the most significant find was of two chipped conch (Strombus gigas) lip adzes of preceramic type found at the base of Trench 39 in marsh clay at a depth of 1.5 meters (Drewett 1993). These were found in association with unmodified conch shells, one of which was radiocarbon dated at 3900 +/- 100 B.P., and when corrected for the marine reservoir effect, gave a date of 1630 B.C. This is the first and only evidence for a preceramic occupation of Barbados and pushes the date of initial colonization back almost 1500 years from what was known previously." (p.4). As evidence this is pretty thin, but clearly significant. Paul B (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The original source is Peter Drewett, 1993. "Excavations at Heywoods, Barbados, and the Economic Basis of the Suazoid Period in the Lesser Antilles", Journal of the Barbados Museum and Historical Society 38:113-137. Drewett also published his findings in Prehistoric Settlements in the Caribbean: Fieldwork in Barbados, Tortola and the Cayman Islands, London and Barbados: Archetype Publications Ltd. However, Kirkpatrick himself seems to question the data in 2006 in a Latin American Antiquity article, "A critical approach to c14 dating in the Caribbean", 17 (4), p.389ff. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Afrocentrist Boers

Would you believe it, but the truth is that the Voortrekker Monument, dedicated in 1949 to the heroic Boer conquerers of South Africa is actually an Afrocentrist affirmation of the greatness of ancient "African-Egyptian" civilisation and is full of Atenist symbolism, at least according to section of the main article and the more detailed analysis in Symbolism of the Voortrekker Monument. Did they realise this back in good old days of apartheid one wonders? Strangely, there seems to be some uncertainty about the way sources are being used in these articles. Paul B (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow... really?!... The Boer's were Afro-centric? Who knew? (well... it's in Wikipedia... so it must be true). Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

Jack Sarfatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could I get some help with this article? It was written as though the man were an active research scientist instead of a popularizer of the paranormal, UFOs, and quantum mysticism. I tried to fix a lot of the most egregious problems with it, but we need better and more complete sources about the guy and perhaps some help with my wording to make it comply with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

Recently, he seems to have been very taken with the Tea Party for reasons that I cannot entire apprehend.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

For an article about someone who is supposedly a notable crank, the article sources seem to rely on Saraftti's own comments on obscure internet discussion sites, YouTube videos, etc. For a notable person, I'd expect to see more biographical coverage than a single SFGate article. Maybe the notability Talk page discussion needs to be revisited? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've given the article a once-over. Most of the coverage is from interviews with him. He seems to be a very popular local figure in San Francisco but there is some non-crazy to be gleaned from it. Hope that helps! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouroboros

Russian editor with a variety of IPs adding badly sourced stuff -- material not in source, using Bernal and Philip Gardiner for sources, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Leonora Piper

A single purpose account using a dynamic IP to avoid 3RR has been slowly but tendentiously inserting fringe POV content for over a year in a persistent attempt to undermine the credibility of science writer Martin Gardner. The IP occasionally engages in Talk page discussion to defend Ms. Pipers alleged psychic abilities against any criticism. The SPA appears to be unwilling or unable to understand RS, NPOV, DUE and WP:FRINGE in particular. I recently brought up the problem at AN/I and the page was semi-protected against IP editing, however it appears the anti-Gardner banner is now being carried by a possible sock account, so additional eyes on the page are appreciated. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oikophoboia redux

Looks like we have a WP:OWN problem at Oikophobia, the article's creator has restored his OR laden and inaccurate (the lead says "Oikophobia[1], coined by the British philosopher Roger Scruton", clearly wrong) version. Dougweller (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page locked for a week by another Admin, this time at the 'right version' for a change. I've warned the editor about personal attacks and WP:OWN -- and for the 2nd time asked him to read WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles

Could use some attention, I see the (not terribly well sourced) criticism section was removed. [26] Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the stuff in the criticism section appears to have been a bit out there. I do think it is worth retaining some mention of the conservative Christian reaction to the Course in Miracles if it is notable enough. There is a sense in which one could add that reaction to any New Age entry so I think particular notability should be required.Griswaldo (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems odd that the article includes no criticism at all. Robert T. Carroll's opinion that the franchise has been overly commercialized might be a start. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was just commenting on the content that was removed. The stuff about MK ULTRA and the CIA was a bit out there. I'm sure there is more mainstream and notable criticism around.Griswaldo (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some treatment in Martin et al.'s Kingdom of the Occult. JJB 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've started a rudimentary Criticism section with RS sourced material. It can certainly be added to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm. It can't be called "criticism" I guess. - LuckyLouie (talk)

Adnan Oktar

Adnan Oktar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), purveyor of creationist fringe (previously discussed WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Adnan Oktar). I've just been asked to take a look at this article.

You might be interested to know that Oktar's "devotion to Islamic moral values grew strong. He studied the great Islamic scholars, and was particularly influenced by Bediüzzama, an Muslim Kurdish scholar who wrote Risale-i Nur Collection, a body of Qur'anic commentary exceeding six thousand pages. From an early age he took upon himself to speak about Islam’s moral values and knowledge." How do we know this? On the best possible authority -- his own website -- which is used as the main source for his biography section (first three paragraphs, nearly half the entire section). WP:SELFPUB/"unduly self-serving" much? Some extra eyes might be worth while. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an amusing video of a lecture by Dawkins on Oktar, in which he shows that one of Oktar's expensively produced books 'disproving' evolution actually uses images downloaded from the internet including 'flies' that are fakes flies taken from a fly-fishing website. Paul B (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed amusing. I think the suggestion to roll back the entry, made on the talk page, is sensible. However, people should also look carefully at the citations and the claims they support. This guy may push some serious creationist fringe theories but he is a living individual, and his biography needs as much care as that of any other.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

For instance, from the older preferred version, I can't find the "anti-Zionism" stuff in the sources used in the lead. I'm not questioning the factuallity of the statements (see for instance [27]), only pointing out that they are not sourced properly.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of John, "majority view"

In the case of whether the teaching in the Gospel of John goes back to Jesus, we can't agree on whether there is a majority view, or what that view might be. How do we interpret this policy:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

To help us identify a "majority view," if there even is one. Leadwind (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, other editors take a look at this page. Leadwind and some other editors are pushing a POV on this article, and as a result it has been locked twice over the past 6 weeks. They delete sources they don't like when pushing their POV. They claim their viewpoint is the "mainstream" even though their sources don't validate them. I added one source, from "Introduction to the New Testament" by D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo that showed the variation in scholarly viewpoints, and it was deleted by Leadwind. It seems as though these editors have been pushing their POV for quite a while.

Someone needs to comment on A) the mass-deletion of citations certain editors don't like and B) editors who claim that a particular author represents the "consensus" even when the source doesn't say they represent the consensus.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec, involved) This is not an FTN question, as the number of literalist Christians completely precludes classification as "fringe". While more eyes might be useful, I have recommended Leadwind to MEDCAB or RFC instead. When there are many scholar sources on both (all) sides, it's best to avoid the WP:SYN of declaring one camp a majority by approbation, and to work out language in voluntary collaborative fora. JJB 18:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

We are better off not trying to referee all the various sides in gospel dating and accuracy. On these issues we shouldn't be labelling positions as "minority" or "fringe" unless there is agreement among the various groups on such points. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than getting hung up on majority vs minority, you might want to proceed by agreeing which authors' work is essential to mention in the article. Then you can decide how to present the different authors' work alongside each other. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a majority viewpoint, why shouldn't we describe it as such? The policy quoted above seems to be instructions on how to differentiate the majority viewpoint from minority viewpoints. If this policy isn't the one to look at, then how do we decide which view is the majority (if any viewpoint is)? I understand that individual editors might shy away from stating what the majority viewpoint is, but can someone point to a WP policy that says we shouldn't look for a majority viewpoint in these cases? This policy spells out what counts as the majority viewpoint and what doesn't. Is there some other overriding policy that should prevent us from following these instructions? No one who disagrees with this policy has cited a policy that contravenes it. Leadwind (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have explained to Leadwind that s/he is committing the fallacy of assuming the inverse; s/he appears to believe the policy states that inclusion in references is automatic majority status, and naming of adherents is automatic minority status, the inverse of what Jimbo says. However, I welcome any new or present editor commenting on the questions above, and/or my response. JJB 16:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with looking for someone to cite for a majority viewpoint. It's going to be hard to find someone to cite for that who really qualifies as a genuinely (as opposed to procedurally) reliable source, because the field has a history of people pretending that the opposition doesn't need to be taken seriously. From what I see in the edits, however, the bigger problem is that non-"majority" (from a secularist perspective) positions are being excised. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted a lot of minority opinions, but only when the coverage given to these minority opinions is given undue weight. I have no problem with viewpoints from minority sources when they're identified as such. The policy cited above seems to be telling us how to discern what the majority opinion is. Could someone paraphrase this for me? Suppose I set out to determine what the majority view is on whether the teaching in John goes back to Jesus. How do I proceed? The policy I quoted above suggests to me that I should go look in the commonly accepted reference texts and take what I find there to be the majority opinion. Leadwind (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There's two things needed: determine what the commonly-accepted reference texts are and then summarize the opinions and facts contained in those texts. The second part is usually fairly easy (though there are people who will argue over whether something is a fact or an opinion, but if this happens we can discuss how to handle that dispute). The first task is often the more difficult. The key is really to begin research from the perspective of a researcher. That means looking at the sources that discuss the subject and seeing what the goal of the source is and how it was received by the relevant communities (normally, academic communities). That can be a bit of a daunting task, but it's what we're supposed to do as encyclopedia writers. A good place to start would be an academic library. A poor place to start would be a denominational seminary whose collected works might skew towards a certain religious perspective. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be a big step in the right direction if you could convince the editors on Gospel of John that we are to look in commonly accepted reference texts to find the majority viewpoint. In defense of the minority viewpoint, certain editors will likely argue that there is no majority viewpoint so we shouldn't even look for it, and that tertiary sources (including commonly accepted reference texts) are not really supposed to be used. Leadwind (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that tertiary sources, like reference texts, are not supposed to be used in articles, it is also true that they can serve as a very good indicator of the existing academic views of the topic. Maybe, in the near future, I can try to pull up some of those academic sources myself. However, we are supposed to reflect the academic view primarily, even if there are variant religious views. My best guess would be to put together, maybe in userspace, a collection of quotes, maybe verbatim, from some reference sources, and indicate what sources, if any, are indicated in those sources for that material. With a large selection of reference sources, including any fundamentalist/literalist sources, it would be a lot easier to determine the proportionate weight to be given material in the article. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Who says tertiary sources should not be used in articles? I would agree they have limited use, but they can be used. Blueboar (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone could go to the Talk:Gospel of John page and inform the editors that we are supposed to use commonly accepted reference texts to determine the majority viewpoint, it could really help. As for tertiary sources, defenders of minority viewpoints often say that they should not be used. In our case, RomanHistorian and his ally Student7 have made that case. They think they're right because policy does day that articles are to be based primarily on secondary sources. Tertiary sources are especially valuable for determining the relative weights among opposing views, which is precisely why defenders of minority viewpoints want to exclude them. Defenders of minority viewpoints want to be able to swamp an article with citations that support their viewpoint and resist that idea that any particular viewpoint should be given majority status. When an authoritative, well-known, neutral source such as Encyclopedia Britannica says something they don't like, they'll try anything to get it taken off the page. Leadwind (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Carolyn Cascio

This article is a bit of silliness about an alleged Bermuda Triangle incident. The problem is that it's completely unreferenced, unless you count a link to a Tales of the Bizzarro!!! sort of webpage. According to this section of Bermuda Triangle the whole story is likely fabricated as there's no official record of the incident or any similar aircraft or pilot being lost at sea. So far as I can tell, there's no evidence that Ms. Cascio ever existed, let alone flew an aircraft over the Bahamas. Delete? Rewrite? Stubbify? The story apparently exists outside Wikipedia even if she never did. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Off to AFD. Of course we are now the primary source for this story.... Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, at the article's talk page I found a link to this, but it fails to substantiate most of the details of the incident, including the pilot's name, and contradicts some of them, including the point of origin of the flight. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that we cannot even identify from this that the woman named was involved. Mangoe (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Different date, different point of origin, different destination. All it has in common is that it concerns a female pilot in the 1960s who got lost in a Cessna 172 in the Caribbean. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well there's this, but a single mention in a sensationalized book doesn't confer notability enough for a standalone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, especially since the evidence we can find shows that it didn't happen. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh, another book with yet another set of alleged facts, still unverified and unverifiable, that don't match the other versions. You'd think the fabulists would pick one version and stick to it.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

I've reverted this editor once, anyone think this [28] helps the article? Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the comment could be useful if it were expressed better as the boundary between science and pseudoscience is not always clear. Incidentally Heim theory should be on the list. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

Genetic algorithm

There is currently an ongoing discussion considering the inclusion of a new theory called Generative Fixation Hypothesis on the Genetic algorithm page. A user has suggested and pushed for the inclusion of this new theory, but the only reference (so far) to the new theory is a Ph.D. dissertation published by the very author who is pushing for inclusion. At this point I have a neutral opinion on the matter, but I wanted to get some outside opinions on how "notable" this fringe theory really is. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This has evidently been discussed on the talk page in great detail and I don't think that this is the correct noticeboard. That said, however, in an area of science with a high publication rate, it is slightly surprising that the thesis has not yet been submitted as an article (the editor-author has indicated that he has had other priorities). In any case there is no reason to believe that this is a fringe theory. It's just a little premature to be included as material in an encyclopedia before it has been properly evaluated in the academic literature. Mathsci (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just coming here to add a similar comment: no, the topic is not in any sense fringe, it is simply not yet sufficiently published for use as a reference in a scientific article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fringe political movements

I can find references calling movements such as Cascadia (independence movement) fringe, so I hope it's ok bringing it here. This and other articles such as League of the South and Middlebury Institute (and probably many more at List of active separatist movements in North America are written mainly using primary sources (ie their own websites), with loads of links in the articles to similar movements which look to me promotional but may be within our guidelines. Some of them read more like promotional material for the movement than an article. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Monterey Park, California

• Timothy P. Fong, a professor and director of Asian American studies at California State University, Sacramento, describes Monterey Park as the "First Suburban Chinatown".
  • Fong, Timothy P. (1994). The First Suburban Chinatown: The Remaking of Monterey Park, California. Temple University Press. ISBN 9781566392624.

Some editors assert that considering the community of Monterey Park, California to be the "first suburban Chinatown" is a fringe view that should be excluded from articles. This dispute covers other articles as well, including Southern California Chinatowns. It's my understanding these editors believe there is no such thing as a "suburban Chinatown",[29] and that Monterey Park is not a "Chinatown" of any kind. However many reliable sources refer to the community and its neighbors that way, including numerous references in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times. See excerpts at Talk:Monterey Park, California#"Chinatown" excerpts. The editors who oppose mentioning this have not provided any sources to dispute the characterization as a Chinatown, suburban or otherwise. But they have repeatedly deleted references to this community as a Chinatown.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Is it a violation of WP:FRINGE to quote sources that call Monterey Park a "Chinatown" or "suburban Chinatown"?   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a fringe view. "Chinatown" is obviously a loose concept, and even "surburb" is going to have some vague boundaries. A scholarly source obviously equates to only one person's statement; that doesn't make it an extreme minority view. A scholar doesn't have to be notable to be a reliable source. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a fringe view. See [38]"History of Asians in the San Gabriel Valley" 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas. Reliable sources have been provided many times for this issue. I can list them again for the umpteenth time. A new one, that addresses two of the issues on your agenda: "Spatial transformation of an urban ethnic community from Chinatown to Chinese ethnoburb in Los Angeles"[39]DocOfSoc (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A Google search reveals little more than listings for Fong's books. What kind of significant minority view doesn't turn up a shred of information? Not to mention that elsewhere in articles such as Southern California Chinatowns, there was a wall of inappropriate WP:SYNTH material about "suburban Chinatowns" when 95% of the sources didn't mention anything of the sort. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

When I run your Google search I get "About 15,500 results". If I run ["suburban chinatown" -wikipedia -fong], I get "About 11,500 results".[40] So at least 2/3 of the references do not mention Fong, using your measure. (However I think Google searches are useless for issues like this.)   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

True scholars do not limit themselves to a simple google search. See: [41] 25 results for: "Suburban Chinatown." Also, referencing Fong's work in another separate article by another scholar is furthering the discussion among academics and therefore disproving your assertions: Google scholar:[42] DocOfSoc (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Or try [43] "Google Books". DocOfSoc (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"True scholars"? Really now, your search results prove my point that much of the same people write these books or papers, and the Google Books search link is for "urban Chinatown", which I assume you mean "suburban". …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 21:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to quote a great post that Skookum1 made over at Talk:Southern California Chinatowns:

You're advocating an original research/synth use of a word that means something else in proper English. Trying to insist that just because there's a bunch of Chinese people and some stores makes a "Chinatown" is a conceit and a fabrication and none of the places talked about 'describe themselves as Chinatown (some explicitly avoid the term, or point out that it's somewhere else). You clearly haven't read the rest of the discussion, or feel that your own adoption of the word to mean "place with lots of Chinese businesses and people" is just peachy-keen. It's not, not in this article, not in others. If that were the definition the whole of Greater Vancouver would be about 50 so-called Chinatowns (25 of those within the city proper, which has a specific place called "Chinatown"). There's already List of U.S. cities with significant Chinese populations, there's no need for anything more to count for the "concentrations" of Chinese in Artesia, Monterey Park, Rowland Heights etc....branding those places Chinatowns when other people live there, and neither they nor the Chinese people in question call it Chinatown either, is both original research and callously presumptuous.

…Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 21:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with fringe theories. It might be mistaken, it might be a too casually and sloppily applied label, I have no idea. It isn't anything like people thinking they've been abducted by aliens, is it? You could ask on the reliable sources noticeboard if Fong's book is a reliable source, but I can tell you know what the board will say, and that's yes, it is reliable. From the summary on Amazon on Fong's book (not reliable but from the publisher and an indication of the content), "first suburban Chinatown" was applied by the press first. Surely everyone can see that this is a term that has a flexible definition and room for discussion about the cases to which it should be applied? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Good sense. What a fuss about nothing. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Exactly what I have been saying for months. The lack of respect for Academic research and the PhD's that produce it is appalling.

Dr. Ling also says:Having studied cities like Monterey Park in graduate school, I am fascinated by how its development into the country’s first suburban Chinatown represents a very complex, sometimes volatile, but always fascinating mix of globalization, demographic change, ethnic succession, and cultural pluralism. "For those who’d like to learn more about it, I recommend The Politics of Diversity: Immigration, Resistance, and Change in Monterey Park, California. Philadelphia: Temple University Press." One more time: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks DocOfSoc (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this view is expressed by a scholar in his field of expertise and published by a highly reputable scholarly press. Further, it's repeated in mainstream newspaper articles, both before and after its publication. While some may disagree, there can be no question that is a significant POV. This is not a fringe view. It might or might not be a minority view, which is a separate issue.   Will Beback  talk  12:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

I still don't see any broad support for the idea in the academic community and the reasoning in Fong's book basically amounts to, "there's a lot of Chinese people here, therefore it is a Chinatown!" That reasoning isn't made in any "serious and substantial manner" by any stretch of the imagination. The term "suburban Chinatown" is only mentioned about a dozen times total, and the book is more about the modern history of Monterey Park than about the term itself. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not, in the Wikipedia definition, a fringe theory. And what you are finding is that the academic community isn't particularly interested in the "Chinatown" label per se. You seem to have some idea that being a "Chinatown" is a clearly delineated, either/or thing. I doubt that many social scientists see it that way. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A line has to be drawn somewhere. When are we going to start calling native Chinese cities such as Beijing a Chinatown, because x professor twisted the definition to suit his/her viewpoint? If the academic field isn't interested in the definition of Chinatown, then we should not be going around claiming such-and-such city is a "suburban Chinatown" based on a single source. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course there doesn't have to be a line. There are places that are definitely a "Chinatown", places that definitely aren't, and no doubt there are places that are a bit doubtful where there's room for discussion. A good social scientist is interested in much more than attaching a single simplistic label; they're interested in actually telling you about the place under consideration. Not by any stretch of the imagination a fringe theory. If you have a good source that says it isn't a Chinatown then that can be mentioned too. If you don't, then you should accept what this academic source, and media sources, say. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't assert that something is true because it has not been deemed false. The only mention of "suburban Chinatown" in the media that I can find is a 1987 article by the LA Times, which used it in an obviously metaphorical sense. My point still stands. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Monterey Park, California#"Chinatown" excerpts for several more just on Monterey Park alone. Proquest's newspaper archive shows about 80 hits for the term.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This thread should be closed since you have had a clear opinion from all respondents that the topic is not fringe. I'm curious though. What definition of "Chinatown" do you have in mind? Why do you personally think that Monterey Park isn't one? Is it because there are residents who aren't Chinese? Ethnic segregation in cities is never absolute - or maybe it was in some US cities at one point, but not since the Civil Rights movement. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It simply doesn't fit the accepted and widely used definition of a Chinatown. They are specifically named ethnic enclaves with a high concentration of Chinese residents and businesses along with a unique culture. Monterey Park is an average suburb of Los Angeles with Chinese people living here and there. Just because one or two odd people claim it is a Chinatown by adding all sorts of modifiers such as "suburban" or "unique" does not make it so. On the other hand, Chinatown, Los Angeles is universally accepted as being a Chinatown, and it fits the definition plain and simple. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"...one or two odd people..." If you're referring to WP editors, then please don't call your colleagues "odd". If you're referring to outside sources, then you're wrong because numerous people use the term "suburban Chinatown", not just one or two. If there is an "accepted and widely used definition" then it should be easy to provide multiple sources for that definition. I've asked many times and haven't seen any provided. Maybe that's the "fringe" view here. ;)   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you can't argue that the city is a Chinatown because there haven't been any sources to prove it isn't. The closest I can do to prove a negative is to tell you to do a quick Google Books/Scholar search for "Chinatown". Notice, unsurprisingly, that the large, large majority of these books don't mention anything about these new "suburban Chinatowns" or list them. If this was even a minority view it would be easy to find sources listing the city as a Chinatown. The situation right now is that several of you are cherry-picking books here and there that vaguely mention the term to seem like this is some sort of accepted viewpoint. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, you're saying that the proportion of Chinese residents isn't high enough. But there is no agreed proportion. You don't have to agree that the area is a Chinatown. But the sourcing is good, which is what we are looking for in Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of POV-pushing going on

Biofield energy healing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Haven't seen this much pseudoscientific claptrap in one place for a long time. Please help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe merge with Energy medicine? This comment by the article creator on the new article's talk page seems to expose that it's a POV fork. Apparently he didn't like the fact that the existing article treats pseudoscience as pseudoscience so he decided to write one of his own. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an idea floating on the talk page right now. I think that "energy medicine" (as defined by, say, NCCAM) may actually be broader than the particular subject this article is focusing on. But I cannot confirm that suspicion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the major authors on that page haven't been able to articulate a difference. Now executing a merge to energy medicine. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Raëlism

I haven't yet found out how many related articles there are, but there's even one on Raëlian Church membership estimates (s that really a notable topic?). Probably a bit of a walled garden. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The membership estimate entry is inconsequential trivia. I think WP:AFD is the answer. We allow too many lists of trivia here all around.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Now this comes as a huge surprise. Not. I added well sourced text noting that Sitchin and von Daniken influenced Raelism, and it was actually changed to something the sources didn't say and I was told it was Undue Weight -- we have a little ownership problem in this garden. [44] Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you put there who made those claims as I had done with numerous authors referenced in that article. If you had done that, I would not have considered it to be undue weight. For the record, you had put there: "Writers who have influenced Raëlian beliefs include Zechariah Sitchin and Erich von Däniken.<-ref>Genta, Giancarlo (2007). Lonely Minds in the Universe: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Springer. p. 231. ISBN 978-0387339252.<-/ref><-ref>Colavito, Jason (2005). The cult of alien gods: H.P. Lovecraft and extraterrestrial pop culture. Prometheus. p. 320. ISBN 978-1591023524.<-/ref>" (without the -'s). I have no dispute over the current version of this sentence, "According to Giancarlo Genta and Jason Colavito, writers who have influenced Raëlian beliefs include Zechariah Sitchin and Erich von Däniken.<-ref>Genta, Giancarlo (2007). Lonely Minds in the Universe: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Springer. p. 231. ISBN 978-0387339252.<-/ref><-ref>Colavito, Jason (2005). The cult of alien gods: H.P. Lovecraft and extraterrestrial pop culture. Prometheus. p. 320. ISBN 978-1591023524.<-/ref>". To point out in prose which authors have asserted that Sitchin and von Daniken have influenced Raelism gives you what is needed to make this a NPOV statement.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 16:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Most of this seems to involve behavior of Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want some interesting case study, check out the GA Review(s) history at these:

1. Talk:Claude Vorilhon
2. Talk:Raëlism
3. Talk:Raëlian beliefs and practices
4. Talk:History of Raëlism

Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit not being familiar enough with the GA process (my bad, I know it in principle but not enough in practice) to comment. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have an entry called Raëlian beliefs and practices in the first place? For a marginal subject that's a heck of a lot of content. If UFO religions are "exciting" then lets leave the tabloids to excite people.Griswaldo (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

An AFD on several Urantia Book articles a long time back concluded with "merge all" on grounds that I would affirm as very similarly applicable here. Delete anything written in-universe, e.g. JJB 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that would lead to a giant article. Are you sure it cannot be merged into two or three articles instead?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the sources in Raëlian Church membership estimates are no longer available. Nearly all of the rest are either behind a pay wall or don't actually quote reliable(or any) numbers about the numbers of members. If we removed the unsourced info the article wouldn't have anything left. I wonder if the other articles are any better? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

@Dougweller, regarding the GA process - this is just my impression, but it appears as if Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs) has nominated the above-listed "GA" articles multiple times. So perhaps there were issues of neutrality raised and questionable promotional material, etc, NPOV concerns, and maybe that is why the GA Reviews resulted in fail multiple times - but perhaps the GA Reviewers just got tired out after a while - in other words, kind of like, "asking the other parent" ... ? -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see that now. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the GA Reviewers simply gave up, as though the articles were not improved in the process, but rather strayed closer to a POV? That is quite a claim for someone not inclined to spend much time reviewing the history of edits in these articles. You do realize that they also helped improved the quality of these articles, correct?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 16:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have nominated the article "Claude Vorilhon" five times before getting it accepted, "Raëlism" six times, "History of Raëlism" twice (but is now delisted), and "Raëlian beliefs and practices" once (which has also passed a GA assessment).Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 16:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of Raëlian article sprawl. There's a lame category which is throwing off the whole bishops category hierarchy, and a lame disambiguation page which actually seems to be a directory of Raëlian articles. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, the whole Category:Raëlism seems to me anyway to maybe be more than a bit excessive considering WorldCat here lists so far as I can see only one clearly independent book about the subject, the book by Susan Palmer. I think some real serious pruning could be done here. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You could not see far enough to find that the article cites the books of at least two clearly independent authors. If we include only those with wiki articles, they are James R. Lewis (scholar) and Gregory Stock. Also, the search link you provided obviously captures the works of more than one author. If you said, "I can see only one clearly independent book dealing exclusively about the subject," then that is closer to the truth. See the following link to Google Books to get a real picture of the depth of this subject: http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&q=raelians . Magazines alone will give you 5 results http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1%2Cbkt%3Am&q=raelians+-%22weekly+world+news%22 (excluding the Weekly World News for obvious reasons).Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 16:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment, by John Carter. -- Cirt (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Raëlian Church membership estimates is currently being considered for deletion here. I suggest any intereseted parties express their opinions. Other articles which strike me as being somewhat questionable are Honorary Guides of the Raelian Movement, which seems to have a very, very few independent sources, including the National Enquirer and Star of all things. Geniocracy seems to have as its almost sole independent basis an article from the South Florida News Sentinel, which is evidence of, basically, only local notability. I think that article may well fail WP:N. The Sensual Meditation article provides quite a few details about that practice, all of which seem to be exclusively based on internal documents. The apparently limited amount of independent discussion of the topic could probably easily be merged elsewhere. And it does seem that there is almost exclusively one editor involved with these articles. Whether that individual is an adherent of Raelism is not the only indicator of possible POV pushing.

Personally, as some of you might remember, I am in favor of having separate articles on virtually every extant denomination or group out there which meets basic notability guidelines as per WP:N. But that is for a single article, not for a group of articles which seem to be almost exclusively repetitions of the statements of a clearly biased party, the founder of the group.

Anyway, I welcome further input from anyone else seeing this. John Carter (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Personally, as some of you might remember, I am in favor of having separate articles on virtually every extant denomination or group out there which meets basic notability guidelines as per WP:N. But that is for a single article, not for a group of articles which seem to be almost exclusively repetitions of the statements of a clearly biased party, the founder of the group." Is this position unanimous among administrators? How about contacting administrators who disagree with you on this point (that is, if they exist).Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: See also articles created by Kmarinas86. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• You might want to also see where my edits have gone, which is not fully captured by the list of the pages I have created on Wiki namespace.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Opposed to merging the subject to just one article

There are least three separate articles besides this one that deserve there own page. These are:

• Claude Vorhilon
• Brigitte Boisselier
• Clonaid

As for the main article:

There are two articles in question directly related to books, which could easily be merged in the main article:

• Sensual Meditation
• Geniocracy

These articles also could be merged without much problem into the main article:

• Raëlian Embassy for Extraterrestrials
• Raëlian Cosmology

I also think that both tables related to membership estimates could be merged into the main article provided that it does not take too much prominence in the article:

• Raëlian Church membership estimates

The content of the following articles could be reorganized into separate sections "Raëlism in the media" and "Studies on Raëlism":

• Raëlian beliefs and practices
• History of Raëlism

It appears that the following articles will not survive the transition:

• Economic humanitarianism (Raëlianism) (except for 1 source)
• Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement (except for 6 sources)
• Raëlian Foundation (except 1 source)

Does anyone here want to approve, modify, reject, or make a similar proposal?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 20:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here what my attempt at merging these articles looks like:

• User:Kmarinas86/Raëlism Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 22:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the biographies of notable individuals are a separate matter. I do however still question why the one single event about which the group has apparently received the greatest degree of attention, including in scholarly journals, the baby Eve cloning incident, is given only a single paragraph in the Clonaid article. Also, there is not yet an article on Criticism of Raëlism, or even a clear and specific devoted section in the main article, which is one of the standard primary subarticles. It is most unusual that this, one of the most notable topics of most religious movements, receives such little coverage in these artiles, particularly considering that the group has drawn a good deal of critical response, including at least two articles specifically about Raelism in Skeptical Inquirer. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"the baby Eve cloning incident, is given only a single paragraph in the Clonaid article." Wrong.

1. On March 2001, Boisselier said that a woman would be pregnant with a cloned fetus in April. She said that cells had reached the blastocyst stage, but she refused to speak of any specific implantation or pregnancy associated with them. According to a ''[[CNN]]'' article that November, the Clonaid laboratory was outside the United States. Clonaid claimed that it had developed human cloned embryos before Advanced Cell Technology was able to do the same.<ref name="Pro-cloning group claims to have embryos">[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/11/27/clonaid.clone/ Pro-cloning group claims to have embryos], ''[[CNN]]''. 28 November 2001. Retrieved 9 September 2007.</ref> ''CNN'' could not confirm the unpublished work. Due to Clonaid's association with Raëlians and the lack of evidence for cloning, authorities remained skeptical as to whether Clonaid could clone anything at all.<ref name="Clonaid Claims It Has Cloned a Baby Girl">[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/27/bn.06.html Clonaid Claims It Has Cloned a Baby Girl], ''[[CNN]]''. 27 December 2002. Retrieved 9 September 2007.</ref>
2. On Friday December 27, 2002, Boisselier, a Raëlian bishop and CEO of Clonaid, announced at press conference in [[Hollywood, Florida|Hollywood]], [[Florida]] that Clonaid had successfully performed the first human reproductive cloning. Boisselier said that the mother delivered Eve by [[Caesarean section]] somewhere outside the [[United States]] and that both were healthy. Dr. Boisselier did not present the mother or child, or [[DNA]] samples that would allow for confirmation of her claim at the press conference. It has subsequently become apparent that she announced the birth before genetic testing to evaluate whether the child in question is actually a clone: Dr. Boisselier was therefore stating her belief that her procedure had resulted in a clone, not announcing results showing that the child was a clone.<ref name="First cloned baby 'born on 26 December'">Young, Emma, [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3217 First cloned baby "born on 26 December"], ''MacNeil/Lehrer Productions''. 27 December 2002. Retrieved 12 September 2007.</ref>
3. Shortly after the announcement, Korean prosecutors raided the offices of Clonaid's Korean branch, BioFusion Tech. In the process, the prosecutors removed records from homes and offices while barring two representatives of BioFusion Tech from leaving the country. An official company statement revealed that three Korean women applied to become surrogate mothers. Officials of BioFusion Tech told the prosecutors that 10 Korean women wanted to clone themselves and have filled out applications.<ref name="Korea Will Cooperate With FDA Probe Into Human Cloning Cult">Goodenough, Partrick, [http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200301%5CFOR20030106b.html Korea Will Cooperate With FDA Probe Into Human Cloning Cult], ''[[Cybercast News Service]]''. 6 January 2003. Retrieved 11 October 2007.</ref>
4. The [[Food and Drug Administration]] stated its intention to investigate Clonaid to see if it had done anything illegal. The FDA contended that its regulations forbid human cloning without prior agency permission. However, some members of the [[United States Congress]] believed that the jurisdiction of the FDA on human cloning matters was shaky and decided to push Congress to explicitly ban human cloning.<ref name="FDA Probes Sect's Human Cloning">[http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/12/56994 FDA Probes Sect's Human Cloning], ''[[Wired News]]''. December 26, 2002. Retrieved 11 October 2007.</ref>
5. President [[George W. Bush]] said that human cloning was "deeply troubling" to most Americans. [[Kansas]] Republican [[Sam Brownback]] said that Congress should ban all human cloning, while some Democrats were worried that Clonaid announcement would lead to the banning of therapeutic cloning. FDA biotechnology chief Dr. Phil Noguchi warned that the human cloning, even if it worked, risked transferring sexually transmitted diseases to the newly born child.<ref name="FDA Probes Sect's Human Cloning"/>
6. [[University of Wisconsin–Madison]] bioethicist Alta Charo said that even in other ape-like mammals, the risk for miscarriage, birth defects, and life problems remains high. [[Robert Lanza]] of Advanced Cell Technologies said that Clonaid has no record of accomplishment for cloning anything, but he said that if Clonaid actually succeeded, there would be public unrest that may lead to the banning of therapeutic cloning, which has the capacity to cure millions of patients. The [[Holy See|Vatican]] said that the claims expressed a mentality that was brutal and lacked ethical consideration. The [[White House]] was also critical of the claims.<ref name="CNN.com - Clonaid: Baby 'clone' returns home - Jan. 1, 2003"/>
7. Clonaid spokeswoman Nadine Gary claimed that Eve went home with her mother on December 30, 2002,<ref name="Clone Maybe Baby Goes Home">[http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/12/57019 Clone Maybe Baby Goes Home], ''[[Wired News]]''. 31 December 2002. Retrieved 11 October 2007.</ref> but Florida attorney [[Bernard Siegel]] filed a petition as a private citizen<ref name="Guardian sought for alleged clone">[http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/159038 Guardian sought for alleged clone], ''[[ONE News]]''. 1 January 2003. Retrieved 11 October 2007.</ref> in the [[Broward County]] Circuit Court requesting that a temporary guardian be appointed for the purported cloned child. As the court case played out over the next month, Dr. Boisselier testified under oath that there was a cloned child, born in Israel. However, Clonaid did not present demonstrative evidence that the child really existed.<ref name="Where is the Clone?">[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/29/se.04.html Where is the Clone?], ''[[CNN]]''. 29 January 2003. Retrieved 9 September 2007.</ref> Boisselier said that Eve would travel to the United States that day for DNA tests. She said that a pediatrician saw Eve and her mother in good condition, but she refused to mention the location of the surrogate birth, the testing lab, or the biological mother's home, which she wanted to reveal at a later time. The mother was said to be 31 years old with an infertile husband.<ref name="CNN.com - Clonaid: Baby 'clone' returns home - Jan. 1, 2003"/>
8. Florida attorney Bernard Siegel subpoenaed Thomas Kaenzig, a vice president of Clonaid, to appear on a civil proceeding set to occur on January 22, 2003. Siegel's office sent summonses to Thomas Kaenzig and "Jane Doe", the purported mother of Eve. Siegel hoped that the action would coax those involved to provide some answers. He believed the child, if she existed, needed an appointed guardian and would need protection and medical assistance which he doubts Clonaid could offer. He wanted the court to make a decision on how to best protect her. However, Clonaid prevented scientists from meeting the purported child and mother.<ref name="Clonaid summoned to U.S. court">[http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/12/cloning.court/index.html Clonaid summoned to U.S. court], ''[[CNN]]''. 12 January 2003. Retrieved 11 October 2007.</ref>
9. Michael Guillen, a former ''[[ABC News]]'' science editor, made an agreement with Boisselier for him to choose independent experts to test for a [[DNA]] match. Clonaid refused to identify the independent experts, because if revealed too soon, others could track the baby from the testing place into the mother's house. Clonaid said the parents had the final say on whether they want to test the baby and that a Dutch lesbian couple would be the parents of the next cloned baby.<ref name="Wired News: Clonaid Baby: A Clone or a Fake?">[http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/12/57001 Wired News: Clonaid Baby: A Clone or a Fake?], ''[[Wired News]]''. 30 December 2002. Retrieved 9 September 2007.</ref> Boisselier said she would hand over the evidence to show that a clone had in fact been born but was concerned that the details of Clonaid's cloning procedure might leak out.<ref name="CNN.com - Clonaid: Baby 'clone' returns home - Jan. 1, 2003"/> The next day, Vorilhon claimed that the baby was healthy. He said those who are against cloning for ethical reasons would be dismayed if the clone baby was in good condition.<ref name="CNN.com - Clonaid: Baby 'clone' returns home - Jan. 1, 2003">[http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/30/human.cloning/ CNN.com - Clonaid: Baby 'clone' returns home - Jan. 1, 2003], ''[[CNN]]''. 1 January 2003. Retrieved 9 September 2007.</ref>
10. Thomas Kaenzig refused to testify in a court hearing, but Florida judge John Frusciante Sr. was able to convince Kaenzig through a telephone to reveal some of the details. Kaenzig testified that Clonaid left him ignorant of the cloning project and that it was not even a corporation. The judge summoned Kaenzig and Brigitte Boisselier to a Florida court and warned the two that they would be condemned if they did not show there on January 29, 2003.<ref name="Clonaid exec expected in court Wednesday">[http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/28/clonaid.hearing/ Clonaid exec expected in court Wednesday], ''[[CNN]]''. 28 January 2003. Retrieved 9 September 2007.</ref> As the court case played out, Dr. Boisselier testified under oath that she saw videos of a cloned child born in Israel.<ref name="Where is the Clone?">[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/29/se.04.html Where is the Clone?], ''[[CNN]]''. 29 January 2003 Retrieved 9 September 2007.</ref>
11. Michael Guillen was disappointed when he discovered that Clonaid withdrew their offer to provide the tests. The company said that before the tests were done, the parents wanted to be sure that their baby would not be sent away, but a Florida attorney asked that a guardian for Eve be appointed and threatened the company with a lawsuit. Guillen, who remained skeptical, said it would be unwise to dismiss the Clonaid project without proper confirmation.<ref name="Reporter caught in the wreckage of Clonaid story">[http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-01-07-media-mix_x.htm Reporter caught in the wreckage of Clonaid story], ''[[USA Today]]''. 7 January 2003. Retrieved 9 September 2007.</ref>

"or even a clear and specific devoted section in the main article" Wrong.

“

7 Critical reception

7.1 Fears of human cloning

8 Views of sex

9 Perception as a cult

10 Use of the swastika

”

See this edit by Editor 2020 who tagged it as "(section management)".

Before that edit:

“

1 Beliefs

1.1 Voluntarism

2 History

2.1 Member hierarchy

2.1.1 Converts from other religious establishments

2.2 Organized activity

2.2.1 Women-only groups

2.2.2 Retreat gatherings and outdoor demonstrations

2.2.3 Initiation of new members

3 History of critical reception

3.1 Fears of human cloning

3.2 Liberal views of sex

3.3 Perception as a cult

3.4 Use of the swastika as an image of peace or hate

4 See also

5 References

5.1 Cited texts

6 Further reading

7 External links"

”

After that edit:

“

1 Beliefs

1.1 Voluntarism

2 History

3 Member hierarchy

3.1 Converts from other religious establishments

4 Organized activity

4.1 Women-only groups

4.2 Retreat gatherings and outdoor demonstrations

5 Initiation of new members

6 Critical reception

6.1 Fears of human cloning

7 Views of sex

8 Perception as a cult

9 Use of the swastika as an image of peace or hate

10 See also

11 References

11.1 Cited texts

12 Further reading

13 External links

”

"It is most unusual that this, one of the most notable topics of most religious movements, receives such little coverage in these artiles, particularly considering that the group has drawn a good deal of critical response" Wrong.

“ User:Kmarinas86/Raëlism/First-Party Citations

Excluding Redundant Page Cites (43)

Including Redundant Page Cites (106)

User:Kmarinas86/Raëlism/Third-Party Citations

Excluding Redundant Page Cites (93)

Including Redundant Page Cites (99)

Ratio of Third-Party Sources to First-Party Sources = 93:43 = 2.16:1

”

"particularly considering that the group has drawn a good deal of critical response, including at least two articles specifically about Raelism in Skeptical Inquirer." Half true, half false (Google News Search Results):

“

2 results (0.56 seconds)

Archives

Search Results

1. CSI | Happy Old Year

Skeptical Inquirer - Jan 9, 2003

Is there any good news to fix upon in the wake of the Raelian cloning furor? ... Although the folks at CNN may not learn any science from their Raelian ...

2. CSI | A Many-Headed Hydra: Reasons for the Persistence of...

Skeptical Inquirer - Jan 1, 2010

This drivel, no less bizarre than the Raelian's beliefs, prompted no mockery or scepticisim from the Mail far from it: “Dare we ignore this message? ...

”

To quote the second search result for the only part of the article speaking of "Raelians":

“ The British Magazine Private Eye, known for its realistic and satiric view of life, took on this issue:

“ meanwhile, for an entire week in December the Mail ran extracts from the latest book on the Bible Code, a fantasy dreamed up by American hack Michael Drosnin to prove that a hidden code in the Bible foretold the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. The cipher, Dragon revealed, was created by extra-terrestrials thousands of years ago: “There were clear references to what can only be called ‘UFOs’ in the unencoded text of the Bible—most notably in the Book of Ezekiel, which tells of a flying chariot in the sky from which few living beings emerged. This drivel, no less bizarre than the Raelian’s beliefs, prompted no mockery or scepticisim from the Mail far from it: “Dare we ignore this message?” it demanded! Can it be long before [the] editor bows to the inevitable and renames his paper the Daily Rael? ”

”

Only the first one, "Happy Old Year", is specific to Raelians.

Let's see what style of writing it is:

• "The article in question was headlined "Don't expect clones to be replicas"; its subtitle was "Nongenetic factors have significant influence on who we are.""
• "As the aforementioned report suggests, journalists have barely led us forward at all in our thinking about cloning since 1997."
• "At the time, writing for my college’s quarterly political journal, I did my own small part to debunk it:"

• "Though this particular passage holds up pretty well, a look back at this ancient article actually made me cringe at some of my mistaken arguments."

• "As Nisbet put it in an article published last summer in the journal Science Communication:"
• "This is just the sort of coverage—start and stop, remember and forget again—that allowed the Raelians to swoop in and dominate CNN."
• "Today’s journalists don’t seem to have learned any lesson at all from the case of the retired physicist Richard Seed, mentioned by Nisbet."
• "In fact, some lawmakers may be more misinformed than the journalists."
• "Although the folks at CNN may not learn any science from their Raelian encounter, they may learn shame instead."

You can judge for yourself if this guy isn't acting as an informal tertiary source.

And there is more. Another article found there

The article "Pranks, Frauds, and Hoaxes from Around the World" is not specific to Raelians, though it gives only one paragraph:

“ "I think it goes without saying that anybody can be hoaxed. Nobody is exempt. Even famous newscasters can be duped. Tom Brokaw and many others were hoaxed by David Rorvik in 1978 when Rorvik claimed he had proof of human cloning. Twenty-five years later we saw the same hoax perpetrated by the Raelian Bishop Brigitte Boisselier, who claimed a group she headed called Clonaid had cloned five humans and that proof would be forthcoming. (That’s proof, not truth, that would be forthcoming.) The leader of the group, Rael, was a race-car driver and sports journalist who was known as Claud Vorilhon until he was picked up by aliens near a volcano in France, taken to a planet in the Pleiades, and sent back to start a UFO cult. He says the cloning hoax was worth millions in publicity. Who could doubt him? ”

There is yet another article, "Raelian Update: Sex, Pseudoscience, and Sacrilege", which is also specific to Raelians is behind a pay wall, making it two articles specific to Raelians on the Skeptical Inquirer, like you said. Someone had leaked it at "http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread347200/pg6#pid4213381", and apparently it has little to do with Clonaid—("a company founded by the group's leader, Rael--gained worldwide notoriety for making unsubstantiated claims of having successfully cloned human beings. Three Raelian women are featured in the Playboy pictorial, including Marina Boisselier, the daughter of Clonaid CEO Brigitte Boisselier") so that means only one article listed in Sciop.com centers around the Clonaid claim. Author

Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 15:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For all the somewhat uncivil and somewhat gratuitous repetition of "wrong" by the above editor, I believe he rather clearly failed to address the major point being raised, which is that the Baby Eve matter is probably the single most notable event in the history of Raelism and yet does not have its own specific article. I cannot imagine why that would be the case, and the lack of such a separate article on the event, particularly if the material is spread in multiple other articles. The above edits don't actually indicate where the material the individual quotes is contained, which really does nothing to help his arguments. However, minimizing a controversial matter's visibility by spreading the material in multiple other articles is not particularly productive nor does it give the impression of being unbiased. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"I believe he rather clearly failed to address the major point being raised, which is that the Baby Eve matter is probably the single most notable event in the history of Raelism and yet does not have its own specific article. I cannot imagine why that would be the case, and the lack of such a separate article on the event, particularly if the material is spread in multiple other articles." The Raëlians have been reported about well before the Clonaid claim (Baby Eve), though before not worldwide. Worldwide notability via what probably is millions of dollars of free publicity as a result of the Clonaid claim does not itself imply that it will absorb most of the content about the Raëlians. The content surrounding the Clonaid claim itself overlaps greatly, with not much additional material left to be found in the remaining news sources which are not already referenced in the Clonaid article. Also, the "coverage" of the Clonaid claim itself has limited depth due to the obscurity and opaqueness of the claim, and often the media will diverge to the topic of Raelians as a "cult" or "sect" etc. as well as covering some of their beliefs, and that is why much of the non-Clonaid-related content from news articles about Raëlians in the Raelism article are in fact from news articles which are otherwise focused around the Clonaid claim (Baby Eve). You can also find much controversy about the Raelians without going into the Clonaid claim itself in the article Raëlian beliefs and practices. Lots of controversy can be found there. How do you propose obtaining Neutral-POV? A baby Eve article would be a stub, leaving out much of the history of Clonaid, and it would only serve as a content fork of the Clonaid article. I thought the real concern was that there were too many articles!Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 04:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find more about the doubt and issues raised concerning the baby Eve allegation in a reference that was on the Raëlism article but not on the Clonaid article.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 13:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Article difference between the revision before today's edits and the current revision.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 14:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: AfD for another related article

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raëlian Embassy for Extraterrestrials. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The above AFD was closed as delete. Please see another one, at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensual Meditation. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That AFD was also closed as delete. Please see AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raëlian cosmology. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea what this is about...

Resolved

 – Article deleted, editor blocked--Ronz (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have stumbled upon Marshal Walker through some recent change patrolling. Is it a hoax or...? Note it was created by User:Mwalker6437 and is currently being heavily edited by User:MarsHALwaLker. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax article. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for tagging it Ronz. Whatever it is does not appear to have any basis in reality, but it sure is...elaborate. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow - that's some impressive, well, stuff. Not sure I can quite call it writing though. Ravensfire (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

madness. the speedy tag was removed once already, need to keep an eye until an admin gets a look at it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it, though it is now up for DRV. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks GD, commented on drv. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OMG! Time to indef block said editor. We don't need crazies here. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

His last one is a bit over the line, but seriously, this is comic GOLD! Ravensfire (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! It sure is! It belongs in an archive for the wildest editorial comments, then when anyone criticizes Wikipedia, we could point them to it and tell them that this is the kind of stuff we have to contend with. Maybe we should have a padded cell corner of Wikipedia where we send them and let them go wild. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

wow. some how I was both in Saigon, and Somalia? and eating delicacies I can only dream about? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He's a hip hop slam poet/performance artist. The conspiracy 'tude is just part of the show. Lots more at his MySpace [45]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

ah. well. bad performance art is what it is. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

it's human: once you have convinced yourself you are an artist, anything you touch will look like a work of art to you :) --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SeanKelly65/Kender energy

You'll probably want to keep an eye on User:SeanKelly65/Kender energy. Company purporting to have an overunity machine. Gigs (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Progressive creationism

A new editor is insisting adding this self-published material of one Ulrich Utiger into Progressive creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

The source has apparently no relevant training and does not appear to be a prominent creationist. Also, his terminology seems a bit off -- "theistic creationists" vs "progressive creationists", when all creationists, progressives inclusive, are theists. Some closer scrutiny might be useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well an edit war has now started, the user seems really a bit too attatched to this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Matriarchy related articles

Matriarchy, Minoan civilization, Matriarchal religion, and others are being edited with fringe pov stuff, dubious or misused sources, etc. We've been here before. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at Elam, where statements about their religion are referenced to something referred to as only "African presence in early Asia" which in fact is a book by Ivan van Sertima - I've told the editor that this writer is not a reliable source, but that doesn't seem to be a concern. A real scholar, Mary Boyce, says [46] "In any case it is quite impossible that Lycians should have been able to exert a deep and abiding influence on the Zoroastrian community, and very doubtful in the case of the Elamites (of whose practices, apart from these isolated instances of royal marriages, very little is in fact known)." Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It gets worse. At Matriarchal religion a reference has been added to a webpage about our alien ancestors, the Anunnaki, to support something about serpent symbolism. (I've edited that page too much to touch it today). And did you know the etymology of Genesis is GENS ISIS? Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit like the Afrocentrism stuff. The second-wave feminists were freeto come up with the most bizarre nonsense, because if you pointed out the giant holes in their argument, you were evidently a sexist pig. The epicenter would be around the late 1970s, near Merlin Stone, Mary Daly and Heide Göttner-Abendroth (not Gimbutas, who was an actual respected academic even though she had an ideological agenda). This patently mad approach remained mainstream throughout the 1980s and 1990s and it has only subsided during the 2000s, so there are still a lot of refugees. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Our current contributor in this vein is Lorynote (talk · contribs). --dab (𒁳) 11:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Now escalating into a revert-war[47]. I'll be back to see how this is going tomorrow. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We may have a sock problem, we certainly have a problem of WP:Competence - this editor really doesn't seem to understand English well enough to comprehend the problems with her writing and the fact that her sources, even when decent, don't back the statements she wants them to back. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Now blocked as a sock of Jackiestud (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian apologetics

Over at Christian apologetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an editor is attempting to introduce pseudoscientific creationist views into the 'Scientific apologetics' section and rewrite the 'Creationist apologetics' section from a purely creationist viewpoint (e.g. replacing "do not agree with the science of evolutionary biology" to "do not agree with the Darwinian concept of evolutionary biology (not to be confused with other concepts) "). More scrutiny might be beneficial. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Experiment

I'm not sure about the recent edits here, possible OR, possible pushing a website, I'd like some other opinions. See the talk page also. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

may have pulled the same stunt a few years ago lokking at this talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The user states at this edit that the website he's been spamming is his. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The website in question, americanantigravity.com, is a pseudoscience promoting, credophile site that the user has spammed to a number of articles. Some of those links have survived for years. I just spent some time at Die Glocke, an article about a purported Nazi anti-gravity device (seriously). I got all the spam links I could find out of it, but that article could benefit from the swift and judicious application of a meat hatchet. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I took a scalpel to Die Glocke in hopes of improving the article, or at least making it clear that it deals with speculation and not actual history. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" ... again

I think we need a subpage devoted to "myth" discussions. Anyway, I attempted to add one sentence to the lead of Noah's Ark mentioning the ancient mythological context of the story. I was quickly reverted by User:Til Eulenspiegel with the edit summary, "rv to consensus. This is unacceptable; it is endorsing one POV among many as a "favorite"; please don't alter this controversial aricle without consensus of editors". I'm not sure what consensus he is referring to, but I'm preemptively posting here since I see another edit war over "myth" brewing. The entry does not address the mythological context at all, which in my mind which is not NPOV, etc.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Scholars need to do more to get on top of this issue and wrestle it away from perpetual arguments. In particular, truth value and mythological status are separate issues. When [48] and [49] are plastered on billboards, you know that we're losing the battle for educating the public as to what constitutes the literary genre of "myth". jps (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would note that neither cited article makes any mention of academic scholarship on the Census of Quirinius. Journalism these days seems to be about little more than refereeing 'she-said/he-said' arguments. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that scholars use the word "Myth" to mean something slightly different than what the general public means when they use the word. Because of this, there will be conflict whenever someone uses that word in an article without clearly defining what they mean when they use the term. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've tried that route in the past (and seen others attempt it) -- didn't seem to make much headway. Opponents of the word simply latched onto the informal meaning & wouldn't let go. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And (as I've just discovered on Talk:Noah's Ark), pointing out that the academic consensus on the historicity of the myths/stories in question often supports the informal meaning of the word, just sets the whole thing on fire. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by this -- "academic consensus on the historicity of the myths in question often supports the informal meaning of the word"? Academic consensus is that these stories are myth, in the scholarly sense. Scholars with expertise in ancient stories don't go around labeling ancient narratives "myth" in the informal sense. In fact discussing these stories, within the ancient context, in that manner makes little meaningful sense. What happens on these pages, too often, is that individuals who are concerned with the truth value of biblical stories within a modern context, hijack the discussions. But that cuts both ways - biblical literalism and secular skepticism. That culture wars dialog is best left out of these entries entirely. More specifically, from past experiences with the term myth here on Wikipedia, I can say that discussing the informal meaning in any way always turns into an unnecessarily dramatic fiasco. So I highly suggest not going in that direction at all.Griswaldo (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The deeper problem with the inclusion in question is that it's quite tightly bound to a secularist POV which is trying to taint the Genesis material by tying it to the Babylonian material held to be myth in both senses of the word. The discussion of the possible relationships between the middle Eastern texts is largely lacking, especially in flood myth where you would expect to find it. I think if we could expand the latter article we could refer to it as a genre term without invoking quite the same taint. Mangoe (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Flood myth is about the general category of myth and not any specific flood myths. Examples are useful in such a page, but only to illustrate points. The discussion of how Noah's Ark fits the Mesopotamian context belongs in Noah's Ark.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Only there, as opposed to the various other articles that concern such myths? That's precisely where we are getting the perception of a POV issue, because they are right in perceiving it! To my mind it makes more sense to put a subsection in flood myth concerning the supposed interrelationships of the various ancient middle Eastern texts, rather than setting up what looks like an attack specifically upon the Genesis text. Right now the flood myth article is rather poor, seeing as how the center of talking about them as a class is this supposed linkage of the Hebrew and Mesopotamian texts. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I mean that that if people (generally opponents of the word "myth") emphasise the informal definition of the word, then the historicity of the events recounted in the narrative become relevant to that argument (as the argument is now about whether the narrative is a "an unfounded or false notion", and that there generally is an "academic consensus" on whether the narrated events actually occurred). I am perfectly happy sticking to the formal definition -- but see no point in pussy-footing about the can of worms arguing the informal definition opens up. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We may need a subpage for this... or alternatively we might just ask people to stop flogging a dead horse. Perhaps convince Til to "boycott" the Noah's Ark page? We should not allow a single eccentric to hold an article hostage over their religious views. --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Til is a major problem when it comes to the stories of the Hebrew Bible in general. If he could "boycott" all of that content we'd be better off.Griswaldo (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc? His last post is lecturing that editors who do get it "don't get it" and he's been flogging this horse for well over a year IIRC. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And now that I've refreshed my memory a bit, I see that he's been causing probelms there since May of 2007.[50] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been a lot longer than that. He used to be User:Codex Sinaiticus. Paul B (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Two things: 1) I agree that Til does have problematic behaviors, but on the whole I think he is an asset to these discussions because he provides a perspective likely held to by a large number of readers. The consensus seems to be (thankfully, in my opinion) that accommodating this perspective in article-space is at odds with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, but I think it is useful to have the "devil's advocate" active in alerting us to how the academic treatment of sacred texts of Christianity can be perceived to the reader who is not accepting of mainstream scholarship. Certainly, I do not begrudge him this particular revert. 2) I'm going to let Til know that we're discussing his actions here. Maybe we can come to an amicable agreement on the appropriate general course of action without resorting to a confrontational User-RfC. jps (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you; I was under the impression he'd already been informed.

He has five blocks for edit warring, all on a narrow range of articles; he said he was going to "boycott" Wikipedia when he was on this page in September[51] something which either does not (to him) mean avoiding passionate and even hostile debate, and some edit warring; or else was a boycott of extraordinarily short duration. I fail to see his adding anything of significant positive value - I'm not denying he has made some valid edits, merely stating I don't see a net positive - and he has been for over 3 years now been causing a great deal of strife, mostly centered around a few very narrow topics and of course largely concerning his desire to treat the word "myth" as its vulgar rather than scholarly meaning. I don't see how three years of reminding him how the fact that this is an encyclopedia and not a playground affects our usage of words has penetrated at all - he's still bullheadedly arguing the same wrongthink. Perhaps if we point out that we use "penis" instead of "dick" or "wee wee" he'll get the point. This is a very dead horse he's been beating, and I see no improvement. At least he seems to have given up spamming Jimbo's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK... if this is about a single editor disrupting an article or group of articles, then this isn't the place to discuss it. Take it to dispute resolution. If this is about a more general issue, then focus on that general issue and leave the personal out of it. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was my question, and why my very first post here began with "Rfc?". Have you an opinion? Is this primarily TE stirring up the pot again? I'm beginning to think it might be; hence my query to those who brought this here whether an Rfc is not indicated at this time. I have yet to hear an opinion either way. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

he's been here since at least 2005, when he edited under the user name User:Codex Sinaiticus. He still edits under that persona. He created the new persona after one of his last assertions that he was leaving never to return. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you certain? Til is Codex Sinaiticus? CS is still an active editor. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I see at least one uncontested claim of such by CS{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shubal_Stearns&diff=prev&oldid=279344225]. I had no idea; thanks for mentioning this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he doesn't deny it. Here he is as Codex editing Til's page [52] Paul B (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Amendment request

Please read this filing and comment if you have something to add. jps (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Evolution

An editor at Talk:Family Research Council believes Evolution is a fringe theory. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, make that two editors who believe Evolution is a Fringe view. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...looks like someone is falling out of the gene pool... Oh wait, that may also be a fringe theory. Evolution is widely accepted I believe, unless there are more reliable sources that prove otherwise. Netalarm^talk 02:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

only on Wikipedia can you read statements like "An editor at Talk:Family Research Council believes Evolution is a fringe theory." Or, at Evolution (term), "Evolution is a term with many meanings." Both statements are true, of course. --dab (𒁳) 07:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no claim on that page that Evolution is a fringe theory. There is a discussion about the circumstances in which mainstream views should be presented whenever a fringe view is mentioned. Please do not waste the time of participants of this notcieboard by making spurious assertions. Paul B (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to read it again.

Me: Becritical: excuse me, are you actually saying Evolution is a fringe view? Please confirm you meant to say that.

Becritical: Of course.[53]

and this is being used to argue that presenting the expert view in an article along with the fringe view is the same as giving Creationism weight alongside Evolution. I do not make spurious claims; I may be mistaken, I may misread things, but you are accusing me of intentionally presenting a straw man. That is a personal insult, and I ask that you strike it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you hadn't drastically redacted the comments, then the context would be clear. The editor is saying that terminology used in Wikipedia is misleading. He is not saying that evolution falls under WP:FRINGE. The debate is not even about evolution. It's about views of homosexuality. Your section here is, IMO, a violation of WP:POINT. You misled editors about what was actually at issue and you therefore misappropriated the time and goodwill of participants on this board. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your ABF is unbelievable. I am willing to listen to the possibility I have misread the comments. I utterly reject your unfounded personal attacks and insinuations of false motives. You, sir, are uncivil and your character assassination is unacceptable. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your bombast, sir, is ridiculous and unhelpful. The page is not discussing evolution. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua - Paul B has a point; following the link, it appears that you have cut short Becritical's post and quoted it out of context. This may, of course, have been accidental. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Gandalf: My interest was brevity; to avoid a WallOfText. I included the link specifically so that anyone could see the posts in context. Were I actually guilty of the foul intentions PB accuses me of, I would hardly have done so. I am certainly willing to consider that I have misread the intent of the posters. I am not willing to let slide the personal attacks on my character, now amended with calling my natural outrage at being thus characterized as "bombast" and "ridiculous" I had not yet heard that anyone other than outright trolls considered concern over civility and NPA violations "ridiculous". If PB has nothing helpful to say, at the very least he might consider refraining from heaping further insults on my head. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua - well, you did respond in kind by calling PB "uncivil" and accusing them of "character assassination", so this is pretty much pot and kettle. Would have been much better if you had explained why you quoted BeCritical out of context (as you have now done) and apologised for any confusion that you inadvertently caused. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the next time someone starts their interactions with you by ignoring AGF, calling you names, asserting that you intended to deceive (which is tantamount to calling someone a liar) I'll be sure to instruct you to apologise, too. No, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I called you no names and I asked you not to waste our time and our good faith by not addressing the actual issue in dispute. There was no violation of AGF, though frankly I think that basic intellectiual honesty matters far more than any bureaucratic acronym. Paul B (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already indicated to you (PB) that I am done discussing this with you, on your talk page, a far more appropriate venue for such matters. That you are unable to let this drop and continue to argue defensively about your treatment of me on this noticeboard is not helpful to either our relations as editors, nor to the Wikipedia project as a whole; nor is it an appropriate use of this board nor its readers' time. It is ironic that you accused me of time wasting when I first objected to your insults; now that I have made it abundantly clear I am done with the matter, you continue to argue about it. I have made it clear I am done. Be done, yourself. If you cannot manage to be done, write an essay, or something. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. You can't insist you are done and also on continuing to argue, nor do you have any right to insist that I do not reply to claims made about me! Paul B (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actual issue at the talk page

I have taken a look at the discussion and I have to agree with what seems to be the point that this discussion misses, which of course has nothing to do with evolution. Debates between fringe POVs and mainstream POVs do not need to be rehashed in every entry that has some connection to the views expressed in those debates. I think that is an issue both pertinent to the disagreements at Talk:Family Research Council and germane to this noticeboard. I understand the impetus by those who deal with fringe theories often to tag and bag them wherever they are found, but that can lead to overkill, which is what we're seeing. It is not our job to clutter entries about people or institutions that support fringe POVs with as many disclaimers about their views as possible. It is our job to write NPOV entries about these subjects and to add DUE amounts of information and appropriate wikilinks so people can explore the issues further.Griswaldo (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, they do not. However, we cannot present a completely unsupported fringe view as though it were the accepted view of authorities on the subject as reported in RSs. To do so violates NPOV as much as unbalance the other way. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems pretty simple, although in typical Wikipedia fashion we've managed to complicate it. Our ultimate job is to provide readers with accurate and neutral information. Policies are meant to serve that goal, not supplant it. If the reader leaves the article thinking that the Family Research Council's claims about homosexuality and pedophilia enjoy any sort of scientific or medical acceptance, then we've failed them. One could argue about how to best inform the reader - I assume that's what's happening, although I can't really make head nor tail of the talk-page discussion. Ideally, the article will be clear without being heavy-handed. It's not necessary to beat the reader over the head, but it's also inappropriate to present the FRC's claims without a clear indication that they lack credibility. Let's start with the goal of informing the reader and work from there. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a general comment: I think the problem a lot of the time is that too many of these 'side' articles are used as coatracks by POV warriors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article as of this edit,[54] I'd say about a third of the criticism section is a coatrack. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree... the criticism section does contain a lot of coatracking (a flaw which is typical of criticism sections in general)... A good criticism section retains its focuses on the subject... a poor criticism section shifts the focus onto the critic. That is what is happening in this article. We do need to note the fact that criticism exists ... mentioning which stances taken by the FRC are criticized, and by who... but we don't need to go into the details and specifics as to what the critics say. The reader can look at the sources for that. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. Regarding MastCell's comment, I suggest taking a look more closely at the entry. Some of the FRC's positions are presented in the body of the entry in the form of a list of "policies" they support. Nowhere in that list does the entry present claims made by the FRC in order to justify those policy positions. It is only in the "Criticism" section than any such claims are presented, in order to then be refuted by critics. In other words there are no "claims" which need to be refuted or shown to "lack credibility" in the entry proper, just in the criticism section. It is as if the claims are presented so that they can be refuted. The talk page discussion seems to revolve around the idea that these claims shouldn't be in the entry, as they are dealt with elsewhere. I agree with that perspective. If there is notable controversy surrounding any of their positions then we should do a succinct, NPOV presentation of the controversy, but we do not need to present "claims" in order to refute them.Griswaldo (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and I can see no obvious reason why the criticism section is all about homosexuality. Have there really been no critics of its policy in favour of the teaching of "Intelligent Design" or its policies on tax or its policies on restricting access to porn? The whole section is a back-and-forth about whether gays (or is is just male gays?) are a danger to "children". Specific notable complaints from gay rights groups may be relevant, but the attempt to bolster them with scientific evidence brought in by editors, and then counter that with other evidence, is a classic example of a chaotic battleground covered with the severed arms and legs of arguments. Paul B

List of conspiracy theories

This article is a mess and has been for quite some time. Most of it is unsourced and confuses the difference between fringe theories with mainstream viewpoints. I was wondering if we should AFD, recreate it but require all new items to be properly sourced as conspiracy theories. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is terribly messy, and tempting to start from scratch, but I think a concerted effort to improve could also succeed. Most theories need to be stubbed right down. The antisemitic theories aren't presented properly. For a start they should be given much more prominence. Also, the various dimensions that are currently referenced in "main article" format probably merit an entry each. Since there are articles on them, they should be sourceable. Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of the best known conspiracy theories ever, but since we have an article on it, the entry in this list should be much shorter. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the antisemitic stuff needs more prominence: it can be expressed as briefly as "see Antisemitic canard", that article is itself an exhaustive list. Avoid content duplication if at all possible, expecially in lists. --dab (𒁳) 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

treat as list of cults or list of massacres (note how both are redirects): keep but rigorously delete anything that isn't referenced to a quotable source. --dab (𒁳) 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point about reference to the existing antisemitic canard and duplication. Still should be higher up in the listing though. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Have completely rejigged the antisemitism stuff, comments? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Leuchter report

Everything suggesting this wasn't a scientific report has been deleted on the basis is the first link is " to a pro-Western christian/jewish POV holocaust site." Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored the text but he's removed it again. On the talk page he claims he removed the term 'pseudo-science', but he's actually removed a lot of sourced text and given his edit here.... I'm off to bed, not around tomorrow during the day either. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that removing the bit is certainly a bit of fringe editing. We're talking about multiple texts from reputable academic publishers. As a nit, one or two sources seem a bit out of place or a bit of a stretch. As another nit, maybe it should read "a discredited, psuedoscientific" as that would better harmonize with the sources used. Vassyana (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The historical method and ancient history

Over at Talk:Historicity of Jesus (a page that I should really dewatchlist) there is a rather strange discussion going on about the "historical method" and what it involves, in relation to ancient history. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#NPOV_tag. I won't mention all the odd assertions being made about scholarship on ancient history (read them for yourselves), but suffice it to say, I'm being told that Paula Fredriksen is not a "historian"! Can someone with some expertise in ancient history please waddle over there and at the very least clarify a few things about the academic study of that subject and the credentials of historians like Fredriksen. Thanks. (And note I think this is the best noticeboard for the problem, since fringe theories about the academic study of history are being passed around).Griswaldo (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned to see aspersions being placed on the work of a historian on the grounds that she is Jewish and/or overly interested in the relationship of Jesus to Judaism. It's blindingly obvious that neither of these could rule someone out of the mainstream of scholarship on Jesus. Indeed, we must make sure that we are adequately including Jewish scholarship on Jesus. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually quite concerned with the manner in which the editor who added those comments has decided to discuss Fredriksen. Apparently his views of her scholarship are based upon knowledge of her personal life (perhaps not all published anywhere reliable or publicly attested to by her), which he has come by through a personal acquaintance of her's who apparently does not have a positive relationship with her -- see "Full disclosure: I happen to be close to someone who is acquainted with her, and not in a positive way."Griswaldo (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:4th_millennium_BC#.22Significant_Persons.22_Biblical.2FLegendary

Is this conversation, involving the addition of Bishop Ussher's system of biblical dates to the historical articles like 4th millennium BC and 39th century BC, the pushing of a fringe POV: Young earth creationism?

Ussher's system should be documented in full at Biblical chronology, which already has two other systems of biblical chronology, differing from Ussher's by centuries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very bad at lying. The worst the article has is only some 80 years apart. besides, the Wikipedia Reference Search gives James Ussher as a reliable Source. I never say, nor suggest, to exclude evolution or otherwise promote any kind of creationist idea. I only ask to give the point of view, specified as Mythology, in the article it belongs in. To remove points of view is to show bias against them. To add points of view is to show openness. Any questions?LutherVinci (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WRS says no such thing -- it merely lists reliable sources on Ussher. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FDR did it

Day of Deceit, which seems to be the most commonly proffered book claiming that FDR set up the Pearl Harbor attack in order to pull us into the war, is in dire need of work. Right now it is totally devoid of the massive criticism that the book has received. Mangoe (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that there are only two references cited and the article is mostly unreferenced, it might be easier to rewrite it from scratch rather than try to fix it. Here are a couple more potential sources for this article.[55][56] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources. I've also found a review in Foreign Affairs which seems useful. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I could use some help on the McCollum memo, as the only source for this at the moment appears to be Stinnett's book. Some helpful editor attempted to place this in historical context but the sourcing of his attempt was, shall we say, non-existent. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

... and while we're at it, Robert Stinnett is mostly unsourced. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

...and Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate is devoted to a long-winded ramble that mostly ignores the massive criticism of the revisionists. We need to recast this article as espousing a fringe theory. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate even the right title? I mean, is there really a debate among historians about this? AQFK (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to Day of Deceit... I do want to remind people that this is an article about a book, and not an article about the theories presented in the book. Assuming it passes Wikipedia:Notability (books), the focus of the article must remain centered on the book. This includes what is said in way of criticism... that too should focus on what others say about the book. We should not attempt to either "prove" or "disprove" the theories presented in the book. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is of manageable size and we have some nice sources to use. I can help out here. I don't think the summary is good. It doesn't really mention the fringe theory: that Roosevelt knew about the attack in advance and let it happen. Since a lot of it, is unsourced, I suggest rewriting it from scratch. If we do it right, we knock it off in a week or two and maybe even submit it for Good article status. AQFK (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Mangoe: I'm heading out the door for the night, but I wanted to organize and clarify my thoughts:

1. Let's decide on our sources first, and take a few days to read through them.
2. I think it would be easier to rewite the article from scratch that try to fix it.
3. During the rewrite, we should work on it in a sandbox and when we're done, we can replace the old article with the new one.
4. I agree with Blueboar's suggestion that we stay focused on the book and not re-argue the advance knowledge theory.
5. After we're done, I'd like to submit it for Good Article review.

What do you think? Does anyone else want to help out? AQFK (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I expect to finish the book pretty quickly: a summary of the argument, and its reception (negative) by historians, hitting the high points of what they think is wrong with it (they do spell out the holes they see in it). It's Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate which is a real mess: right now it's a rather rambling tract which could be accused of WP:OR with some cause, and which more or less ignores that pretty much everything traces back through Stinnett's book and that only the conspiracy theory set accepts any of it. I'm inclined to subject it to AFD on the theory that (a) there is not much of a debate, and (b) we could probably treat the subject summarily in the main attack article. Mangoe (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have enough free time to try to fix Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate and I doubt if an AFD on Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate will be successful. It doesn't look like we're on the same page as far as how to proceed, so I'll just work on other articles. Good luck, though. I've had Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate on my watchlist for a while so I might drop by occasionally to see how things are going. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've finished with Day of Deceit, if anyone wants to review it. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A good neutral re-write. I have made a few minor tweaks. If there are any historians that have commented favorably on the book, that should be mentioned in the "Reception" section as well. Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Crop circles

There has been a lot of whitewashing going on in the Crop Circle article and removal of well sourced and well written information skeptical of supernatural explanations for crop circles, mostly by Stochastikos. I have readded a lot of it but this type of thing is a reaccuring problem with this article a some more eyes would be appreciated. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Like this edit, he removed two sources because he says that they're too biased and unreliable, but the sources are national geographic and CSICOP]]. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: "Crop Circles" is of course the 'psychedelic trace band' collaboration we all know and love. It's Crop circle that was created by the aliens. Paul B (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. I just saw that the link was good and didn't even check to see that it went to the correct article. I have fixed the link in my origial post. Thanks. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I did a clean-up. Colin Andrews and BLTResearch have been implicated in the past for arguing off-wiki for editors to get their sites included at our crop circle article. [57] Check this noticeboard's archives for more. We might consider blacklisting their sites if this becomes too common, but I think they'll eventually get the picture that this kind of advocacy is not allowed here. jps (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I've heard of this but hadn't made the connection to this article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Schroeder

Scientist known for reconciling the Bible and science, allegedly a 'theistic evolutionist' using, as he says, "the varied perspectives of time in an expanding universe" to explain how it all happened in one week. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AiG doesn't like him, perhaps because he is a competitor of their very own Russell Humphreys. See also creationist cosmologies. jps (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)