Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Chinese people "evolved from Homo Erectus Pekinensis" claim

An editor is proposing that Race and intelligence should include the idea that Chinese people evolved separately from Homo Erectus in Asia. This idea ought to be covered in Multiregional origin of modern humans, and it is, but badly. The article has been tagged since June 2009 as in need of expert attention. Could this quickly be sorted, and the current scientific standing of the hypothesis clearly indicated? (Minority scientific view, perhaps, but the expert needs to find the sources that tell us.) Biologists, are you around? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It is likely that this is a returned POV warrior who has used several different IPs. See 71.68.251.54 and 68.222.236.154 for examples of their interest. I think revert/ignore is best at this stage. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're all from the same place in the States. I have to say, I find this particular theory quite amusing, especially the idea that the Chinese civil service exams played a role in the evolution of Han Chinese.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for highlighting this. As well as tackling the probable sockpuppetry, it would be good if we could also give some expert attention to the Multiregional origin article. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(blocked editor's comments removed)

Uh, no. Free Speech applies to the government limiting it. It by no means applies to a privately owned website. You have no rights here, only privileges, privileges which can be revoked if you abuse them. Go have a read of WP:FREE; this is a common misconception.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I've removed the sock comments from here because currently blocked editors are not allowed to edit wikipedia; if they disagree with their block, the proper course of action is not to evade, but request an unblock. Also, removed per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This page is for seeking advice on fringe theories being mainstream or no.. it is not for soapboxing about said fringe theories.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 10:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Higher consciousness

Higher consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Did you know that people who are on a higher level of consciousness are more evolved than other people?

I didn't either.

Please help fix this. I'm not even sure where to begin.

jps (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD or stub right down. Original synthesis making links between concepts in various traditions that may overlap but are unlikely to be identical. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Canaanite Chronology

I don't know what to do about this. Tempting to take it straight to AfD. It's certainly fringe, Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look notable. I don't know if this topic is known by a different name, but even doing a Google search across the whole internet yields 5 hits.[1] It's probably not worth the effort to try to clean it up. I say nominate it for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be mostly cited to James Ussher, most famous for the Ussher chronology. WP:RS? I think not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

this would be a nice article ... if the year was 1670. Redirect to Canaan#List_of_Canaanite_rulers. --dab (𒁳) 23:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

But dab, didn't you know that "Ussher Chronology is the only chronology excepted nowadays"? :D Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the amazing proof of a Stuart period time machine! "Where are all the time travellers?" -- they are among us, making weird edits to Wikipedia, and they all hail from the 1690s! --dab (𒁳) 08:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"time is an illusion -- lunchtime doubly so" :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have redirected this. There is no reason to spend time with this "case" other than for the fun of it. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to draw to all of you're attention that administrators are required to start a discussion on the articles talk page, before doing any major deletions. I am shocked and hurt that not only has my page been deleted with first discussion, but no one even had the courtesy to send me a message on the subject. I had no intention of using nothing but ussher chronology, if you felt that there was any better sources you could provide, I would expect you to provide them, not delete the whole article for the sake of one reference. I felt that my list of Canaanite rulers was far better than the redirection, because 1) the redirection leaves out so many rulers, and 2) there are many rulers they cite that were not rulers. But also, the redirected list does not fit. It's not "Canaanite Chronology", it's a list of names associated with Canaan. My list, with synchronicity, contemporary rulers, approximate dates, all of not set in stone, but open for improvement and correction. "Correction" does not mean deletion, that is the opposite.LutherVinci (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see this and this. They may help better explain the problems for you. Vassyana (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Now as soon as I started a discussion on the page, the entire page was deleted, once again without discussion. Is their something wrong with explaining myself? or is it necessary to snuff out a page without cause?

On the discussions page, before it was deleted, someone suggested that 1) WP:TNT and 2) An acceptable format for the page. If this format could have been carried out (e.g., the page is repairable) then TNT is not necessary. But No one asked me, no one even gave me the chance to fix the page, they just joked a bit and deleted it. The Page was fixable, but no one fixed it.

I don't own any Wiki pages and I'm not saying any one else does, SO (not but) I expected anyone who did not like the page to FIX it, not delete it.

WP:FRINGE seems to a safety valve for any one trying to push atheist POV on Wikipedia. All any has to do, it seems, is say, "Well, everyone knows the Bible is wrong, so it must be Fringe, why use it?" the answer is called, giving equal measure to every Point of View. To delete points of view is to show bias against them, to include more point of views is to showing more openness. LutherVinci (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your "answer" is against Wikipedia policy -- see WP:GEVAL. And a 17th century Irish cleric is not a WP:RS on the subject of ancient Middle Eastern dynasties. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Reference Search says he is [2].

At any rate, I keep telling you I don't own the page. If their is a problem with using Ussher to get dates, fine, get a better reference. What's wrong with that?

And just because it's from the Bible, doesn't mean it's on par with Apollo 11 conspiracies. There are probably a dozen people who would be disappointed to see the Apollo 11 conspiracy left out, there are billions of people who believe Christianity.

But this is not about Christianity, is it? it's about Canaanites. So just because I mentioned the Bible in passing, does that make the article so fringe that it deserves deletion? I hope not. LutherVinci (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There are billions of people who believe Christianity, but only quite a small number of those believe the Bible contains an inerrant chronology. There are also billions of Hindus who believe time-cycles of millions of years. You don't have to be an atheist to reject Fundamentalism, which is the view of a tiny minority of people in the world. Of course Ussher cannot be used for the dates of Caananite rulers. Modern scholarship is our source. Paul B (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(i) According to your logic, Joseph Goebbels is also a WP:RS.[3] (ii) The problem appears to be that there is little in the way of direct records of this area and period surviving, and that most of the information comes from (spotty) mentions in the records of their neighbouring empires. (iii) Do you have a modern, mainstream secondary source confirming the reliability of the Bible for that period? (iv) Only a minority of the "billions of people who believe Christianity" are Biblical literalists. (v) You cited Ussher repeatedly, and he worked from no source except the Bible.
Find a good, modern source that is capable of filling out such a detailed chronology, and we'll look at it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1) Those that believe that the Bible has no historical basis have no understanding of history and is therefore unfit for Wikipedia as per WP:NPOV. 2) There are Not "billions" of Hindus, that title belongs only to Christianity. 3) Hindus have just as much right to Wikipedia as Christianity, so if they ever have any mention of Canaanite history in their scriptures,... Maybe not. Common sense shall prevail here. Hindu scriptures have always only to do with India, and surrounding countries. The Bible was written in Palestine, and specifically for Palestinian history. So if anyone knows anything about Canaanite chronology, it would be the Jews. 4) Is my article specifically geared towards fundamentalism? If fundamentalism is so obviously to you without the need of proof, then deleting an article on Canaanite chronology is not the place to start. FIXing an article on Canaanite chronology would be better. 5) According to the same source, 84% of the world population believes in an all-powerful deity of some sort. 6) I quoted Ussher and the Bible (Between the 2 of them, I would only quote the Bible, but that would be original research) only because that is the best source I know of. I expected people to add modern sources, I did not expect the article to be deleted. 7) Does that mean that WP:WRS is innately incorrect? I thought there might be a sign or something:? 8) "Neighboring empires" Includes the Jews, does it not? 9) When I quote Moses, who was actually there, fighting the Canaanites, is that not nearly as reliable those who live in the 20th century, thousands of years after the fact? I could, easily, prove the reliability of the Bible, but that would be pointless do to anti-Christian bias and the irrelevance to the situation: Canaanite Chronology. IF there is any source more reliable than the Bible, then use it; don't delete a whole page for the sake of one ref? 10) "Modern Source"? Do people in the modern day know more about ancient history than people that were actually there?

Moses, Joshua, Job, they were all there, witnesses, first hand accounts. Unfortunately, no one nowadays believes that their respective books were actually written by them, but about them, making the Bible not a primary source but a secondary source. A source nonetheless, you cannot deny that by your own prejudice. LutherVinci (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Forget it, it's such a small article, it's not worth it. I was hopping, though that someone could have used the Bible to assemble some kind of Canaanite Chronology.LutherVinci (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be original research and outside the scope of Wikipedia, which is a tertiary source. If secondary sources discuss this subject based on the primary source, then it would be in scope. – ukexpat (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There are probably about a billion Hindus. Your first statement is an outright misrepresentation of what others have said. If you don't know that, you have no competence to edit. If you do, you have no moral right to. The question "Do people in the modern day know more about ancient history than people that were actually there?" is so idiotic that no answer is possible. Paul B (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cross-quarter day

What do we think about the juxtaposition of Chinese and European festivals? To me it looks like an attempt to present an OS that there is an ancient link between the importance of mid points between the solstices and equinoxes. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved that down into the "see also" section: looking at solar term those dates don't seem to form a set unto themselves. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also the problem that these supposed Cross-quarter days don't actually match the traditional dates of the days its claiming for them (Samhain, Beltane, etc are all a few days out) -- meaning that the data is being forced to fit the theory. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes

With an edit summary claiming "I have inserted a NPOV classic historical background to balance the polemical views inserted by critics.", a pov, uncited piece of original research has been added to this article. See also a couple of earlier edits. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the cited source, the Declaration of Arbroath makes no direct link between the Scots and the Ten Tribes. It states:

Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner.[4]

It merely uses The Exodus as a chronological point of reference. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've already made this point on the British Israelism talk page, when this cropped up before some months ago. The IP has also been adding nonsense there. Paul B (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's even an odd fit even for BI -- as both the English and the Lowland Scots are predominantly Saxon, not Celt. Also the "Picts they utterly destroyed" has an odd Biblical resonance -- as the current historical consensus appears to be that the (Highland) Scots are in fact the assimilated descendants of the Picts their myths claim that they destroyed, in the same way as the Israelites are now considered to be descendants of the Canaanites that their myths tell them that they destroyed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Afrocentrist fringe at Book of Exodus

See [5] - I've reverted the nonsense about the Hyksos once, but it's been replaced with no edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

This material has been removed from the lead-in to the article:

"More than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation."

This line is supported by four references:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns

http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12598/2/

http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

The lead-in states:

"The civil engineering establishment generally accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers."

Here is a diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=400614077&oldid=400592539

I think omitting mention of the A&E for 9/11 Truth petition, but saying the engineering establishment supports the mainstream account, is not neutral and gives undue weight to the mainstream account, especially since this is the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The article itself must cover the mainstream account and mention that this is supported by the engineering establishment - to do otherwise would go against NPOV/UNDUE. Especially because this is a fringe article. Readers need to know from the start that the ideas suggested have been rejected. Right now, the lead lays out the subject of the article, the public doubts around 9/11 and the major theories that will be discussed below, plus the motives. The mainstream view is then presented as the second paragraph in the lead in a total of two sentences. The group you are wanting to add is mentioned VERY briefly in the article - one phrase saying they are a group that actively discusses and supports such theories and a link at the bottom. That's not much. How does your addition meet the requirements of WP:LEAD, when it summarizes material that's barely mentioned?

The group does seem to get some media time (purely subjective belief on my part with no evidence), and there is a fairly substantial article about them. If A&E is a major factor in these theories, maybe something to consider is to work on adding more about them in this article, focusing on the petition drive. I suspect that's been discussed in the archives (probably extensively too!), so I suggest starting there, then working up some suggestions on the talk page before adding them to the main page. IF more information about the petition drive can be added to the article (and that's a really big if), your change would have more weight behind it. As it is, you're wanting to add information to the lead that doesn't have details behind it in the body. Ravensfire (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There was an earlier RfC which seems to show support for inclusion, this seems to have been disregarded. un☯mi 04:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing the opposite of that, and the RFC has nothing I saw about a statement in the intro. There are a lot of "oppose" and "exclude" comments there.--Terrillja _talk 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it is appropriate for the article, it is not appropriate for the lead paragraph. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest the deleted material AND the material giving the "engineering establishment" position be moved to the "World Trade Center collapse" section of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That should be discussed on the article's talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly deleted from that section as well. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because it's been discussed repeatedly and there was no concensus for its inclusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If this deletion is allowed to stand, the article is clearly not neutral point of view. Only the "engineering establishment" position is being given, and engineers who question that position are not being mentioned. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Achieving_neutrality And from WP:Fringe theories "...all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately." And just a reminder, we aren't talking about the September 11 attacks article - this is the 9/11 conspiracy theories article! Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a significant-minority view, it's a tiny minority view (also known as a fringe view). Second, the controlled demolition conspiracy theory is explained in the article. Heck, we have an entire article devoted to it: World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. So, we have two articles which present both the fringe and the majority viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The information in question has been repeatedly deleted from the article, despite numerous reliable sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an article. All content policies, particularly WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV need to be taken into account. Now, you've already tried to get WP:OR changed[6] and by my count, 15 editors disagreed with you. Please see WP:DEADHORSE and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you feel so strongly that this has to be kept out of the article? It seems relevant, neutral and reliably sourced. Could it be you personally dislike the content? Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you've forgotten why, you know where the talk page archives are. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that you think mentioning this "truther" group's petition, but not mentioning other "truther" petitions, gives this group undue weight. Is that indeed still your position? Why not allow this and then add lines about the other petitions in the article? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic OR questions

An editor was asking about chiropractic studies over at the NOR noticeboard. Could a couple people from these parts take a look and offer some feedback? Vassyana (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That source shouldn't have been removed outright, methinks. I put it in the safety section. It probably could use some paring down. jps (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The source was not removed outright, but with a descriptive edit comment, a talk page comment, subsequent discussion and a thread at WP:RSN. Quackguru further did not notify other editors of the discussion he started at WP:NORN. On controversial articles, as this one indeed is, Bold changes are subject to WP:BRD, and they were. Discussion yielded a consensus, that the study was not high quality enough or relevant enough or succinctly included or in the correct section. The discussion is here Ocaasi (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not begrudge you the right to remove a source. An entire paragraph on one paper is a bit overkill, perhaps, but the article is of some interest and is of very high quality. It's of definite encyclopedic value to show that a large number of students of chiropractic sustain injuries in studying or being subject to manipulations. jps (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about 'very high quality'? I have been lectured at length about the problems with primary studies, per WP:MEDRS and yet here is a primary, survey-based, self-reported, single-school study of chiropractic students working on and being worked on by other students. [crickets] What am I missing here about the seemingly dual standards pertaining to MEDRS and Alt-med? Ocaasi (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how any part of this study can be seen to be controversial. The fact is that some students get injured when they study chiropractic both when they perform manipulations and when manipulations are performed on them. This is a result of the specific chiropractic methodology and is in contrast to other alternative medicines such as Therapeutic touch or homeopathy, for example, which are essentially harmless in their approach if not in their ideological consequences. jps (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The study is not controversial per se, it's just not particularly high on the MEDRS scale, which has been cited with great emphasis at Chiropractic. I think that the study can be used if it is very narrowly tailored to describe the risks faced by students, and that's it. We can't even really extrapolate the study to include Chiropractors in general, because they are obviously at different levels of expertise (e.g. Beginner karate students hurt themselves - and others - far more often than experts, I think). I see what you're saying about the physical consequences of Chiropractic in contrast to other 'energy' practices, and that's a worthwhile distinction. I just want the same rubric re: MEDRS to be applies to studies that have negative as well as positive findings about the field. Thanks for responding, we can continue this at the article Talk page if it comes up. Ocaasi (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The biggest issue is with weight. We simply don't have the space to include every primary study that has been performed in relation to chiropractic. So, we look at secondary sources to determine what amount of weight they give to the topic. I really haven't seen a single secondary source give any weight to the topic of chiropractic students being injured. It really don't have to do with it being controversial (although a survey-based primary study isn't necessarily reliable), but rather that it simply isn't important enough to cover on chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that chriprocatic manipulation causes injury is well-known. I agree that we shouldn't extrapolate, but the current use of the source in the article seems pretty good to me. jps (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that chiropractic can have temporary minor side effects is already in the article, and sourced to a systematic review and to clinical guidelines - much higher quality (secondary) sources than this survey-based epidemiologic primary study. DigitalC (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, two issues are being conflated here. Chiropractic can cause frequent mild, temporary injury and rarely severe or even fatal adverse events. This study does not establish that, however, given the selection of students as both practitioners and patients. So this study can only bear on the experience of Chiropractic education, which indeed, may pose risks due to a combination of inherent danger, inexperience, overtreatment, or population bias (e.g. more athletic people enter chiropractic and tend to have more injuries)--but this study is still not a good source for that, and it is almost completely irrelevant to establish the broader pattern of adverse events which is already well described by much better sources. Ocaasi (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The temporariness of the injury or lack thereof is not part of that source. Explaining away the fact that nearly half of all students at this chiropractic institution sustained injury of any kind doesn't bear upon whether the source is accurate or properly contextualized. The claim is that this paper is not a good source for this safety issue with chiropractic education. If so, please recommend a better source. jps (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right that temporariness is not part of the source, and neither is incidence of injury among the broader population of patients. JPS was suggesting this source showed Chiropractic causes injuries, for which, generally, we have better sources. As for the specific claim that Chiropractic harms students of Chiropractic, we could use this source, but it barely meets MEDRS and could be excluded on WEIGHT grounds. That there are no secondary studies that cover this aspect of Chiropractic at all could be reason to deem it simply not notable enough. That the study is a primary, self-reported survey of students from a single school gives it little punch on the MEDRS scale. Articles, especially medical articles, are not required to include every possible study, especially primary studies, and especially especially primary studies that have no coverage in secondary sources about minor aspects of the topic. Ocaasi (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the text of chiropractic does not state unequivocally that "Chiropractic causes injuries". That's not really the point of the study, nor is it the point of its inclusion at the article. Secondary source coverage for such facts seems secondary. We aren't talking about an extraordinary claim here. We're talking about a simple observation. jps (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The text describes adverse incident rates. We can't unequivocally say that Chiropractic causes injuries, because studies don't state it like that (and very few things cause injuries always). Secondary source coverage is nearly required per WP:MEDRS, the guideline which has been in force at this article regarding all medical claims. I could see things your way on this, really, but it has to cut both ways. Secondary source coverage has been considered absolutely necessary for any study of Chiropractic which seems at all 'positive'. Why would it be any less stringent the other way? As for a simple observation, the issue has to do with reliability and Weight. In other words, does this study reliably establish the claim it is making (or implicating for the field as a whole), and is that claim worth singling out in a long article, particularly if we can only find it discussed in one primary study. Ocaasi (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't unequivocally say chiropractic causes injuries in the article (straw man?). The use of the paper in our article is not to "implicate the field as a whole". I think the paper's conclusions are worth mentioning. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that the statement is in only "one primary study". Every paper published is novel in some way. jps (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I generally avoid he chiropractic morass, but I feel I have to point out the pov issue here. Any activity involving the body carries a risk of injury and even death. People who start an exercise program can strain muscles, people learning judo can break bones, people practicing yoga can fall and break their necks, people trying new sexual positions can throw their backs out or have heart attacks, even doctors learning conventional medicine can prescribe the wrong drug or cut the wrong way (that's why trainee surgeons practice on cadavers rather than live people). Do we now need to edit our articles on exercise, judo, yoga, sex, and conventional medicine to point the extreme dangers implicit in all of these activities? I know for sure that if editors added a list of clinical studies to the intro to our 'sex' article outlining all of the horrendous things that can happen to you if you practice sex incautiously, people would remove it aggressively on the grounds that it was just some misguided moralists trying to scare people away from sex. how is this not just a case of medical moralists trying to scare people away from chiropractic? There is a very, very big difference between warning readers about an activity which is intrinsically harmful and warning readers that an otherwise innocuous or beneficial activity might cause physical harm. It's not our job to try to convince readers not to skydive (which is far more dangerous than chiropractic, I suspect), and so it's not our job to steer readers away from chiropractic either. --Ludwigs2 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not about "steering readers". It's about presenting the peer-reviewed facts. Safety issues with regards to all of these activities you list, Ludwigs2, should be listed on those pages too. Also, we should mention the safety issues associated with mainstream medicine if we have papers for those. jps (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is where NPOV (and specifically WP:UNDUE) comes into play... It is fine to mention negative facts and opinions about a topic... but if we over do the focus on the negative, we can end up unduly skewing the article away from a neutral tone. That said... I think we are getting beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dean Radin

A tenacious IP and a new user account seeking to obscure mainstream nonacceptance of Radin's views on retrocausation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

1953 Iranian coup d'état

A new book by former Iranian diplomat and retired UN administrator Darioush Bayandor has been seriously questioned at 1953 Iranian coup d'état where at least one editor dismisses it as a fringe source. The book is called Iran and the CIA and it is published by Palgrave Macmillan, a respected academic and professional imprint.

Bayandor puts a greater emphasis on surprised and baffled CIA reports issued immediately after the August 1953 coup, and discounts CIA analysis from later periods. He shows that the CIA reinterpreted events over which it had no control so that the events would appear to be under CIA control, for the purpose of proving the CIA to be more effective than it was, to get more appropriations from the U.S. government. Bayandor's analysis of the 1953 coup puts forward a coalition of reclusive and activist Shi'ite clerics as the ones who instigated mass street demonstrations resulting in the arrest of Mosaddegh and the return of the Shah. This theory is in conflict with mainstream analysis which accepts the later CIA documents at face value.

At WP:FRINGE it says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..." for our articles. Bayandor's book has been peer reviewed by exactly the same scholars who are used as the mainstream view at 1953 Iranian coup d'état. In the book's acknowledgments, the following people are thanked for their reviews of the book prior to publishing: Shahram Chubin at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy; Charles W. Naas, deputy U.S. ambassador to Iran in the 1970s; Houshang Nahavandi, author of The Last Days and former head of the Tehran University; Mark Gasiorowski, a political scientist cited often at the Iran coup article; Ervand Abrahamian, another political scientist cited a lot in this article (regarding Bayandor's book, he "recommended its publication"); Karim Sadjadpour of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a top think tank analyst of Iran; and Ardeshir Zahedi, former Iran diplomat, the Shah's ambassador to London and Washington and the son of General Zahedi, Mosaddegh's replacement as prime minister. Bayandor thanks the contributions of many more people who read early drafts and provided criticism: Stephen Langlie of USAF MAAG who was eyewitness in Tehran August 1953, Anandi Rasanayagam of the United Nations, Jean Swoyer of the American Foreign Service, and former Bayandor colleagues Iraj Amini, Jamshid Anvar, Said Amirdivani, Bijan Dolatabadi, Dr. Ahmad Minai, Parviz Mahajer, Ali Seirafi and Dr. Ahmad Tehrani. The book's facts and theories were reviewed by a wide array of scholars and topic experts.

I hold that this author and his book show an expert opinion which is different from other mainstream ones, and that the opinion and conclusions drawn by Bayandor require a rewriting of the article to satisfy WP:NPOV which tells us we cannot state as absolute fact anything which is seriously challenged by another expert source. This is that expert source. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Darioush Bayandor is a former official of Shah's regime, and a monarchist activist, who calls the 1953 coup a "popular uprising". He praises the Shah as an "immensely popular monarch" and continues denying that a coup ever took place—similar to what the Shah claimed to legitimize his rule in the aftermath of the coup, while introducing many new negationist/revisionist ideas that contradict the declassified CIA documents about the coup, as well as the academically-accepted historiography of the coup. Furthermore, Bayandor is not a historian, nor is he a scholar (Shahid Behessti University that Bayandor claims to have been lecturer at, denies that he ever lectured there, this could be confirmed by contacting the University in question at http://en.sbu.ac.ir/). Furthermore, Bayandor's book has not been " peer reviewed" in the technical sense of academic peer-reviewing, and all those canvassed Blurbs about the book, have come with "reservations" of some sort (except for Ardeshir Zahedi's, who the Economist calls "one of the last surviving coup-makers from the 1953 coup" whose own account of the events of the 1953 coup, Bayandor is "over-reliant on"), and others who have reviewed the final product, have universally called it a "revisionist" work , including the more sympathetic reviews by some of the conservative-leaning US magazines/commentators. Now despite all this, a couple of motivated editors are insisting on re-writing the article, using Bayandor's book as a source, which in my opinion, is a classic case of WP:Fringe and WP:Undue Kurdo777 (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You have given no proof that Bayandor is a "monarchist activist", besides which such a label given him would not make him fringe or unreliable. You are mistaken about the phrase "immensely popular monarch"—this statement was made by Mosaddegh to the Shah, according to author Stephen Kinzer. Bayandor is indeed a historian as he has written a history published in a scholarly imprint. Bayandor is not fringe, he is a scholar with a differing opinion. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have no proof that Palgrave's respected peer review process was somehow lifted or set aside for Bayandor. If the book was printed by Palgrave, it was peer reviewed—they have a reputation to uphold. What is your proof about "canvassed blurbs" replacing peer reviews? Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A single book does make one a "historian". Bayandor is not even an academic, there is no independent record of him, having ever held an academic position at a post-secondary institution. As for Bayandor's activism, he is indeed a monarchist activist. He is a regular guest commentator on Voice of America's Persian service, the "instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns", advocating "regime change" and promoting Shah's son, among other monarchist causes. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A single scholarly history book published by a scholarly imprint is absolutely enough to call Bayandor a historian. Holding an academic position is not necessary to be known as an historian.

Your apparent dislike of Bayandor is not relevant to the question of his reliability as an expert source. It does not matter if he gets on the radio and declares the earth to be flat and the sun to be God: the book we are discussing is peer reviewed and scholarly, and it is the only reference related to Bayandor on the table. We do not question his other activities.

In a brief Google search, I was not able to find an acknowledgment that Bayandor has been a guest on VOA radio. Do you have one in English or another language? Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to not be a fringe question, but rather a reliable source question. Without knowing anything about the dispute, it looks like the book in question is a reliable source for a minority viewpoint. Labeling minority viewpoints Fringe is ordinarily a way to try and supress them, please don't. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

One man's cock-eyed theories do not constitute " a minority viewpoint". Bayandor is so fringe, that he calls the coup a "popular uprising". Wikipedia's policy is clear that "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". Kurdo777 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not one man, as you know very well. Bayandor's opinion that a popular uprising was sparked by Shia clerics is shared by blogger Darius Kadivar, by historian Abbas Milani (the author of The Peacock Prince and Eminent Persians: the men and women who made modern Iran, 1941-1979, also wrote the article "The Great Satan Myth - Everything you know about U.S. involvement in Iran is wrong"), by Parviz Rajji, 1970s Iranian ambassador to UK, and by historian Mashadollah Adjoudani. In "Clerics responsible for Iran's failed attempts at democracy", an essay by Ray Takeyh in The Washington Post, Takeyh echoes the Bayandor opinion that clerics fomented the street protests which toppled Mosaddegh. Bayandor is not representing "one man's cock-eyed" theory, he is representing a measured re-evaluation of evidence which points to a differing conclusion than the current mainstream one. Others agree with him. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, every cock-eyed fringe theory has some prescribes and proponents who also happen to be fringe. For example. the opinion of Darius Kadivar, some unknown monarchist blogger, is of no relevance or significance whatsoever. On the other hand, Abbas Millani and other historians you have mentioned do not support Bayandor's fringe theory, and have never denied that there was a coup, or claimed that 1953 coup was a "popular uprising". Kurdo777 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You misinterpret Abbas Milani whose article "The Great Satan Myth" was reviewed by The New York Times as saying "Iran's clerics played a much bigger role than the C.I.A. in the 1953 ouster of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh". That NYT observer probably fastened on Milani's paragraph about the clerics which expands on this sentence of his: "It was the clerical establishment's animosity towards Mossadegh that laid the groundwork for his ouster." Your assertion that Milani does not share Bayandor's views is not supported by these refs. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you are the one misinterpreting Milani. Milani's view that clerics played a role in the CIA led-coup, is different than Bayandor's fringe theory that that there was no CIA coup, and Shah's dictatorship was the product of a "popular uprising". Bayandor denies that there was a CIA-led coup altogether, while Milani clearly acknowledges that there was a coup. Milani and Bayandor are apples and oranges, Milani is at least a real academic, political scientist, and historian, albeit a controversial one, with several books on modern Iranian history. Bayandor on the other hand, is just a Pahlavi regime politician, apologist and fringe theorist with no academic credentials in the field of history (He actually studied Persian literature), and has only written one book on Iranian history, which has been dismissed by most academics/historians as "revisionist" and "political" . Kurdo777 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Milani and Bayandor is flawed, as Bayandor makes clear the indirect connection between the CIA's failed August 15 coup attempt, the fleeing Shah, and the popular uprising sparked by clerics on August 19. If the CIA had not attempted a coup and the Shah had not run, the clerics would not have acted to put demonstrators on the street. Milani and Bayandor both consider the clerics more important than the CIA which is the point of the NYT reviewer. It is also my point that the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article we are all trying to work on has nothing of this conclusion by Milani or Bayandor because you have been working so hard to keep it out. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

We are not talking the failed August 15 coup attempt, we are talking about THE 1953 coup, the one that took place on August 19 of 1953, the one that ALL the academic sources attribute to the CIA, regardless of the varying opinions on what role others may or may not have played. Bayandor, however, denies altogether that there was coup on August 19, 1953, calling a revolution/popular uprising. That's simply a fringe theory not supported by any reputable academic or historian. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouting it louder does not make it so. Bayandor's scholarly book must be considered an expert source. He himself is the reputable source. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Bayandor is neither a scholar nor a reputable source. And who is shouting? I am putting emphasis on THE, because we were talking about Bayandor`s denialist views on THE 1953 coup, the one that took place on August 19, 1953, not the failed coup attempt before that. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bayandor's book is a scholarly source for us to use on Wikipedia, which is the whole question here. The author of a scholarly peer-reviewed book printed by a scholarly publishing house is by definition a scholar. Bayandor is no denialist; he holds a minority opinion about the coup which took place over four days 15–19 August 1953. The failed arrest on the 15th is the CIA-funded part, the funding for the 19th street demonstrations or arrest did not come from the CIA, per Bayandor's analysis of CIA and other sources, the same ones which have been used by many coup scholars. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeating yourself does not strengthen your argument. The coup took place on 19 August 1953, that is a universally accepted fact among historians and scholars [7], something Bayandor denies. And that alone makes Bayandor a fringe source, unworthy of any serious consideration . Kurdo777 (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am the only administrator who has closely followed the various disputes on 1953 Iranian coup d'état page. I have since semi-retired from Wikipedia, but I may give in my two cents every now and again. There is an ongoing activist-type campaign by a couple of editors to downplay the US role in the coup, cast the elected primer Minster Mossadegh, who was ousted by the coup, in a bad light, and essentially legitimize the coup. This campaign sometimes goes beyond what is permissible in our polices, and there have been plenty of infringements by the involved parties in the past few months. This is one of the latest examples. Having studied this topic for many years, I would consider Darioush Bayandor to be a fringe source. Given the extreme nature of his views, he should not be cited in the main article about the 1953 coup. He could, however, be cited in an article about the historical viewpoint of the Pahlavi dynasty. Khoikhoi 00:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have somehow categorized Bayandor as an expert who wishes to legitimize the coup. I have read his book all the way through twice, have you? In it, he makes no prescriptive suggestions as to what the country of Iran should do in today's world. He makes no political statements about how in 1953 one side was legitimate and another was not. He simply describes as best he can what motivations drove people and what actions they took. If anything, Bayandor should be categorized as someone who thinks the clerics of today's Iran should acknowledge their role in taking Mosaddegh down and returning the Shah to power. If this was not his wish he would not have published the book.

Personally, I have no horse in this race, no dog in this fight. You are wrong to think I am some kind of activist trying to downplay the CIA's part. I don't care if the CIA is shown to be 100% "large and in charge" or shown to be an overconfident loser, I just want the full story to be told, including the sources in conflict. What you are missing in my supposedly pro-US POV is that the CIA in Bayandor's version is shown to be relatively ineffective. Why would an American citizen such as myself want to make the CIA look bad? That supposed activist campaign I am on has fatal flaws. I also don't give one hoot about Iran's politics of today. I do, however, care deeply about historical accuracy, and I think that an Iranian author who emphasizes the Iranian contribution to the coup should be heard as a minority viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo777 has attacked Bayandor as being the holder of a tiny minority viewpoint, as a Shah government official, as a "monarchist activist" (whatever that is) and as a denier of the coup. Kurdo777 has attacked Bayandor as not being a historian nor a scholar, as being over-reliant on Ardeshir Zahedi, and as being a revisionist scholar. Kurdo777 has attacked Bayandor as being a regular speaker on Voice of America radio, an advocate for regime change in Iran. None of these attacks push the scholarly book Iran and the CIA to the fringe. It does not matter what Bayandor does with his political energies if this one book has been peer-reviewed and published by Palgrave. Bayandor can be any kind of activist and still have this scholarly book tell an accurate story. The question we are addressing is whether the book is fringe, not whether it is WP:UNDUE emphasis on a minority viewpoint. The thing I want to take away from this noticeboard discussion is for the book to be accepted as a minority viewpoint from a scholar, and not pooh-poohed as fringe. After that, the discussion of due and undue emphasis will continue at the coup article (and perhaps elsewhere.)

So far, the only editors commenting here besides Kurdo777 and I are Rocksanddirt, and Khoikhoi. Rocksanddirt provides a fresh Fringe Noticeboard viewpoint but Khoikhoi was already involved in the article, responsible for the eventually proven incorrect six-month block of User:BoogaLouie for his work to lever the article out of its unsatisfactory condition. Khoikhoi's complaint here that there is an activist campaign is dead wrong: BoogaLouie and I are not trying to legitimize the coup; we are trying to tell the whole story per WP:NPOV where it says we must represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The article as it stands ignores too many significant views published by reliable sources. Rather than being told in the manner of "here's what absolutely happened" it should be told as "here are the versions of what happened, attributed to these sources." The former method is a violation of WP:NPOV, but it is what Kurdo777 and Khoikhoi continue to defend. Binksternet (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder and human rights

A number of people (or maybe one person with several IDs?) are repeatedly adding claims to History of human rights that the Cyrus Cylinder was the world's first charter of human rights - a claim that historians reject. I'm told that this issue has been discussed here before. Can anyone help? Prioryman (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's been discussed before [8]. Paul B (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a history of socking and meat puppetry at Cyrus Cylinder IIRC Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is old, the article is so infested with socks and trolls that it is pointless to try and discuss this coherently. Just roll back the patriotic editorializing. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been going on for ages. The latest flare-up might have something to do with this piece on the Al-Jazeera blog [9], but who knows? I suspect off-wiki arguments have always had a huge influence on this page. Most historians don't think it was a human rights document. As far as I remember, last time I looked at the Encyclopaedia Iranica entry on the Cyrus Cylinder it didn't even mention the idea. --Folantin (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And another SPA has just returned, after editing a handful of times in September. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to IMediaObserver (talk · contribs), I think it's the same person as ArdeshirBozorg (talk · contribs), who has been blocked for sockpuppeting. Check their user page messages and contributions. Jdravan (talk · contribs) looks a bit whiffy as well. Prioryman (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That is so interesting, because dougweller and folantin have said the same thing about human rights and looking it up at encyclopedia iranica. on the same day. mixed up sockpuppetry. oh wait, ooops they also mentioned the aljazzera blog. could it be the same person or group expressing the same thought. you tell me.

prioryman for someone who has only been online for a short while is expert! but of course dougweller and dbach since they are respected admins only seem to care about a few sockpuppets or whatever they are called. you people need to reexamine your bias. prioryman seems to be on a campaign to discredit a long standing notion. that should be considered fringe theory people.

as a double major in history and politics at csun, i find your behaviors reprenhensible and will never use wikipedia for anything.

I certainly don't consider myself an expert, I'm just someone who has a copy of A History of the World in 100 Objects‎ and an interest in the British Museum's exhibits. But I do think it is sad that there is such a vociferous campaign to promote historically dubious claims. It seems pretty obvious that this sudden rush of new editors is being prompted by some external course. Perhaps there's some recently published bulletin board post or news article directing them all to Wikipedia to fight their cause? Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The more of a concerted campaign we see to push a historically dubious claim, the more care we should take to let it not affect one iota of article content. There is a great temptation to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, but mostly among those who are not familiar with the workings of the project.

Many people think "anyone can edit? that won't work". The propaganda campaigns turn this around to "anyone can edit? Alright, we're home free". Both are mistaken for the same reason, but most people apparently don't have the intelligence to extrapolate this, they need to try it out themselves.

For our purposes it is enough to note that there is a renewed Iranian patriotic attack on our artiles in the "Cyrus Cylinder" matter and that we will need to click rollback a few times over then next couple of weeks. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This may be just a minor version of the Chosun Ilbo's "Dokdo forever on Wikipedia" campaign [10].--Folantin (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, help me understand...what exactly is being considered a fringe theory? GoetheFromm (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I mean..what exactly is being considered a fringe theory on the History of human rights that the Cyrus Cylinder?

Is it the "first charter of human rights" question? Aren't there sources to support both claims? GoetheFromm (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The fringe theory is the idea that the cylander is a charter of human rights. Ther standard view is that Cyrus is listing the particular reforms his rule will introduce and asserting his dedication to the gods and their temples. Of course it is legitimate to say that the document indicates the relatively 'enlightened' nature of his rule, but that's essentially to make a modern judgement. In any case the cylinder does not grant rights as such. It's not as is there was some judicial mechanism to maintain rights laid out in a code. Cyrus is making a personal declaration of what he will do, but he could change his mind whenever he wanted to. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

or in short, read the Cyrus Cylinder if you are interested. I am sure Cyrus was a good guy, keeping in mind it was the Iron Age, but calling this a "human rights charter" is a ludicrous anachronism. And people know it's ludicrous, this is why the claim is defended with emotion and aggression to make up for its lack of merit. --dab (𒁳) 17:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good, if the fringe theory is that the Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights, then evidence needs to be presented that is, indeed, a fringe theory. Here are the facts as I see it:

a)The History of human rights page and the Cyrus Cylinder page already' contained s'ourced material supporting the claim that Cyrus Cylinder was a charter of human rights.

b)The "opposing" viewpoint on why the "Cyrus Cylinder is NOT a charter of human rights" is contained within the Cyrus Cylinder. That "NOT" viewpoint acknowledges the prevalence of the the viewpoint that the Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights. Otherwise, why would there be an opposing side to say that it isn't a charter of human rights?

c) With the exception of Paul Barlow, the comments on this section are largely claiming sockpuppetry, trolling, and nationalism. I'm not going to into a discussion about the existence of sockpuppettry, trolling, and nationalism (anti-nationalism, anti-nationalist). I completely agree. Previous talk discussion do indeed support that such things have existed. They have occurred from many sides (note that I am not saying BOTH sides...I am saying MANY sides).

Those are the facts. My opinion is that, thus far, no evidence has been presented to indicate the claim that Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights is a fringe theory. This is my opinion of this section and I believe a reflection of how emotions and aggression have run high. Suggesting blanket rollbacks seems too "cowboy editor" to me, as does the blanket removal of already existing sourced material. Calling a theory ludicrous, anachronistic, patriotic, or saying that people aren't intelligent doesn't indicate why the theory is fringe. If you don't think that you can engage in the conversation, as someone said, coherently, then let others try to deal with it. Perhaps another neutral editor. No disrespect is intended by my stating this.

So, I'd like to suggest an evidence based discussion on why this theory is fringe. Namely addressing its heretofore existence on both pages and the sourced claims that support the proposition. Thanks, GoetheFromm (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

GoetheFromm: Fringe in this context is not a real-world concept that requires sourcing and evidence; it's a wikipedia-specific category that means (in brief) that a theory or idea has very limited support in scholarship; we use it on wikipedia to keep articles focused on main issues, otherwise they would become unreadable messes as people tried to add in and explain every minor theory ever conceived. Burden of proof here is showing that an idea is accepted by a reasonable-sized group of scholars as a valid theory - If you can't show that, the idea is fringe by default. In this case, the main proponents of this theory seem to be politically-motivated idealists - scholars generally reject the theory as foundationless. That may change over time, but for the time being (on wikipedia), the idea has to be classified as fringe. --Ludwigs2 13:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

also, GoetheFromm, this has been discussed to death at Talk:Cyrus Cylinder years ago. I don't understand why you should think it appropriate to repeat this discussion now (December 2010) on Wikipedia's Fringe theory noticeboard. Unlike usenet groups, Wikipedia is interested in resolving issues and then moving on, not rehashing them every time editor population shifts enough so that the last discussion isn't clearly remembered any more. This is why we keep articles on topics, so that past conclusions can be looked up (as opposed to usenet threads that just sink into oblivion). The idea is that we are actually making progress over time in improving coverage. Discussion is a means to that end, not an end in itself. If you think there is something that has been overlooked in past discussions, you are welcome to raise the point on the article talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 14:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, and DBachmann,

You realize that it was Prioryman who initiated the complete removal of the entire section of the Persian empire of the History of Human Rights, rather than simply removing what he considered fringe? Right? So his statements that began this section such as the one below is a bit disingenuous and incorrect that there is a new round of editors trying to add claims (you do see that?) You do realize that the last person to start a round of edits on this topic largely resumed on the 15th of Dec by Prioryman, himself? Check the edit record.

"A number of people (or maybe one person with several IDs?) are repeatedly adding claims to History of human rights that the Cyrus Cylinder was the world's first charter of human rights - a claim that historians reject. I'm told that this issue has been discussed here before. Can anyone help?

Next, the burden of proof remains not on demonstrating that t'he theory is fringe, not that it isn't'. As seen by the citation list, there are plenty of scholar supporting the notion that the "Cyrus Cylinder is a (first) charter of human rights." These scholars are not politically motivated, you do see that Ludwig? Check the citations yourself, they hail from reputable institutions.

Listen, I'm not disputing that there are politcally motivated editors and wikipedia users. I'm disputing your continual assertions and asusmptions that ALL proponents supporting that the Cyrus Cylinder was a charter of human rights are politically motivated. The are plenty of reputable scholars, writers, etc. that are cited that support the notion, therefore it isn't fringe at all. GoetheFromm (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the discussion pages from the pasts, indicate that the issue is contentious from many sides. At best it indicates that there are plenty of nationalists, anti-nationalist, pov pushers, many of whom have been blocked...hGoetheFromm (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Goethe: this is an encyclopedia - it's purpose is to describe conventional and broadly accepted viewpoints on a subject. there may be scholars who discuss this theory, and the theory may even be notable enough for its own article, but it is still fringe unless you can show that the theory is under active discussion and consideration in the scholarly world. The section on Persian history was rightfully removed from the history of human rights because (as of this time) the only indication that Persian history has any connection to the history of human rights is the Cyrus Cylinder, and that is only being advanced by a small number of scholars, on weak reasoning, with little-to-no acceptance in mainstream scholarship. Wikipedia does not over-represent minor, developing scholarship as though it were a major and fully developed player int he field of theories. Do you understand why we don't do that? --Ludwigs2 16:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ludwig, your tone is a bit partonizing and I don't know if its intentional. I've been advocating for encyclopedic content the entire time and dedicated to that notion. That is the reason for my discussing almost any point on a talk page.

With regards to your points, I say that no evidence has been presented that the point that the Cyrus Cylinder as charter of human rights" is only being advanced by a small number of scholars, on weak reasoning, with little-to-no acceptance in mainstream scholarship. As evident in the article references, it is held by a good number of reputable scholars. In fact, after hearing your point, I tempted to question if the theory that Cyrus Cylinder is NOT a charter of human rights might actually be the minority view. I going to think about it and present arguments at a later date, if I think that is the case.

Also, there are plenty of references that Cyrus, subsequent Persian rulers and the Persian Empire was atypically benign for an ancient empire and plenty of historians ancient and modern support that view.

So, I will reiterate my my point with the hopes that you actually address it. The burden of proof remains not on demonstrating that the theory is fringe, not that it isn't'. As seen by the citation list, there are plenty of scholar supporting the notion that the "Cyrus Cylinder is a (first) charter of human rights." These scholars are numerous, are not politically motivated, and by no means fringe.

The previous talks that have been presented by DougWeller and Dbachmann, only indicate that this point has been contentious, not that an actual consensus has been reached regarding the majority or minority view.

Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just spent ninety minutes looking at what specialists in the history of the Ancient Near East say about the Cyrus Cylinder. Here's an incomplete report [11]. They all either fail to mention the Cyrus Cylinder being a "charter of human rights" or are actively dismissive of the idea. I will keep looking but that's the overwhelming balance of expert opinion. The "human rights charter" idea seems to predominate in "pop history." --Folantin (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Folantin, thank you so much. Now we're talking! Finally some evidence floating around to support or negate. I gonna try my hand at finding sources to include in your report over the next days. Welcome others to help. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I carried out my search independently but almost all these sources are mentioned in the article anyway so they were always there for anyone to check. It is quite obvious to me where the overwhelming balance of opinion among qualified historians lies. On consideration, this was a complete waste of my time. Having re-read the talk page archives, editors have been over this stuff time and time again. --Folantin (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

United nations DOES recognize the cyrus cylinder as a work or charter of human rights. I do not know who might want to be a "sock puppet" but I am certainly all for the inclusion of the cylinder as the charter of human rights. The evidence in support of Cyrus the Great being a benign and just ruler is beyond the point of contention. The only issue is the issue created by a few live, recent German "scholars" if you can call them that, that have said that "Cyrus the Great could not possibly UNDERSTAND human rights in the same sense as us" and even that is debatable, as there are equal number of scholars on the opposing side saying that he DID indeed understand it and proclaim it in the most feasible ancient way possible. I also see a lot of names here from people with a history of activity against the notion of Cyrus Cylinder as a piece of human rights. There are even admins on this article who have an unhealthy obsession with articles regarding Cyrus the Great. In short, it is a piece of human rights and even if you like to include quotations from your favorite bearded curator at the british museum or the German teacher in some far university, then by all means do so but also include the fact that UNITED NATIONS has recognized the piece as a "CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS" since 1970s. Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because the United Nations is a renowned specialist in the history of the Achaemenid Empire, unlike amateurs such as Pierre Briant, Mohammed Dandamayev and The Cambridge History of Iran, to take just three examples.--Folantin (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, a few individuals can not out weight an international organization that in certain matters is the equivalent of the "world" we live in. No matter by the very notion inclusion in United Nations, this point has to be brought up to the article. To avoid to do so would be censorhips. Dr. Persi (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL Are you for real? --Folantin (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry is this the tone appropriate for a serious discussion? Why is this so "amusing" to you. There is an international organization that claims this. Regardless of the weight that you give to the experts, you still as a wikipedian have a right to express it. There is no one certain source about human rights. There is tremendous pressure to make human rights a western issue, but why should the notion that it, or a version of it also started in the east so unbelievable or funy? I hope in future when you make a point, that you do not mock me at least. I recognized the sarcasm in the last post and I see the "lol" in this post. I just hope that we can discuss things in a more professional environment. No matter, in spirit of fair play and good intention, I am gonna take the best out of your argument and yes I am very real. Why should this notion be disallowed? Cheers!Dr. Persi (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I tracked down a couple dozen reliable sources and they seem to indicate the following: Most ancient historians think the Cyrus Cylinder represents the standard practice in the ancient world and is not particularly unique regarding human rights. However, a majority of specialists and historians on the subject of human rights do consider the Cyrus Cylinder a very important indicator that human rights were a factor in the ancient world. The latter group do not say that Cyrus was unique in the ancient world. I did not find any human rights specialists who reject the role of Cyrus. I also detected an angry group of activists on modern Iran who say that the Cyrus material is tainted because the Shah of Iran emphasized it very strongly back in the 1970s; in Wikipedia terms, this last group is pushing its POV regarding recent Iranian politics. Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• If I may interject...The Encyclopaedia Iranica is one of the most reliable sources in the field of Iranology and oriental studies, and they make no mention of the "human rights" theory. That, alone, makes the whole human rights notion a fringe theory, at least as far as the scholarly historical perspective is concerned. The only issue I would take with the Wikipedia article is that, it attributes the invention of this theory to Mohammed Reza Shah. The Shah certainly promoted this questionable notion as part of a larger campaign to legitimize and glorify his rule after the 1953 Coup , but he did not invent the notion. Hassan Pirnia, an Iranian prime minster, during the Qajar era, was probably the first Iranian who characterized the Cylinder as a human rights document. There may have been other European or Iranian personalities and writers who had toyed with this notion, before the Shah, as well. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I keep running into this problem on wikipedia - editors who completely reverse the notion of 'burden of proof' as used in scholarship. do we have a guideline or essay that covers this, or am I going to have to write one? --Ludwigs2 04:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There's WP:BURDEN, which relates to challenges and V? WP:FRINGE kind of gets into 'extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence' territory. WP:NPOV covers thresholds for inclusion of minority views? I assume you know of these, though. I think an essay could probably help. Then again, WP:CONSENSUS kind of looks unkindly on the whole notion of burdens, which is more of a legal construct than a Wiki one. Ocaasi (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

well, that's not strictly true - 'burden of proof' is an evidentiary claim which was first used in purely scientific contexts and later got adapted by legal systems. The basic idea is that the burden falls on those who want to make a direct affirmative statement about an object to provide evidence demonstrating that statement. If they can't, then the status quo stands (where the status quo may be the currently accepted understanding of the object, or may be the absence of any statement about the object at all). Probably the most familiar example for most people is null hypothesis testing (assume that nothing is happening, then try to show evidence that that assumption is wrong), though it applies more generally to all sorts of scholarly reasoning. In this context we have to assume that sources do not consider the UAF left-wing the cylinder to be an early statement of human rights and then provide evidence which demonstrates that a significant number of reliable sources do consider it that way. We cannot (as a few editors have argued here) start with the assumption that they are considered to be left-wing is considered to be a statement of human rights and insist that others prove is is not. For one it can't be done (it's impossible to prove a negative), but more importantly it tries to assert an ideological position as though it were an established and uncontested norm, which is anti-scientific. By default, Wikipedia knows nothing about the UAF Cyrus Cylinder, and so cannot say whether they are right-wing, left-wing, or otherwise it is related to human rights. editors who want to add the idea that it is left-wing such a statement are left with the burden of showing - clearly and unambiguously - that the label applies.

well, let me see if I can draft up an essay. --Ludwigs2 07:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can add the claim that the UAF is left-wing, but if challenged, they must prove it with sources. If sources have already proven it, then it is established, and someone who wants to refute that would need their own better sources (and where NPOV comes in). I think it reduces easily enough to: if you assert it, sources have to back it up, (which is what V basically requires already). Someone can't say, as you mention, prove it's not left-wing, since the only reason to do that is to refute the positive assertion that it is, which still needs sources. I'm not sure I see the difference, or rather, the benefit from looking at it from an agent-evidence model rather than a claims-sources model. 'Claims need sources' is our standard, at least if they're 'challenged or likely to be'; if there are sources, we can make a claim--and the converse. Though I think what you're saying is positive claims need sources, and "negative claims need to go away". Ocaasi (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what I'm saying is that if you want to make claim X about a topic, we need reasonable and sufficient sourcing for that claim. The confusing aspect of this for most people is that there is a significant difference between saying 'not X' and saying nothing; we never need to source saying nothing about a topic, but we do need to source saying 'not X'. consider these three statements:

• "The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder that is the first written declaration of human rights." - this is an affirmative claim that requires reasonable and sufficient sourcing.
• "The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder that is not the first written declaration of human rights." - this is also an affirmative claim that requires reasonable and sufficient sourcing.
• "The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder." - this is a non-claim that never requires sourcing, and is the default we should generally use when we have insufficient sourcing for actual claims.

What people habitually do (and have done a few times in this dispute) is act as though the second and third points are equivalent, and demand that the non-claim be sourced as though it were an active claim. that's poor logic. --Ludwigs2 08:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

P.s. - lol sorry, I've had to strike and rewrite above - I forgot which topic I was having this argument on. As I said, I've been seeing a lot of this lately. --Ludwigs2 07:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Whew, I was really getting confused. Can I just add that all of this (except the UAF stuff) should really be on the talk page of the article so that anyone editing there is aware? Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion also seems to be getting away from the point (WP:RS). Even the British Museum, whose curators are experts, addresses the point fairly clearly on one of the pages devoted to the cylinder: [12] (There are similar cylinders in the Kunsthistorisches Museum and the Pergamon Museum, but Doug would know far more about that. Here's one going back to Nebuchadnezzar II [13] in Vienna and another one here in Berlin.) Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To sum up, the leading historians of the Ancient Near East regard the Cyrus Cylinder not as a human rights charter but as a "skilled instrument of tendentious history" (Cambridge History of Iran) intended to present Cyrus as a good king who justifiably overthrew a bad one, the Babylonian ruler Nabonidus. They are very sceptical about taking it at face value, especially given the almost complete lack of surviving opposing points of view, although there is some evidence that many Babylonians didn't really regard Nabonidus as all that bad. Historians extend the same scepticism to other such self-issued proclamations by ancient rulers, such as Augustus, but for some reason there has been no great hullaballoo when they've described the Res Gestae Divi Augusti as a work of self-serving propaganda which has to be taken with a pinch of salt. The Cyrus Cylinder a piece of ancient propaganda which has become a piece of modern political propaganda. As far as I can see, historians of the Ancient Near East tend to pay the same amount of attention to the CC's use by modern politicians as they do to Saddam Hussein's opinions about Babylon, i.e. not very much at all. It's moderately interesting but it's irrelevant. --Folantin (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

what this is really about is the postmodernist vogue of European self-effacement[14] 1970 to 2000. Saying that Augustus was just another imperialist bully is "good" because it shows those Eurocentric elitists their place. Saying that Cyrus was just another imperialist bully, otoh, is a political faux-pas and an insult to Iranian sensitivities. Of course the Iranian nationalists (among others) have become aware of this 'vogue' and try to ride it, and by being too blatant and naive about it actually contribute to ending it. --dab (𒁳) 13:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab, I've noticed that you and others evoke the term "Iranian nationalist" or a variant thereof in many of your comments regarding this issue. I just want to get your viewpoint correct. Are you stating that every editor that disagrees with the idea that the "Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights" is fringe, is a nationalist? GoetheFromm (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, the way you've delineated the issues. I too have been saying that people conflate one issue with another. using your categorizations:

"The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder that is the first written declaration of human rights." - this is an affirmative claim that requires reasonable and sufficient sourcing. :::Sourced in article and by editors

"The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder that is not the first written declaration of human rights." - this is also an affirmative claim that requires reasonable and sufficient sourcing. :::Sourced in article and by editors

"The Cyrus Cylinder is is an ancient Persian clay cylinder." - this is a non-claim that never requires sourcing, and is the default we should generally use when we have insufficient sourcing for actual claims. Criteria reached. Anyone else want to take a stab at it? GoetheFromm (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Goethe, that's not exactly the way I would break this down. I see it as follows:

1. We have several editors who want to add the claim "the CC is a statement of human rights" to the article - they have provided some sources, but the sources are questionable, and may not show that this is a significant viewpoint in the scholarly or journalistic worlds
2. No editors are currently suggesting that we add the claim "the CC is not a statement of human rights" to the article - sources are provided to that effect, but only used as counter-examples to #1, to demonstrate that it is a questionable claim
3. Because #1 is insufficiently sourced and #2 is not on the table, we should simply say nothing, making no claim at all about the cylinder and human rights.

The difficult point, again, is that the scholarly sources that have been provided which reject the claim (such as the one Mathsci presented above) are not being offered to make an affirmative claim in the wikipedia article, but are simply being offered to dispute the affirmative claim #1; they are part of the wp:UNDUE discussion for the first claim, not a separate claim in their own right. --Ludwigs2 15:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) These are not the only alternatives. At the BM it is one of their most celebrated exhibits along with the Rosetta Stone. They write (see link above), "This cylinder has sometimes been described as the 'first charter of human rights', but it in fact reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms." As Ludwigs2 and others have said, that is what can be found in WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, I really enjoy the quality of your arguments....(even that somewhat too long one ;-)

Some points of yours I want to address...

1. Before I get into it, I disagree with your position (in example 1) that people wanting to introduce or add the claim that the CC is a statement of human rights. That statement has been in the article before for a while with both reputable and not-so-reputable sources to support it. Now, part of the problem is that this section was started by an accusation of sock and meat puppetry and the implication of some sort of conspiracy, which totally derailed the discussion ie, accusations of nationalism, trolll calling, the necessity for rollbacks. Thanks to you back we're back on track though. I absolutely agree with you that in order for the affirmative statement "that CC is a statement of human rights" to be in the article, it must be well sourced. I contend that it is well sourced as do some others.
2. Next, the affirmative statement that the "CC is not a charter of human rights" is indeed not on the table, but can only be in an article to counter the claim that "the CC is a charter of human rights." That is to say, the claims are related in one direction, "Not a charter of human rights" is a counter-claim to "Is a charter of human rights." This is similar to one what you've said above. So, I agree with you that there is no sense in adding the counter claim since it is not on the table nor can it exists without a mention of the very claim it counters.

If you look at the Cyrus Cylinder page (which is related to the human rights page that we are speaking about here), you will see that the counterargument predominates the page Cyrus_Cylinder#Scholarly_views, and not only that, it introduces the section. How is it that the counter-claim is being presented before the claim itself? It simply doesn't make sense (except for 'artsy' reasons). If you look at the edit record of the CC article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyrus_Cylinder&action=history, you will see that the individual who started this section here, argues that the counter-claim is "predominant" and therefore should be presented first. Next, if you look at the History of Human Rights Pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_human_rights&action=history, that same editor attempted to remove the ENTIRE section of the Persian Empire without considering the well sourced claims.

The reason why I bring this up is because such actions have a created a disjointed, choppy, logically confusing read on the Cyrus Cylinder page and the history of human rights article.

Lastly, I agree with Matchsci in that one viable alternative is to state the CC is believed by some to be the first declaration of human rights, but countered by some historians as not. This alternative can be applied to both the Cyrus Cylinder and History of Human Rights page. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your last point, your paraphrase is not at all what the quote from the assistant curator at the BM says. It says that the widely accepted view is that the cylinder formed part of a long-established tradition of documents announcing reforms at the beginning of the reign of a new monarch. Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Goethe (or would you prefer Fromm? it's interesting what people's choice of username says about them... ): lets take this in stages.

• There are clearly scholarly sources which have advanced this HR theory. That means that the theory deserves some mention on the CC page.
• There is clearly no broad scholarly consensus that this HR theory is useful or correct. That means that UNDUE applies on the Human Rights page (CC should be mentioned only briefly there, if at all, since no significant scholarship accepts the theory as a norm).
• I'm familiar with the tendency of some editors to push the 'fringe' button a little hard. Obviously we need to present the HR theory before we refute it, and equally obviously we need to keep both the presentation and its refutation balanced with respect to the greater discussion about the cylinder. I'll need to read it more carefully before I can decide for myself what that balance should be, however.
• (bonus point, with respect to Mathsci's statement). every leader, everywhere, in all time frames, makes ebullient statements when s/he takes office. It doesn't matter whether it's Cyrus the Great crowing about a new golden age for his newly conquered subjects or a modern US president telling us about how he's going to cut taxes, end crime, defend the nation's honor, and make us all rich with a few quick strokes of his pen. People like to hear that their new ruler is going to treat them nicely (particularly if their last ruler didn't) and new rulers like to tell people things that people like to hear because it makes ruling easier. Even Stalin and Hitler talked about the great new societies they were designing... Mathsci's source is just pointing out that there is usually a large disconnect between what a ruler says and what a ruler does, and the kind of things the CC says are fairly common talking points for those wanting to pacify populations. --Ludwigs2 03:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This has gone beyond nationalist posturing and into outright falsification of sources. I was suspicious of one particular part of what had been added to History of human rights, namely this claim: "The cylinder declared that citizens of the empire would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely. It also abolished slavery, so all the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era where slaves typically did such work."

I took the trouble to check the sources cited for those claims. The sources say nothing about such a declaration. The cylinder itself makes no such declaration, as can be seen from its translation by the British Museum here. I found that the claims about freedom of religion and the abolition of slavery come from a fake translation which can be read here. I removed this claim and explained why on the article talk page. Despite this, GoetheFromm simply restored it [15] without bothering to address either the falsified translation or the misrepresented sources. Is there nothing that can be done about such blatant falsifications? How is anyone expected to treat Wikipedia seriously with this going on? It's very disheartening. Prioryman (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Prioryman, allow me to explain my last revert. I absolutely agreed with you that there were false statements on the page. However, I disagreed with the wholesale manner in which you removed the majority of writing without editing. So, I reverted your edit, to be able to work with the original. I then immediately made revisions and wanted to save the changes, but unfortunately, my internet went and only was restored today due to weather. So, frustratingly, I could not put the revisions after my revert of your work. So very sorry. You will see that I put those changes (which I worked hard to do) today. Trust me, I was so worried that you would think that I was trying to keep false information, which I am certainly not interested in doing. Btw, next time you have such a concern, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Ok? Don't be disheartened. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you still simply don't get it. I see from your latest edits [16] that you've put back the unsourced claims with some slightly different wording, and you're still completely misrepresenting the sources you are citing. I took the trouble to read those sources. They say nothing about "freedom of religion" - that comes from a fake translation of the cylinder. They also say nothing about Cyrus using paid workers rather than slaves. You are simply making this stuff up without any sourcing whatsoever. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a toilet wall. Prioryman (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight, Prioryman. I'm not interested in adding unsourced material or material with no basis in fact. What I have been preventing is your removal of an entire sections of material because of a couple of unsourced or misrepresented citation. Such actions are not the way wikipedia works.

1) I might recommend the use of citation needed to you.

2) You seem to mixing up the concepts of Ancient Persia, Cyrus the Great, and the Cyrus Cylinder into one issue. a) Fact: The "majority view" of historians is that Ancient Persia is regarded as being an extraordinarily tolerant and progressive society for human rights (whether it was called that back then is not the point). b) Fact: The "majority view" of historians is that Cyrus the Great is known to have been a uniquely enlightened ruler, especially in the context of his era. c) The Cyrus Cylinder is considered by some (not all) to be a "Charter of Human Rights."

So, since you don't seem to understand what I've been over and over again, point #2 is what I am wedded to and advocating. You might not be recognizing the way wikipedia works. You have to allow other editors the right to address points, rather than removing information that is indeed verfiable. Personally, as an editor, I'm a firm "gradualist," and believe that point #2 will eventually be the norm on the article in question.

By the way, no disrespect to you...but I think that you might want to read Ludwig2s points on this issue. He states the issues really well. See above. GoetheFromm (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately for anyone with a genuine interest in the history of Iran (and the Iranian peoples) the Encyclopaedia Iranica, written by qualified experts, is now available free online. Unfortunately for those looking for information on contentious subjects, its Google rank is not as high as Wikipedia's. --Folantin (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of resolving the immediate problem of false claims and misrepresentation of sources, I have posted a modest proposal (Talk:History of human rights#A modest proposal). This basically involves asking contributors to agree not to add anything that isn't explicitly supported by sources and removing anything that isn't sourced. I had thought that this was supposed to be a basic rule of Wikipedia but apparently I was wrong. If anyone would like to help with this please comment there. Prioryman (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't strawman, Prioryman. Yes, only sourced material should be in wikipedia articles. Every legitimate editor agrees to that. The issue here is what is sourced and what isn't. Why do you bring a topic to the table only to then make a proposal that negates the usefulness of the topic you first brought up? You asked if the proposition is fringe and that is what is being discussed. I haven't really seen you address specific points, I've seen you make generalizations. It might help to address specifics to get this moving. GoetheFromm (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Goethe, Prioryman has it right. Removing the section was proper. If you want to re-add specific items with the proper sources, that's fine. But don't simply revert Prioryman wholesale. That's where the problems come in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

the question never has been "references", it has always been WP:DUE. If Mohammad Reza Pahlavi 40 years ago voiced an opinion about human rights or an archaeological artefact it doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone in a prominent position at history of human rights. If this idea is notable in Iranian nationalism, duly discuss it at Iranian nationalism where it will at least be on topic. This has nothing to do with citing sources and everything with deciding to what topic a given source has any kind of encyclopedic relevance. --dab (𒁳) 12:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie - POV SPA needs attention

Hi. I thought this might be the best place to raise this. The film in question was something of an internet sensation a few years ago, positing conspiracy theories about Christianity, 9/11 and the New World Order. Most of it is a rehash of Acharya S, the usual 9/11 stuff and illuminati-ish ramblings. There is a newly registered editor who is trying to (a) remove criticism (which in RS was pretty universal, what RS coverage there was) and (b), as has been attempted a few times recently by IP addresses, pretend that a new updated version effectively renders the 2007 version (the one that got all the attention) null and void. The article had a punctuation based name change recently, and I suspect there are not as many users watching it as there were. I've reverted the changes twice, and they've been put back in. Could someone else have a watch over it? You can look at the article talkpage to get an idea of the nature of the editor in question and the pre-move article talkpage to see previous discussions of such changes (ie that they were clearly POV and censorship). Many thanks, VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've left a message on the users talk page, and I'll help keep an eye on the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Also watching - a diff between the last version before Silver1123's changes and the current version is interesting. I think some of their points have merit, but the overall tone of the talk-page posts and edit summaries smacks of someone spreading WP:THETRUTH. Ravensfire (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a small walled garden here. I wouldn't say this is completely unnotable, but there are Zeitgeist: The Movie, The Zeitgeist Movement and Peter Joseph. These are all about the same thing. --dab (𒁳) 21:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

sigh, there is even Category:Zeitgeist. Clearly another case of people abusing Wikipedia to inflate the visibility of some project of theirs. --dab (𒁳) 21:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not surprised at all. A certain type of people can be inspired to fanatisicm by ideas like this, often who are at least somewhat technologically savvy. Wikipedia is an esay site for them to post their ideas and viewpoints, and be very difficult to weed out. Ravensfire (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the category, there was a merge proposed a while ago with Jacques Fresco and The Venus Project that I agree with. Peter Joseph into Zeitgeist: The Movie as well. Those, to me, are pretty straightforward. Not sure beyond that. Ravensfire (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for helping out. And it's good to get the history merge sorted out properly. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon Sexuality

There has been a lot of talk lately about whether to add the possibility of adding sections about these characters, Scooby-Doo (character) (talk), Shaggy Rogers(talk), Daphne Blake (talk), Velma Dinkley (talk), Pinky and the Brain (talk), and Yogi Bear (talk), being homosexual based on the writings of JP Dennis found here [17]. First I feel that it should definetly not be included any of the Scooby-Doo characters pages because Dennis himself does not appear to really think they are gay. On Pinky and The brain and Yogi, he does clearly feel they're gay but I think it might be against WP:UNDUE because he seems to be the only one who feels that way. JDDJS (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely UNDUE. (what's next... a claim that Big Gay Al isn't actually gay?) Blueboar (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is from an article from a peer-reviewed academic journal. This isn't a personal website or a fansite.

The article is: Jeffery P. Dennis (2003). "Perspectives: "The Same Thing We Do Every Night": Signifying Same-Sex Desire in Television Cartoons". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 31 (3): 132–140. doi:10.1080/01956050309603674. - if you want to read it, it's available at EBSCOHost

There is a response to that article from Animation World Network at: Goodman, Martin. "Deconstruction Zone — Part 2." Animation World Network. Wednesday March 10, 2004. - The response is mostly critical of the essay's thesis and several of its arguments, while the author praises some of Dennis's arguments.

There has been discussion about this source at the RS noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Cartoon_Sexuality - the consensus, stated in the final four posts, is that A. This is an RS and B. a blanket statement on whether this is UNDUE is not possible, and instead that needs to be worked out on an article by article basis

There has been an RFC about this in regards to Daria Morgendorffer at Talk:Daria_Morgendorffer#Daria_Morgendorffer_and_journal_article_about_perceived_attitudes_towards_homosexuality: The sole uninvolved editor (the only one to respond) at first believed that the proposed revision violated UNDUE, but changed his mind after seeing that it was one sentence long.

An additional discussion about the application of the name "fringe theory" to the article is at: User_talk:Baseball_Bugs#Dennis

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are proposed revisions specific to each article:

Scooby-Doo series:

Daphne Blake

Shaggy Rogers

Velma Dinkley

Scooby-Doo (character)

Others:

Yogi Bear

Heffer Wolfe

Pinky and the Brain

Daria Morgendorffer

Most references include the response from Goodman - while Daria and Rocko don't because Goodman does not specifically address those cartoons

Content from Dennis is currently in:

Smurfette

SpongeBob_SquarePants#Criticism_and_controversy - In this case there are many sources discussing sexuality in SpongeBob

Ren_Höek#The_characters_and_homosexuality - In this case the Ren and Stimpy characters were outed as gay by the creator in 1997

Unfortunately some of these articles are entirely plotsummary, and the Dennis material was the only secondary source material in the article. Unlike FA-class cartoon articles like The Simpsons and its daughter articles, in many cases academic sources for these subjects seem to be sparse. Based on that, I personally do not believe that the Dennis theory would be "fringe" as there is no wide body of research, or opposing viewpoints (in the manner of round earth vs. flat earth) that could make the Dennis theory too "fringe" to include.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One article by an unknown person - and counterpoints - on a very fringe idea, even if it is a peer reviewed journal, is way too UNDUE to include in these articles. If it was adding to existing larger discussion (by several other authors) to the issue, then maybe yes. Now, if this was a well-known expert on that field, (like if it was Roger Ebert discussing an aspect of a film), that would be different. This is classic fringe application. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The guys from the RS noticeboard examined Dennis's credentials.

"A quick Google search suggests that Jeffery P. Dennis is "Assistant Professor of sociology at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton" (here), so it is probably academic enough. As to whether this article needs referencing in cartoon wiki pages, that is another issue, though I'd say that Dennis's views are probably minority ones, and therefore of dubious relevance. AndyTheGrump"

"He may be at Lakeland College in Sheboygan, Wisconsin now. He's the author of We Boys Together: Teenagers in Love Before Girl-craziness and Queering Teen Culture: All-American Boys And Same-Sex Desire in Film And Television, both from reputable publishers; so he's interested in this field of academic study, and his opinions should not be dismissed out of hand. --Orange Mike"

Goodman himself says on page 1: "Dr. Dennis, as I have noted, holds several advanced degrees and is certainly no slouch."

He wrote:

We Boys Together: Teenagers in Love Before Girl-Craziness published by Vanderbilt University Press in 2007

Queering Teen Culture: All-American Boys and Same-sex Desire in Film and Television by Psychology Press in 2006

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I did not know it was in Smurfette. In that article it should be removed because Undue. However, I feel that Dennis's works should be included in SpongeBob andRen_Höek#The_characters_and_homosexuality because Dennis is not alone in those opinions. JDDJS (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The source may well be reliable ... but reliability is only one of several policies and guidelines that impact inclusion. WP:Undue weight is another. I think any speculation as to a cartoon character's sexuality is irrelevant unless that sexuality forms a part of cartoon's plot (as is the case, for example, with Big Gay Al of South Park). Mentioning what is essentially speculation it gives that speculation Undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:Undue weight is the reason why this post was made, since the RS noticeboard is not designed for discussing undue weight.

However Masem argued that the Dennis source could be given more importance to be included if "Now, if this was a well-known expert on that field, (like if it was Roger Ebert discussing an aspect of a film), that would be different. This is classic fringe application." - This is why I posted all of the credential information, so that readers can decide whether his credentials help establish the need for more weight for his positions

Also Spongebob and Ren and Stimpy (NOT adult party cartoon), to my knowledge, do not directly acknowledge homosexuality in their plots either.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I could not find any mention of Daria Morgendorffer in the Dennis article. JDDJS (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, she's there. Lemme get the page number and quote. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

She's at page 138 (7/10 of the EBSCOHost PDF) - It has several paragraphs devoted to Daria, beginning with "MTV has been at the cutting edge of gay inclusion in series like The Real World, but its animated toon Daria (1996-2001) is equally aggressive in asserting that same-sex desire does not exist,[...]" - This is in the middle paragraph of the EBSCOHost PDF page. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the link I added incomplete? (the other link was asking me to pay) JDDJS (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a different document altogether. The one you linked to is "Queertoons." from the Journal on Media Culture. - A different essay from the same author. - Do you have access to EBSCOHost? If not, I can e-mail the PDF to you if you want. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an account. Please just email it to me. JDDJS (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't send attachments via the Wikipedia e-mailing system. Do you want to e-mail me first, or do you want me to e-mail you first? Or is there a particular e-mail address you want me to send the document to? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Article e-mailed WhisperToMe (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As with all Fringe theories, a lot depends on what the specific topic of the article is... I could see mentioning various opinions (including Dennis's opinion) in an article on Sex and sexuality in Cartoons (where his opinion is directly relevant to the topic)... but I don't think we should mention it in the various main articles about the cartoons or the characters themselves. Its sort of like how you can mention conspiracy theories in the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but omit them in the main article on 9/11. Blueboar (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#LGBT_and_cartoons I made an inquiry regarding where the best place would be to add content relating to Dennis's thesis as a whole. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine to me to create the Sex and sexuality in Cartoons to add Dennis's (and others) opinions to. Another possibility is to create Dennis his own article and his opinions there, but I'm not so sure about that. JDDJS (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I posted the first idea to the LGBT thread I referred to earlier. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

LGBT themes in American mainstream comics and Moral panic are also possible target articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar: 9/11 conspiracy theories are included in the main article on 9/11 (much to my chagrin). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) A lone semiotician is a fringe theorist until he can manage to convince people outside his field. Maybe there's some call for an article discussing the notion (and it would contain a lot of people saying that it's all balderdash) but there's no reason to give these academic fantasies any space in these articles. Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Based on what I've seen of his writing, Dennis is just as likely to publish a paper with an opinion that JFK and Lyndon B. Johnson were gay lovers. After all, there's no evidence to the contrary, right? They didn't have cameras on them 24/7, so you can't be 100% sure they weren't! (That's basically his type of argument for all these characters.) So why not add this to the JFK page? If Dennis writes and publishes it, it should be on the Wiki page, right? If no one has written articles that JFK wasn't gay, then giving Dennis his own section isn't undue weight, not until lots of people start publishing papers saying he wasn't. (That's basically WhisperToMe's argument for keeping Dennis) Judgeking (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not an equivalent argument, because LBJ and JFK have topics that have a lot of scholarship regarding many aspects of their lives and political careers. A lone theory "they are gay" certainly would be "fringe" for those figures. If dead politicians would be equated to cartoons, JFK and LBJ are like The Simpsons (a cartoon article with plenty of research, and fleshed out to an FA point) except moreso. Many of these articles, Judgeking, are of cartoon characters that have very little scholarship about them. They would be like... a minor, dead politician who is notable enough to have an article, but one can't find very much on EBSCOHost or any other collections of scholarly journals. My argument for keeping Dennis was essentially "that's all we have for this particular character, and it's better to have some kind of scholarship on this character than none at all"

Speaking of these articles, all of the Scooby Doo ones ought to be merged into List of Scooby Doo characters - Right now there's no secondary material on any of these characters; they would only be restored if it turns out that secondary source material exists for any of those characters

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be people within his field? Wikipedia:Fringe#Reliable_sources says (with my underlining) "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."

"but there's no reason to give these academic fantasies any space in these articles" - Even if this is a "fringe theory," there still would be reason to give content from the article space in certain articles Wikipedia:Fringe#Reliable_sources says (my underlining) "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One could write some article on his work if you can find other people discussing it and ascribing some importance to it, and I would not count a passing reference to it as being nonsensical as ascribing importance. More germane here is WP:UNDUE: since this is a fringe theory it shouldn't be given weight by sprinkling mention of it everywhere. Mangoe (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

By "References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory" I mean the four page Martin Goodman article of Animation World Network "Deconstruction Zone — Part 2." The article title says "part 2" - but the link is to page one of the four page article. The Goodman article is not "a passing reference" to the Dennis article. The entire Goodman article is a response to the Dennis article. The article contains responses to several of Dennis's theories on individual characters. Goodman has a favorable response to the Dennis comments on Spongebob and Pinky and the Brain (Goodman doesn't elaborate much on those), but Goodman has extensive critiques of several of Dennis's specific points on certain characters.

"since this is a fringe theory it shouldn't be given weight by sprinkling mention of it everywhere." - Actually this is talking about many theories. Look at the proposed diffs. All of the diffs reflect different specific opinions on specific characters. His overall thesis is not in these proposed diffs; only his specific comments on specific characters. Even if you say "his thesis is a fringe theory," the issue at stake is his specific comments on specific characters, and not his overall thesis.

Now, you can argue that Dennis's comments on specific characters do reflect fringe theories in relation to those characters. One has to establish what the mainstream view is on each particular character.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've weighed in on this topic before, and I'm glad to see that most parties here seem to agree with precisely the positions I staked out a year or so ago. If it were up to me, I would not go out of my way to try to find a place to include this content. If the topic of particular character's sexuality or their opinions toward homosexuality are discussed by others, then maybe. However, the notion that a cartoon character might be gay should not suddenly un-fringe the theory that any cartoon character is gay. Croctotheface (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Daria_Morgendorffer#Daria_and_her_attitude_towards_homosexuality is the thread where Croc and I had discussed the issue in relation to one article. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

the topic here is, as the section title indicates, "cartoon sexuality". If we decide that such an article passes the notability threshold, it can exist and dicuss gay cartoon characters all it wants. Until there is such an article, would people please refrain from spamming other articles with such stuff. The people who want to discuss this should stick their neck out and create the article. The people who think it isn't notable can then AFD that article. --dab (𒁳) 08:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The text that I posted to those articles were all statements specifically about his opinions on that particular cartoon character, and not about his overall thesis. Some of those statements were "This character is written as gay" and some were "some people think this character is gay, but I believe he isn't" - For Smurfette he said "This character was introduced so people don't think the others are gay" - For Daria he said "this character has a negative attitude towards homosexual attraction"

I agree that, in order to talk about his overall thesis, it would have to be in a "cartoon sexuality" article

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, so far, it seems like only you and TheRealFennShysa are for keeping these sections. As you said, your argument regarding this sexuality is "that's all we have for this particular character, and it's better to have some kind of scholarship on this character than none at all". I disagree, I think it's better to have nothing, and it seems that most agree. Judgeking (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE says "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." - So you could say the editors above believe that the comments from Dennis that do "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" are fringe, but do all of the proposed diffs above "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field"? Do all of the involved articles have secondary sources establishing the mainstream viewpoints?

Remember that Dennis said in his essay that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay. If the mainstream viewpoint is that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay, then Dennis's conclusion is not a fringe theory.

And in order to have a mainstream viewpoint, you have to have a body of sources establishing that viewpoint. It's not just a matter of "something or nothing," it's a matter of balancing sources, the very concept of undue. Wikipedia articles on fictional characters are formed by secondary analysis, not by primary source plot information. Some of the cartoons should have secondary sources that refer to X character having a girlfriend, or Y character being invented to make money for the company (examples of arguments that could be the "mainstream view" in relation to the viewpoints Dennis stated)

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, it's not a "fringe theory", it's just WP:UNDUE, ok? Please stop adding random homosexual tangents to articles that have nothing to do with sexuality.

Please read your own statement, "Dennis said in his essay that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay. If the mainstream viewpoint is that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay, then Dennis's conclusion is not a fringe theory." Do you see the problem? If not, I probably cannot help you, but see WP:ENC. --dab (𒁳) 23:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"WhisperToMe, it's not a "fringe theory", it's just WP:UNDUE, ok? " - So you agree that undue is the issue, and disagree that fringe is an issue - Keep in mind several posters above said that it was "fringe," so I feel justified in arguing that it is not "fringe." - While posters can come to a consensus "for Scooby doo, sexuality does not have enough weight and shouldn't be mentioned," I feel justified in using the same example to say "this is when something is not a fringe theory" - Then the posters can go back and use the fringe argument wherever they feel it's appropriate.

"Please stop adding random homosexual tangents to articles that have nothing to do with sexuality." Sexuality can have relevance for cartoon characters. You can say that it does not have enough relevance for some or most of these articles; just directly say so; but it is often not possible to make a blanket statement for a variety of articles.

The posters at the RS noticeboard concluded that "UNDUE" is an article-by-article consideration Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Cartoon_Sexuality (last four posts)

If the above posters agree it is undue for most of these articles, fine. That's why this noticeboard thread was started.

I understand and accept WP:ENC. I do not require any assistance in understanding WP:ENC. Thank you.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

excellent. Then please take discussions of the sexuality of Scooby-Doo to google groups in the future, problem solved. If you think cartoon sexuality is an encyclopedic topic, you can still come back and create that article whenever you like. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I do plan to create the cartoons and sexuality article. I have a page on my userspace that I will use to write a draft, and then I'll show the draft to members of the Animation Wikiproject and maybe a few others

On another note, I found something interesting from another article:

Sigesmund, B.J. "The Inside Dope." Newsweek. June 14, 2002.

From the preview:

"Viewers raised on the program came to believe--especially as they grew a little older--that Fred and Daphne were doing more than just looking for clues when they'd go off together on their own. Fans also assumed that brainy, no-nonsense Velma harbored a few romantic feelings for Daphne herself."

There's also this from another article:

"Are hidden meanings present in the 'Scooby-Doo'movie?, Filmmakers and cast members say some hints are there, but won't be understood by children." Philadelphia Inquirer. June 20, 2002. D10 Features Magazine.

From the preview: "Among the rest of the Scooby-Doo gang, there is speculation that Velma - the brains of the operation - is a lesbian, and Fred and Daphne, the beefcake and[...]"

So, I'll see if I can find more articles about these rumors. Hopefully we'll have another good example of when rumors about sexuality (of any sort) should be included in an article about a cartoon character for future reference.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my point from above, I would oppose citing the original fringe article anywhere. We shouldn't make an affirmative effort to construct something that allows us to pretend that a fringe theory has enough context to be presented in the encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The papers being discussed sound like good potential additions to the article on slash fiction. --Malkinann (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If, as stated, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" then it would be interesting to know what the prevailing or mainstream view is on this topic. Presumably there are multiple reliable sources documenting it? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any other response, let me propose an answer. If there is no other published work on this topic, then perhaps Dennis is the mainstream? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kurtan

Kurtan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Essentially, everything this user does is an advert for C. Johan Masreliez. I suggest removing all of his edits, but would appreciate some help with others in monitoring this situation. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem. jps (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at his contributions and the statement "Everything this user does..." is not justified. In fact he remarks on his talk-page that he is "in two minds about the notability" of Masreliez. Xanthoxyl ^< 09:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a smokescreen regarding earlier AfDs. He seems to waffle between inclusion of the BLP for promotional purposes and exclusion of the article based on fear of other editors including criticism in a hypothetical article. jps (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The accused: Waffle!? smokescreen? promotional? Pure biassed guesses! It is so simple that instead of finding all the citings that I suspected needed for the cosmology article, I came across his mainstream theorem, which opted for a notable BLP as can be seen here! The distinguished user jps should be aware of my also being a science apologist, save for a sceptic attitude to mainstream cosmology. He seems to be in need for help in his mainstream fix, yes. Kurtan (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This user has made several hundred edits dating back to 2006. As Xanthoxyl states, most of them do not appear to advertise Masreliez. Is it seriously proposed to revert them all. More to the point, what is the fringe theory to discuss here? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just had to revert a bunch of fringe claims. Every single edit this user has made since I posted here has been to promote this "independent researcher" who receives fewer citations and notice than Jack Sarfatti. The fringe theories are associated with C. Johan Msreliez: a fringe scientist who seems to be making hay from the unabashed inclusion of his ideas here in Wikipedia. Pioneer anomaly baloney, etc. Please help! jps (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The accused: Yes, a dozen I have checked. The distinguished user jps keeps reverting edits that I had recently restored, destroying connections in the articles. A complete viable new cosmos model makes predictions and connects in several ways to other phenomena . There is nothing promoting about it. I am firmly convinced that they are speculative, but appropriate in the context and far from fringe. The red-linkings to the Masreliez BLP, are due blue, when I get some time off from this kind of time-consuming pastime. I could of course for the time being stop restoring them again, until the BLP has passed its initiation rite. J C Masreliez has nothing to do with my unabashed inclusions. I have an education in contemporary astrophysics on top of old Alfvén influence and find Masreliez' ideas worthy of attention. His cosmology model may be speculative and heretic, nevertheless a full non-standard cosmology, a page where it should be worth mentioning, like I tried here. And "boloney" ? Does that include Crum375, who initiated the New cosmology section, suggesting a solution to the anomaly? /Kurtan (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The theory is his "expanding cosmos theory", and it certainly seems fringe. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's recent edits like this [18] which have been made periodically to advertise the long deleted article Scale Expanding Cosmos that seem to be the problem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scale Expanding Cosmos and the simultaneously deleted article Johan Masreliez. The article on the theorem presumably conatins content from the deleted BLP. Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) So just to get things straight then. "Expanding cosmos theory" is the fringe theory and "Masreliez’s theorem" is mainstream if possibly not notable? Which are we supposed to be discussing here, and why? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing the possibility of coatracking which I think has been demonstrated fairly well in this thread. jps (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Aliens

I wouldn't have thought of looking at this, but now I have, I'm wondering of some the the descriptions need cleaning up to make them less pov. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This makes me wonder if we need to sit down and consider our use of the term "documentary". There is a sliding scale between trashy and entertainment-oriented documentaries involving "dramatizations" and the like, and pure works of speculative fiction. People tend to point to imdb. Well, according to imdb.com, The Eternal Jew is a documentary. If that is so, I am sure we can also call every piece of propaganda, mockumentary, and fantasy a "documentary" as long it has clipart with voiceovers, even if nobody, not even the producers, for a minute would believe the things asserted. Including but not limited to Ancient Aliens, The Burning Times, What the Bleep Do We Know!?, The Blair Witch Project, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed or Zeitgeist: The Movie. Or we could decide to use the term "documentary" more narrowly, and more meaningfully, restricting it to works that actually try to document something in good faith. --dab (𒁳) 14:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think people just copy the sensational "in universe" descriptions supplied by the shows. I find it's an ongoing problem with articles about pseudoscience/pseudohistory programs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I must ask why there are "pseudoscience/pseudohistory programs" in the first place? I mean it was fresh with The War of the Worlds (radio drama), but that was a lifetime ago. Today we are so steeped in fantasy that this sort of thing doesn't raise any eyebrows any more, so why do they bother? Are they playing to the "stupid 10%" demographics? Or is it "ironic" or something?--dab (𒁳) 14:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab, I sympathize with your frustration, however I think pasting the term "purports to be a documentary" into articles about docs dealing in sensationalized fringy content will likely lead to needless conflict. I'm not talking about films like The Eternal Jew and others that have wide support for such a label. I refer instead to examples such as TV docs dealing in sensationalized speculation. Although many people think documentary means "strictly nonfiction" (and tend to confuse documentaries with cinema verite) it really only is a genre and style, like comedy or drama. Better the article lead should describe "what the documentaries purport to document", IMO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in here as a major editor to Ancient Aliens article which now IMO reads more biased than ever, now in a way that it appears the writers think everything in there is complete BS and it reflects in the wording. You guys say it was too POV toward the notion that this stuff could be true, I think now it's too POV against it. It IS a documentary as it records a "real" set of theories backed up by the work or investigators - weather those people are real scientists using real science and not complete nut jobs is a matter of opinion. They get bashed because their ideas conflict with what mainstream science accepts because they can't prove any of it, but just goes to show you how closed-minded society is.

I have to laugh at the fact that anytime anyone brings up an alternate theory or belief that conflicts what is written in the bible, torah or koran, or even "The Complete History of the World", about the origin of mankind people get all pissed off and say "PSEUDOHISTORY! PSEUDOSCIENCE! COMPLETE F'ING BS!" FYI, a lot of these Ancient Astronaut theories were spawned from these same religious texts as well but of course because the old Sunday preacher says this is how the world was made, it must all be rock solid true and no one can tell you otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a incense burning, crystal skull worshiping weirdo, I look at all this with equal skepticism too, so I'm not here to defend ancient astronaut theories, or say any of it is true, but I ask that people approach the concepts and others like it with an open mind and consider the possibility instead of blowing it off completely. Sorry, I know that's too much to ask for but I that's my wish. Regardless, the article should also reflect this, and as it stands since the great cleansing it's not. Truth is, no one knows where we came from, or how and why ancient civilizations did what they did, we can only speculate, and this stuff is just another set of speculations that's out there to take as you will.

I also understand perfectly well that any reason for a TV show like this is made is to make money - right now with 2012 coming around, and the notions that the world might end or, ETs are coming to save the Earth, is all fueling the interest in this area right now, so the TV show was made to cash in on that trend - it may be "War of the Worlds - outdated" to some people like Dougweller, but crawl out from your hole you'll see interest is back on such things. It may be stupid to you but some take it seriously. I just ask before you trounce on this article (well it's kind of too late for this one) but others you at least try to respect the integrity of it before you go rewording things. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize using breathless prose such as, "mysterious underground places that may have been extraterrestrial lairs, such as a secret cave in Ecuador which may hold metallic books inscribed with alien knowledge" make this stuff sound cool and exciting, but this is after all an encyclopedia. Seriously, have you read WP:FRINGE? It kind of goes against your "approach it all with an open mind" policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So lets make it boring as hell, right? Cyberia23 (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

hah, I salute you for "approaching the concepts and others like it with an open mind and consider the possibility instead of blowing it off completely". Perhaps you could pop over to Peloponnesian War and give the sadly under-represented sword-skeleton theory a fair representation without passing judgement. --dab (𒁳) 22:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I said that was probably too much to ask for - Should have asked for world peace too while I'm at it. Cyberia23 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Crawl out of my hole? And a Merry Christmas to you too, Cyberia23. I'm all too well aware of the interest in such nonsense, it's never gone away as evinced by book sales by Dan Brown and other writers of fabulous tales about supposed history. And no, we shouldn't be in the business of making stuff like this look exciting and appealing. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow Doug, complete and total nonsense all proven to be BS because you say so, yep I just take your word since you apparently know everything. Thanks for setting me straight. I just said the article, no matter what you think of the content, shouldn't be sterilized and mundane, and leaning toward negative bias, I didn't say it had to be a Las Vegas casino sign with flashing lights. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

and merry Christmas from me, too. In my opinion, the real world is quite intriguing enough, and doesn't really profit from being made "more exciting" by cheap journalism. I prefer good honest fantasy any day over pathetic attempts to portray made up stuff as "non-fiction" by phrasing the entire thing in the potential mood ("may have been extraterrestrial lairs ... may hold metallic books inscribed with alien knowledge"). --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the entries have just been edited to suggest that the claims aren't fantasy. This may just be ignorance of the subject matter, but as an encyclopedic article we can't be stating as fact what is either clear fantasy or disputed. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed. It seems there is a certain amount of kayfabe that fans of such shows want our articles to reflect, but I don't think episode descriptions should be used to make an end run around WP:FRINGE or WP:NPOV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The OED defines "documentary" in this context as "Factual, realistic; applied esp. to a film or literary work, etc., based on real events or circumstances, and intended primarily for instruction or record purposes." Where a program is based upon speculation or WP:FRINGE claims rather than solid facts, I think we would be on solid ground in either (i) leaving out the word "documentary" altogether, or (ii) describing it along the lines of a "speculative documentary-format program" or similar. If the content differs from the solidly factual, then our description should reflect this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also question Ancient Aliens passing off Erich von Däniken's claims as "research" -- the man is a proven fraud. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpretive science

There are many problems with this article, which seems to be a disjointed and free-wheeling essay involving WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, The term originates in sociology, where it has a precise meaning; however, the creator of the page, Terra Novus (talk · contribs), has applied it elsewhere in the physical and biological sciences without the term itself being used in this way in any WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You claim that there are many problems with this article. If you could clearly point out one issue I would be interested in knowing it so that I can fix it. I recently put this article up for independent peer review to highlight anything that could be adjusted, and I followed the resulting suggestions. My goal is to improve this article and I hope that the other editors involved in the Sociology topic are committed to this as well.--Novus Orator 08:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Without proper accounts in secondary sources of its claimed application to the physical and biological sciences or any explanation of its use in sociology, the article seems to have very little retrievable content. It looks like what could be found in a blog not in an encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, your failure to provide specific examples is hamstringing your reasoning. I suggest you help by improving this article's perceived issues instead of wasting time using vague generalizations.--Novus Orator 08:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has major problems with cites not supporting article text, with synthesis of sources, and with the quote farm fleshing out one section. The article is not fringe. Binksternet (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

the article is not "fringe", it is just extremely bad. It should be either fixed, merged or deleted. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this ought to be at WP:NORN The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits of the user who created the article have already been discussed several times on this noticeboard. It's very hard to imagine any useful discussion of the article's content, whatever that might be, or if there is even the remotest prospect that it could be rescued. This noticeboard has the advantage that is watched by plenty of experienced editors skilled in assessing articles like this (e.g. Dbachmann, Dougweller, Itsmejudith, etc). Mathsci (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll watch it. I'll be looking for much better sourcing and whether it is notable. The "interpretive" approach in social science is entirely mainstream; the extension to the natural sciences would more commonly be described as "social constructionism", so it remains to be seen how many people are actively working with this specific idea. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The entire thing is a extension of Terra Novus (talk · contribs) creationist POV pushing Let me add wikilinks to the statement from the FAQ on th talk page to make it more clear what i am reading " "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." Ironically several people (including himself) thought he had topic ban on the subject but he was not there was support at the last ANI thread but was never formally implimented. He apparently thought he was not able to comment on the topic and thus created this article to attack conventional science. The term itself is sometimes used to refer to Qualitative research. This isnt a "fringe theory" its actual term he has totally redefined to suit his purposes. Its really a shame. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like he's on his own and the article will be merged. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ResidentAnthropologist, however, has meanwhile started an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpretive science. Why start an AfD when a merge discussion is in progress? Mathsci (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles redux

We discussed this recently: [19]. A WP:SPA has rewritten the lead, and has stated on the talk page that the article "cannot be written by the public, nor should it.". Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose some of the new lead could be retained, were it in coherent English. Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Along with the SPA who seems to be WP:NOTHERE, there's also an owner or two dedicated to maintaining the article as is: heavily sourced to the "Foundation for Inner Peace". Given some objective secondary sources to draw from, this article could be improved, but I'm not really up for a battle. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese martial arts

Just ran across this,

Wang Te Yuan of Szechwan province was young & powerful [...] BaGuaZhang instructor Fu Chen Sung stepped forward to fight Wang. The two fought evenly for ten rounds; then Wang charged in. “Like a matador,” Fu used the technique, “Old Buddha Puts On His Coat” to redirect Wang’s momentum and throw Wang to the ground.

Please help check it out, plus Wudang chuan, and generally everything by TommyKirchhoff (talk · contribs). --dab (𒁳) 21:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing fringe about the passage above, and it's cited to a woo-free book written/edited by three well-respected CMA practitioners. It could be rewritten to have a more encyclopedic tone however. And while haven't done a comprehensive check of TommyKirchhoff's edits, what bits I've seen so far look more like trimming away fringe/folklore in favor of serious history than the other way around. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Tone aside, the information comes from a valid source. And one has to remember that not all martial arts techniques have been mentioned in print or in English for that matter.

Dab, could you please be more specific regarding his edits on Wudang Chuan and other pages? What exactly is fringe? As Ergative has noted, he is simply trying to demythologize martial arts history. The information he has argued for on the Wudang Chuan talk page agrees with what I have read in various scholarly books and research papers. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not doubt good faith on the part of this editor. But the quality of his edits leaves much to be desired.

Does it not strike you as odd at all that the entire internet has never heard of an "Old Buddha Puts On His Coat" technique? This is a claim made in Fu Zhen Song's Dragon Bagua Zhang (Blue Snake Books, 2010) and nowhere else. This book is full of assertions, no doubt by authors who know what they are talking about, but it cites no literature whatsoever. It might as well be the first book about Chinese martial arts ever written, as it isn't aware of anything else.

as for Wudang chuan, the article has always been dodgy, and I am sure the editor has been trying to help.[20] It is still full of original synthesis, personal comments and hearsay evidence based on random websites. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dab's edits create inaccuracies worse that what he considers my "personal comments." To disregard an entire book based on the seeming non-existence of a technique Dab could not find "on the internet" is dubious and ridiculous. Seems the guy has an axe to grind with me, even though I'm using hard-nosed research and genuine expertise in this subject. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Armenia

This article is once again being butchered by a patriot. Experience says it's probably Ararat arev again, but who knows. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

90 Minutes in Heaven

plus associated articles, Don Piper and Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven.--Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm The Cleaner. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Woah, that article is/was bad. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre denial

The article suffers from a large amount of POV issues, over half of the article are sourced directly from Japanese denialists of the Nanking Massacre such Shūdō Higashinakano (who was found to have defamed a witness of the massacre). In particular, there is a dispute over the inclusion of a gallery of photos [21] that is used to air Higashinakano's views. My concern is where the article adheres to WP:FRINGE, or provide undue weight to Higashinakano et al.--PCPP (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My language skills are non-existent in Japanese and Chinese, so I have been very limited in my ability to help out at that article. I think it would be very good to have someone familiar with the subject change it from being a platform for Higashinakano's views to being a neutral presentation of expert opinions from mainstream and significant minority sources, with less emphasis on minority opinions. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Franklin D. Roosevelt

My comment on this article would be that I disagree with the fact that Roosevelt knew nothing about the Pearl Harbor attacks. I believe that he instigated them so that the U.S. would have to get into the war. People may get outraged at this, but I have sources to back it up. Here are some of them: Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett; World War II: The rest of the story and how it affects you today by Richard Maybury; whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/.../pearl.html - www.nypress.com/article-4183-fdr-knew-pearl-harbor-was-coming.html - www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm Comments are welcome, but the facts are there. 69.247.188.19 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Pure fringe - covered more than adequately in the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate article. Ravensfire (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new. Check out Ravensfire's link. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say there is a good bit of evidence pointing to the fact that he knew in that article! Furthermore, I have listed other sources that back it up. Another is The Pearl Harbor Myth:Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victor. There is a good bit of evidence for both sides, and most people, presumably you included, believe what has been taught for years, that there was no prior knowledge. I have studied both sides, however, and find that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the fact that he knew about the attacks beforehand. You can't argue with government documents or statements by Navy officers from the time that were involved. Personalskeptic (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness you're here to save us from the mistakes in our early learning! We were completely unable to get beyond that without your timely hand up.<sarcasm/> Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa dude, aren't you the nice guy. Just trying to state some evidence, that's all. Never could've guessed you were being sarcastic. Personalskeptic (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You said about me, "presumably you included", but you presumed wrong.

If you want to help the Pearl Harbor debate article improve (and it could use some help), jump in with your suggestions at Talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate. Say 'hi' to Trekphiler who is the resident expert. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for assuming wrong. I also apologize for my rash comment a moment ago. I have been getting some flack from others, so it just got the best of me. I do respect others opinions, and I just want to make mine known, that's all. Personalskeptic (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No sweat! Just another day here at Wikipedia. :P

Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha. BTW, it appears that Trekphiler is pretty set in his opinions on the matter, lol. :\

No, he's open to new information, but I bet you do not have information that is new to him. He's seen quite a lot of the debate writings, from scholarly ones you haven't listed to popular books you are referring to. People regularly arrive at that page after reading Stinnett and getting mad, and Trekphiler has his sheaf of better-sourced rebuttals at the ready. Here in his adopted home town of Oakland, Stinnett is better known for his superb photographs of The Play. Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, well, I try lol. I'm still researching to find new things, but he seems to know quite a bit about it. I'm trying to find not so well known material, but we'll see. He seems like he would pone me at the moment, lol. Personalskeptic (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Say 'hi' to Trekphiler who is the resident expert." Why thank you. :D

"BTW, it appears that Trekphiler is pretty set in his opinions on the matter, lol. :\" I've followed the evidence, & I've yet to see anything contrary that's persuasive. I've also got a pretty good nose for bull, & it turns out, when I smell it, people who know more about it than me prove me right. (The review of Stinnett, frex, calls a lot of it pure invention & outright distortion. And Toland just felt wrong... You'd be persuaded by both, if you didn't know better.)

"No, he's open to new information, but I bet you do not have information that is new to him." Right on the first, probably also the second. (I'm not as current as I used to be, tho. :( )

"I'm trying to find not so well known material" Do yourself a favor. Read Prange's Verdict. It is the last word (or should be). Until we uncover the buried archives revealling FDR, Marshall, Stark, & McCollum were all secret Nazis. ;p

I am always, but always, willing to try to open the minds of those clouded by junk. Isaac Asimov once called those promoting ignorance something like "armies of darkness", & I thought it was a great phrase. He vowed to stand up to it, & I agreed. It's also probably the only thing I can claim in common :( with Isaac: intellectual honesty. I don't thrill to criticism, :( but the evidence is the evidence, & if I'm going to call myself a scientist, I've got to see it as it is. I'd like to think Isaac would appreciate it. (BTW, I never actually met the man, just knew him through his essays, & that saddens me quite a bit. :( :( :( ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn#Mayan Taurat/Talmud Hypothesis - where I'm being used as a source!

This is funny. I've removed it once, it's been restored - and if you look at the phrase "critics such as 7 have argued " you'll see a link which doesn't work but is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller%7CDougweller". How nice to be used as a source. I'll leave this for a little while for amusement's sake. Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Pan African Studies

Fringe journal, probably notable enough for its article, maybe needs a note saying published by an unaccredited institution. And can the article claim it's peer reviewed? Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a smaller Journal, but reviewing its' Editorial Board and Where its editors are affiliated I wouldn't doubt its Peer reviewed quality. Its not an A-list Journal but its not fringe either. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was led astray by it's rather odd publisher. I'd be hesitant about using any sources published by the unaccredited Amen-Ra Theological Seminary however. I note that at the moment the article is basically copyvio. And shouldn't it mention the publisher? Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

World Cat shows its by California Institute of Pan African Studies; SPARC (Organization) and Thomson Gale (a top academic publisher). Where is this "Amen-Ra Theological Seminary" coming from? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah found it Amen-Ra Theological Seminary, Hmm that is odd The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Many Theological Seminaries lack outside secular accreditation. Most seminaries are only accredited by denominational bodies like Presbyterian Church (USA)'s "Presbyts" which are only accredited by PCUSA. If its legit enough for its Journal to attract attention from Temple University and Lamar University i dont think its an issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the board of editors. But where I would have issues is in using its own publications. So seminaries can be self-accredited and give doctorate degrees? And anyone can set up a seminary I presume. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much any one can. The degree would not necessarily be good every where... outside of Church pastorships or other seminaries or bible colleges it would be worth very little. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Extinction of Illyrian languages

Resolved

Believe it or not, someone is arguing in this day and age that the Illyrian language may not be extinct [22]. In addition to making false claims of consensus, this person is spamming the talkpage with cherry-picked and misinterpreted sources. My view is that even if Albanian descends from Illyrian, which is possible, the two would in any case be considered separate languages, which would mean Illyrian is quite extinct. The analogy is similar to Latin and Italian. Even though Italian descends from Latin, Latin is still considered a dead language. Actually, quite a few people are fluent in Latin even today, in contrast to "Illyrian", about which we know next to nothing. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That text was added on September 2008 during a debate (in which none of us was involved) whether Albanian can be considered possible as a descendant of Illyrian, or modern form of Illyrian, in the end the Albanian language connection was put in the article. It has remained there unchallenged and stable for more than two years, while a few days ago it was removed claiming it a POV. I restored it while it was removed again by claiming it OR. While on talk page I brought what I think as WP:RS authors which back that claim and tried to explain that was a POV matter rather than a fringe theory. My idea is that there are two POV on that matter, both from respectable sources and they both should be presented in the article. We are here in wiki to collect data and present them here, not impose our opinions.

P.S.Let me notice that the analogy with Latin is a bit forced since Illyrian was not a written language and we have no clue how they spoke. Another best adapted analogy would be that of Celtic languages which today are still spoken in Ireland and Britain. Sure the existing form is very different from that of Roman times,pretty much the same difference would be between Illyrian and Albanian, if Albanian is the modern form of Illyrian. What is a consensus between academics is that we don't have sufficient data on Illyrian languages. It is a matter of personal perception, some called it extinct (while admitting they have no sufficient data) and some (also admitting there are no sufficient data) declaring it is not extinct since it exist in the modern form. There are more than respectable scholars who maintain both views and like I said, this is a matter of POV rather than fringe theories. Aigest (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

On the lighter side, its footnote #8, "Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Albaner - Brife, Hanover, 1705..." must be one of the most verbosely and baroquely incomprehensible footnotes I've ever seen. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

For the theory that modern Albanian is the modern form of ancient Illyrian to be fringe, we need to know that the mainstream view is explicitly that it isn't. Are there a few reliable sources for that? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no mainstream view on that, on the contrary, I would say that Illyrian - Albanian connection has a majority view from its first appearance as hypothesis in 18th century to nowadays. Remember that just I said above there are too few data from Illyrian language to make a proper evaluation, that's why other methods have been used (history, geography, archaeology, toponyms, Albanian language characteristics, loanwords, etc) see Mallory - Adams 1997 (two great scholars on Indoeuropean linguistics ) on the link I provided above. Aigest (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is why infoboxen are a bad idea, round bajillion? They are totally inadequate vehicles to express complex concepts.

• From memory, at any rate, it's roughly clear that Albanian likely descended from Illyrian or something like it, but we have absolutely no idea what. For some reason an extremely strengthened version of this has become a big meme in Albanian nationalist mythology (can't remember why?). No matter: whatever descendants Illyrian has or hasn't, it itself is unquestionably "dead" (like Latin), if not necessarily "extinct", which sort of implies it left no descendants (which it might well have done). I would prefer just to remove the stupid box altogether, but failing that labelling Illyrian as "dead" is totally fair, unlike the stupidly tendentious text currently fouling up the box. Best, Moreschi (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that by adding that most scholars consider Albanian, a descendant of Illyrian the infobox dispute would be solved.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. This is the problem with infoboxes. The key words are "Illyrian or something like it". We know basically nothing about Illyrian (see Thraco-Illyrian for an illustration of how little people agree), and therefore it's inaccurate to simply put in the box what you propose. The best solution is to scrap the box, or just call Illyrian dead, which it unquestionably is. Moreschi (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to put that in the box, but on a separate section with a summary on the lead.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And what do you propose for the box? Moreschi (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to summarize key facts about the article. At the moment there's nothing about either aspect of the dispute on the article itself, so the |extinct shouldn't even be part of the infobox. Incidentally a similar dispute is the Aquitanian-Basque connection. Many scholars consider the Aquitanian language an ancestor of Basque(which would mean that Aquitanian isn't extinct) and there's a section about that issue, which is summarized on the infobox.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I would propose "probably by the 6th century AD" for the Extinction field of the box, as is done in Dacian language (which may also be the ancestor of Albanian). That should address all the major concerns without being verbose and tendentious. Athenean (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)We should deal with the majority vs. minority views issues that exist. Dacian as an ancestor of Albanian is marginalized and a minor academic view more or less comparable with Basque, as part of the Vasconic substratum, unlike Illyrian and Aquitanian, which are the predominant views.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Marginalized" and "minor"? Not at all (outside Albanian circles, that is). Not interested in your OR. Athenean (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)It's not an estimation since most scholars who have studied with the Albanian language make the connection with the Illyrian language and not the Dacian one(summary of theories or the Encyclopedia of IE culture). Academically although the Illyrian theory is the predominant one, other theories exist but they are so marginalized that sources like Britannica don't even mention them They are descendants of the ancient Illyrians, who lived in central Europe and migrated southward to the territory of Albania at the beginning of the Bronze Age, about 2000 bce.. Btw Moreschi's edit [23] is a very good solution.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Put down the stick and slowly back from the horse. Athenean (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)I suggested that edit of Moreschi's, so why did you make that wp:horse edit?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was a shade unnecessary? Apology forthcoming? Moreschi (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A side remark. A few days ago, for completely unrelated reasons, I happened to rewrite [24] part of the BLP of Victor Friedman, a professor at the University of Chicago, who is an expert on Balkan linguistics. He has published in Albanian and wrote a book on the language in 2004. On his website various articles are accessible, including this one from 1988. [25] There he writes

The Albanians speak a language which is often claimed to be descended from Illyrian. Recent studies of the evidence of toponymy and vocabulary, however, indicate that Albanian may be descended from a Dacian or Thracian dialect which was being spoken in what is now eastern Serbia up to the time the Slavs crossed the Danube and invaded the Balkans (A.D. 550-630).

There's probably more recent stuff (the 2004 book is not easily accessible). It was just an accident that I happened to make those edits, but that is wikipedia for you. Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You saved the article so it was a good accident :). Btw he's citing Fine, who has summarized Georgiev's Dacian thesis. His 2004 work is probably why he was made a Member of the Academy of Arts and Sciences of Kosovo(so you can guess it's topic ;))--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:HORSE applies, because though Moreschi's edit resolved the dispute, ZjarriRrethues went on and on about how the Illyrian theory is the "predominant" one and had to have the last word, even though that is a) tendentious (as Mathsci's quote illustrates), b)largely irrelevant to the dispute, and c) after Moreschi's edit, moot. Athenean (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A dispute was resolved, so please don't continue a discussion only to make edits about how tendetious what I write is.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

St Ives, Cambridgeshire

Sorry if it is the wrong forum - i am new to this, but there are some strange statements in the "St Ives" article:

In section "Churches":

The only centre of True worship in St Ives is the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in Green Howe. There you will find a non-judgemental welcome and no plate passing! The Congregation numbers around 100 members of all ages. No one is turned away from their public meetings. You will often see their members knocking on doors around the St Ives area. They carry a simple message designed to stimulate interest in the bible. If you want to hear the truth about God's word and not have your 'ears tickled' then this is the place to go.

In section "Protection":

The town of Saint Ives in Cambridge is protected by the hidden force of Careless Army and has a hidden alliance with Germany and Russia. The Careless army is older than Saint Ives and is obsessed with power and money. No one would want to fight the powerful army, which is more than 100 times bigger than the British Army.

br Flo

It's not really "fringe", it's just vandalism or trolling. Any user may remove it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Books by Koenraad Elst

I see that we have articles on a number of books by the writer Koenraad Elst. He advocates a non-mainstream line on Indian history, chiming with certain themes in Indian nationalism, on the verge at least of extremism. I would not have thought that these books are notable in their own right. They received little or no scholarly attention. I'm thinking of merging them all back into the biography of Elst. Any views? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's either that or AfD. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't think most of them - or any - will pass WP:NBOOK, which seems like a pretty reasonable guideline. One or two might have got enough mainstream or scholarly attention so that the article could be more than just a simple "plot summary", but for the rest, merge away. AFD is a waste of time. Moreschi (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe

We have an IP editing this who is inserting details about someone's qualifications which are not only unsourced but irrelevant to the article (the IP seems a bit gung-ho on adding 'biologist' to articles) and although I'd appreciate a watch on this, I've noticed the section the IP edited is sourced only to the Institute of Creation Research, and I'm dubious about that being a good enough source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the IP's edits seem to indicate a COI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd missed that. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Le Secret des Vikings

Pseudohistorical book being used as a reference in a few articles [26] - I came across this when looking at the edits of an IP some of us will have noticed: [27] is an attempt to add Supery's ideas to an article. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does not even give the basic info when this book was published. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is because the article's creator removed it from our Vikings article and put it into a new article as he didn't think it had a place in the Vikings one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Secret des Vikings/ Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It should have been deleted. If renominated now I'm pretty sure it will get the axe.Griswaldo (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find sources for it either using my reliable sources search engine[28] or Google News[29]. Google News Archive[30] and Google Scholar[31] turn up a couple hits, but nothing really usable for our purposes, I don't think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A library card, that is all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Now being passionately defended by Ossegor (talk · contribs). Not sure what the agenda is, exactly, but seems pretty fun....Moreschi (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Aha: judging by this, it seems like the author himself has graced us with his presence, after having previously visited our francophone counterparts. Hmmm...Moreschi (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Le_Secret_des_Vikings_(2nd_nomination).Griswaldo (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant

Editor adding promotional edit about some unpublished minor fringe idea. Ignores messages on talk page, edit summaries. See also his userpage at User:Arkquest

Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. Please, good sir Arkquest, do not keep reverting without explaining yourself first, and read our policies on reliable sources, verifiability, and notability before putting this stuff in again (that's WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V). Moreschi (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Abir-Qesheth Hebrew Warrior Arts

Created by a now blocked puppet master, claims it " has an unbroken tradition from its roots as a fighting system of the warriors of ancient Israel.". Much of the same material is in Yehoshua Sofer (who does seem notable as a Jamaican Jewish musician). Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha, does anybody have an email address for the good people at Bullshido? This is setting off alarm bells all over the place. An ancient martial arts system miraculously preserved since biblical times in tiny fragments of the Jewish diaspora? Really? Really? It's actually been spammed elsewhere on the web with...interesting results (check out [32]).

At any rate, probably redirect this to the guy's biography, and cut his page down to what he's actually notable for, if anything. Moreschi (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no, it's on bullshido already. Check out the sensational action videos at [33] (scroll down a bit).

Sorry, I really shouldn't, but we've had BS martial arts stuff here before, and it never gets old, it really doesn't :) Moreschi (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

sigh, can you say Stav? --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, I just noted this and this. So now we keep articles about crappy martial arts hoaxes, but we delete the prime site notable for exposing them? Way to go Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

United States gravity control propulsion research

Why is the general category of General Relativity relevant to this fringe topic? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It shouldn't be in that category; this edit summary is accurate. Moreover, the article is mostly a synthesis of sources, with very few third-party reliable sources about the article topic. It is primarily an essay based on the extreme fringe views expressed in this section and this section. The article as it stands is a clear abuse of multiple citations in order to promote fringe. Tim Shuba (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This section seems to be a synthesis/soapboxing argument promoting a fringe view that antigravity technology is being suppressed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hagar (Bible)

I'd be grateful is some editors could have a look at this. I've got into a dispute with an editor who insists on replacing the longstanding assertion that Hagar is the (supposed) Biblical ancestor of Arabs. He claims that "Muslims" insist that he is the ancestor of Muslims. Of course this is true if you identify Muslims and Arabs, but as expresed it creates the absurd claim that all Muslims are descended from her. The claim that Arabs descend from her dates back at least to Josephus, so it is not a specifically Muslim claim. I provided a citation for this, which the editor argues against with reasoning that just perplexes me. Many other citations for this uncontroversial statement can be found. I previously had a weird debate about divorce on the Talk page, which was not resolved. I can't seem to communicate with this particular editor, so other input would be welcome. Paul B (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This really could use some more attention. I have no clue if we're dealing with wilful obtuseness, or wilful obtuseness with an agenda. Either way it's pretty baffling. Moreschi (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebionites

I have recently restored a template to the above article indicating that I believe it needs to be rewritten given the entirely undue weight the article gives to the theories of Robert Eisenman and James Tabor. Eisenman has been discussed on this page before, several of the surprisingly negative reviews of Tabor's work can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor. The article is currently awaiting mediation from the mediation committee. Two editors are contesting the reduction. In neither case do I see any particular indication from what they have presented that the theories do not qualify clearly as "Fringe" as per [{WP:FT]]. I would welcome any review of the article talk page and the above linked to page of sources by anyone who frequents this board, and a statement from them on the talk page of the article about whether they believe, under the circumstances, the placement of the template is valid. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The above description of the issue at hand is a textbook example of campaigning. Rather than wasting time on a biased collection of sources, I suggest looking at the article directly and judging for yourself. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would only point out that I believe the two editors who are supporting Eisenman and Tabor are the editors who have the greatest interest in the article, and that others, such as myself, have been basically waiting for the mediation to kick in before making alterations. One might see the indication of 3RR on the article on The Jesus Dynasty's talk page regarding the removal of a SPS as an indication as to how much effort is gone to by some to help ensure the material they want included is included. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you have still not cleaned up your biased request despite AN/I's clear instruction that you do so here. Ovadyah (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I did remove the offending material, although it is interesting to see that you yourself may once again be engaging in what seems to be a habit of yours, to distract people from the real concerns which you refuse to address by making unfounded statements elsewhere. If you can't abide by WP:TPG and actually address the legitimate concerns raised on the article talk page regarding the weasel words, is it really asking that much of you to cease to make distracting allegations elsewhere? John Carter (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Kamal Salibi

Argues that Hebrew Bible place names actually refer to places in Arabia. Heavy use of his blog. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to add that I just deleted this] from his article, added by one of our problem editors. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for trolling. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tahash

I don't know if this is fringe or not. Anyone know anything about 'tanash'? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Great googly-moogly. Before Robert Graves got dragged into it, this article was 99% smaller. Probably 99% more accurate. I'm highly inclined to wipe the thing and start over, as regardless of the OR involved the thing is painfully incoherent essay. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say that it was brought up at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Tahash. I see DGG likes it. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian script

Dacian script (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fringe topic (no indication to date that even a acholarly argument over its existence exists), currently at AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Classic Balkans nationalism, two accounts are trying to blow this out of proportion. One even templated me on my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this has a lot to do with the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia, which the guy is treating as his magic talisman which allows him to own any page with the remotest association with Dacia. I imagine this may soon turn into Wikiproject:Dacomania if we're not careful, although a lot of the members are almost certainly bona fide and not into fringe fantasy. It's the self-appointed leader I have my doubts about.--Folantin (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The book of Jasher

I'm not sure if this should be dealt with here or at a religious board, or both but I don't want to forum shop. This is a bit of a mess. We have:

Book of Jasher

Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher)

Book of Jasher (biblical references) which is virtually the same as:

Book of Jasher (biblical references)

Sefer haYashar which is sort of a list article.

However, this is a lost book and what is being used as sources for articles such as Shem where it's a major sources are considered to be forgeries. [34] You can search this book at Amazon.com but some people still claim there is a genuine copy, see this LDS book [35]. This website discusses the issues. It can be found at Wikisource [36]. You get books claiming other versions are a forgery, eg [37]. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion, there is Sefer haYashar (midrash), not to be confused with, it says, at least one of the above. The lead says " Among the various texts purporting to be the original "Book of Jasher", this is the version enjoying the widest acceptance, particularly among some members of the Latter-Day Saints.". 'Book of Jasher' appears a number of times in articles and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to which version is being referred to. 15:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any connection with a "fringe theory". A noticeboard for religious topics would be more correct. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this is fringe. But I DO agree that it does not merit so many articles. I also think that two articles may be warranted. The Midrash, Book of Yashar, is as I understand it a book that was authored (or put to paper) sometime in the seventeenth century, or maybe much earlier, but definitely post Babylonian Exile, perhaps even post Roman Empire period. My point is, this is a very different historical horizon than the context in which the book of Joshua was written. I am not sure whether a second article is warranted. It depends on how much content from reliable sources exists, I guess. But I understand the importance. For modern i.e. critical scholars, references in the Bible to books like the Book of Yashar are the functional equivalent of inline citations today. This is important because, critical historians argue, if God wrote the Hexateuch, or if Moses and Joshua wrote it based on personal experience including dictation from God, there would be no reference to other books. reference to other books, like the Book of Yashar, is evidence that the author of the Hexateuch was using sources - books that do not exist today but existed whenever the hexateuch was written. Critical historians take this as evidence that the hexateuch was written by men, not by God, and that it was written long after the events occured. This argument is NOT to be belittled. This argument is one, but an important, piece of a larger argument that inaugurated a real break in Western history, from people using the Hexateuch as a historically reliable source as to the events descibed therein to being a composite document that was composed at different times by different authors and which tells us more about the authors who wrote it than about Abraham or Noah or Moses. And THIS break was a really important moment in the emergence of modern, academic history. Orthodox Jews of course reject this reading, and must therefore provide competing explanations for the meaning of the phrase in he Hexateuch, so there is a lot at stake for Orthodox Jews (and I guess Christian fundamentalists as well). So this is why I think it is important. But is there enough content to justify an article on the Book of Yashar?

Offhand I propose that there be one article on the book of Yashar in Rabbinic literature, including the eponymous midrash, and that discussion of the significance of the Book of Yashar as it appears in the Hexateuch for modern historians be incorporated into the articles on Higher criticism or The documentary hypothesis; if it gets so long as to merit spinning off, fine, but I would guess that if any article got spun off, it would be an article about all books mentioned in the Hebrew Bible but that are not part of the Hebrew Bible, or something like that. If anyone thinkns this comment would be constructive on another page, they are welcome to copy it there. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it as possibly fringe because of the forgeries and LDS involvement, but I'd already put a link at Wikiproject Bible [38]. Shall we move this all to there? With links at other wikiprojects? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

I didn't know where to post this so that's why it's here. I'm sorry if I put it in the wrong place.

I think that the article about Jared Lee Loughner, the Tuscon AZ shooter of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people, along with 6 fatalities, should not be included in Wikipedia.

Though I agree that the shooting is a significant event, this individual is getting more than enough airtime from this shooting, which may be partially what he was looking for, and I don't believe he has done anything of value to have his own Wiki entry.

If the two of us were anywhere else but here, I'd say "ain't that the truth!" We don't feel it's right to give a criminal more attention, but this is an encyclopedia, and not just any encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a goal that no other encyclopedia has ever had. It aims to document the sum total of all human knowledge. If it's a notable event, good or bad, it gets documented here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not document every scrap of information out there at all. In fact we have several policies that limit what we document quite significantly. In this instance, there may be a WP:BLP1E concern in which case supporting the merge to 2011 Tucson shooting might be a good idea. But that discussion is better had at WP:BLPN than here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Cryptomechanics

I'm not even sure we should have this article - no hits in GBooks or Scholar, some web hits but some of those are about other subjects. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

None of the online sources cited appear to even mention "Cryptomechanics" -- meaning the article would appear to be pervasive WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptomechanics Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent African origin of modern humans

We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion as we have blanking of refs etc... Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert away, already under WP:BRD. "blanking of refs" isn't an issue when somebody goes and rewrites a long-standing well-developed article. --dab (𒁳) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

current status of research on Abiogenic petroleum origin

See here. It is claimed that a 2006 review of the field is outdated because of a 2008 paper and a 2009 letter to a journal. Please comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Quantum energy teleportation

Is this fringe? Drmies (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have received quite a lot of attention from the scientific media, so it at least appears to be notable. The sources do seem to be treating it as a serious hypothesis; not pseudoscientific. It doesn't appear to be distinctly ruled out by WP:FRINGE, although it is marginal. As it stands, the Wikipedia article does not mention the hypothetical nature of the subject, and it does not mention that it is (apparently) the product of a single individual; uncorroborated and untested. At the very least, this would need to be remedied in the article. Wildbear (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Kali Ray

New article, what struck me was "In her twenties, Kali Ray a "spontaneous kundalini experience” which lasted over twelve hours. In 1980, while teaching meditation to several students, Kali Ray experienced what is known in ancient yogic texts as kriyavatisiddhi: spontaneous movement manifested in a yogi who has awakened kundalini. " I guess there may be BLP issues as well. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Should go to AfD. Looks like it was created by the subject as promotional. I'm not seeing evidence of notability. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

However, there is the possibility that TriYoga, the style of yoga she is associated with, is an encyclopedic topic. In which case, the focus of the article should be on that style, and her bio should makeup only a small subsection of that topic. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See also: List of yoga schools. Apparently, one could make an argument for the notability of the bio and the school. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cow Urine

Can anyone review this article? I have doubt if its passes WP:RS and WP:N. --Neptune 123 (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Vertebral artery dissection

The significant mainstream idea is not being fairly represented in accordance with WP:FRINGE.

Proposal for Prognosis.

Deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection; 26 fatalities have been documented in the medical literature since 1934. There is likely under-reporting in the literature of the true incidence of death associated with VAD due to manipulation, although no reliable data on incidence is available.

I think this proposal is appropriately weighted to include at the end of Vertebral artery dissection#Prognosis. The relevant but stale discussion is at Talk:Vertebral artery dissection#Ernst-death once more.

The 2010 reference meets WP:MEDRS in that it's recent, secondary, and is a systematic review, published in IJCP. It carries all the authority of the editorial process of the IJCP, and it's not our place to introduce our our analysis of such a source - that's the job of the published literature. It is more relevant Chiropractic than VAD, but relevant nevertheless. It is true that Ernst is the leading researcher on chiropractic related topics, and it is equally true that some chiropractors have a problem with his conclusions. The difference is that Ernst is published in top-quality publications.

The 2010 Ernst specifically examines deaths associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM), while the 2007 review looks at all the adverse effects, so I don't think it adds nothing when it is apparently relevant to the topic. But even then, look at how the 2007 review is used: the review's results are "In the majority of cases, spinal manipulation was deemed to be the probable cause of the adverse effect", and the review is only used in the article to support "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" - in other words, there's nothing in the article drawn from Ernst's actual conclusions! Policy actually mandates the inclusion of the mainstream view per WP:WEIGHT. MEDRS simply sets standards for sources where there are multiple sources available. From a MEDRS perspective, the review shows that chiropractic has probably caused death, VAD being an important mechanism. WEIGHT is a subsection of NPOV, and it does not demand that every viewpoint is included. This applies especially in extreme or marginal views such as the proponents fringe view.

There is relationship between MEDRS & WEIGHT. The relevant section is Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. However, it does say all significant viewpoints, so the base guidance is that if a viewpoint is relevant and published by reliable sources, then it should be included. WP:WEIGHT guides us on how we treat the viewpoints of minorities, and how much prominence we give them (if any). Unless the argument is being made that Ernst's conclusions represent a minority viewpoint in the published, reliable literature, it needs to be fairly represented as the majority viewpoint. The fact is that his conclusions are not of huge relevance to VAD, but that is not what WEIGHT is about. As long as CSM is described as a cause or risk factor for VAD in the reliable literature, the article remains incomplete without mentioning it.

PMID 20642715 is a reference of extremely high quality, and it doesn't matter how often we opine on it. It's published by IJCP with all the authority of their editorial and peer review processes. That's the benchmark of quality here, not personal dislike, amateur analysis, or suggestions of bias of the author. It's not just WP:RS, but MEDRS that guarantees that, because of the quality of the publication process of IJCP, and stating otherwise doesn't make it so. The review has a stated methodology, and it's not up to us to suggest another inclusion criteria.

There is excessive weight for the fringe view while the conclusion of mainstream view is not being represented.

The following represents Ernst's 2007 conclusions: "Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation."[39]

Current fringe view at Traumatic.

Chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been linked to vertebral artery dissection (16–28% of cases in hospital-based studies). Although reports of the association are of weak to moderately strong quality, many of the reports have methodological flaws, and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities.

Personally, I believe the part "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" under Vertebral artery dissection#Traumatic gives insufficient weight to the majority viewpoint and excess weight to minority viewpoints.

Proposal for Traumatic.

Chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been linked to vertebral artery dissection (16–28% of cases in hospital-based studies). Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, can result in serious complications such as VAD followed by stroke. Reports of the association are of weak to moderately strong quality, and many of the reports have methodological flaws.

IMHO I think the proposal for Prognosis and the proposal for Traumatic both satisfy WEIGHT and FRINGE. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR ... can you please condense your question a bit. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam on the talkpage, and I really wish not to waste any more time on it. The current version makes it very clear that there is a controversy. The source in question ("Ernst-death") was left out on grounds of WP:WEIGHT, because it does not answer my vital question: whether it actually adds anything to the current content. It enumerates a relatively rare event (death due to chiropractic) and suggests that some of these deaths may have occurred as a result of vertebral artery dissection (which was first reported in 1978, and therefore all case reports prior to this can only be extrapolated). Nobody has been able to tell me if the prognosis of VAD due to chiropractic is worse than other forms. If not, the source is redundant. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The prognosis section in the VAD article should be specific to the prognosis for VAD. The additional reference (Ernst-death) that QG proposes to include under prognosis examines rare outcomes of death following upper cervical manipulation and only speculates about VAD as the cause. The Ernst-death reference does not examine VAD specifically, thus, adds nothing to the discussion of prognosis of VAD. Puhlaa (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the traumatic section proposal, I prefer how it currently exists. The section currently acknowledges, but does not give undue weight to the controversial association between upper cervical manipulation and VAD. The section also acknowledges, but does not give undue weight to the fact that causation is disputed. Thus, I think the article as it currently exists already satisfies NPOV, WEIGHT and FRINGE and does not need to be modified until additional research examining causation is available.Puhlaa (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, this proposal is for Prognosis. See Talk:Vertebral artery dissection#Ernst-death once more. This recent systematic review in accodance with WP:MEDRS should be included based on WEIGHT. "Deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection; 26 fatalities have been documented in the medical literature since 1934. There is likely under-reporting in the literature of the true incidence of death associated with VAD due to manipulation, although no reliable data on incidence is available. E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.

Griswaldo, the 2007 reviews's conclusion is not presented in the article in Traumatic. Rather, the fringe view "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" is included against WP:WEIGHT. To fix the problem, a summary of the conclusion can be included. I propose the following to replace the fringe view: "and spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, can result in serious complications such as VAD followed by stroke."Ernst E (July 2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755.

Jfdwolff, it is irrelevant whether the prognosis of VAD due to chiropractic is worse than other forms. The source is not redundant when death due to chiropractic neck manipulation from a systematic review is being left out against MEDRS and WEIGHT.

Jfdwolff, if you still claim it is redundant then show me where in the article it explains deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection.

Puhlaa, "Deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection" is not speculation. It is sourced in accordance with WP:V. Puhlaa, you prefer how it currently exists with regard to traumatic? You have not explained why the fringe view should be included rather than the conclusion. We don't need to wait for additional research when the conclusion is "Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation."[40]

Puhlaa, please understand you did not give a valid explanation why the conclusion should not be included when the 2007 source is currently being used in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure where to post this, as you have started the same thread is in 2 places, I will thus just post it at both also. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the goal here is just for editors to provide their opinion on the matter. I have given my opinion (based on my knowledge of wikipedia policies, the science in question, and my personal view), your opinion is also very clear (it was after the first post, the others werent necessary). My approach at this point is that if a majority of other editors agree with your view, then my view is perhaps flawed and not worth arguing further. Thus, respectfully, what other editors have to say is more likely to re-shape my opinion than reading your opinion a second or third time. For the same reason, I dont feel obliged to re-post my position on the issue.Puhlaa (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article already states that VAD is associated with a 1-2% mortality after treatment. None of the sources provide a reliable figure about mortality without treatment, so there is no figure about this. It would therefore be correct to state that because VAD can be caused by chiropractic, and VAD occasionally leads to stroke and death, that therefore chiropractic/CSM can cause stroke and death through VAD. As such, "Ernst-death" is therefore unnecessary, because it provides no further information about what I have already said. The study has a number of significant problems, such as the presumption that older case reports were actually about VAD while VAD was only described as a clinical entity in the 1970s by Miller Fisher.

I get the overwhelming impression that QuackGuru's multiple posts on the same topic (here, on Talk:Vertebral artery dissection, on User talk:Garrondo) all serve to further his cause to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK about CSM/chiropractic. JFW | T@lk 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article already states that VAD is associated with a 1-2% mortality after treatment? Where is this stated in relation to CSM? The "prognosis" section does not specifically state that stroke or death occurs after CSM. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The goal of the "Prognosis" section in the VAD article should not be to discuss the outcomes of CSM, nor to attempt to link CSM to death. The goal of the "prognosis" section in the VAD article is to discuss the outcomes of VAD, which is stated as 1-2% mortality. The article discusses that CSM is associated with VAD under the "Causes" of VAD section, but trying to also link CSM to death in this section adds nothing to the discussion of CAUSES OF VAD. Puhlaa (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If the "prognosis" section is to discuss the outcomes of VAD then why it does not specifically state that stroke or death occurs after CSM. Treatment with anticoagulants and aspirin is related to a treamant. That is a different point. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a shame that we have to present this plain and simple fact time and time again. I have now ensured that Ernst2007's original conclusion is well represented. I think that concludes the issue. QuackGuru has been unable to demonstrate clearly why we should specifically mention the conclusions of "Ernst-death". I am done commenting on the issue, because I can only clarify my position so often. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"In studies of anticoagulants and aspirin, the combined mortality with either treatment is 1.8-2.1%.[1][13]"

The article states that VAD is associated with a 1-2% mortality after treatment. Stroke and death following CSM is after chiropractic spinal manipulation therepy. So, in fact, it is not redundant to include it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The source says "They suggest that many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation.48,49"[41] The source is being misused and taken out of context. I explained it before on the talk page that the source was taken out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-VAD related mortality does not need to be mentioned in this article. Ernst2010 does not provide a actual figure for mortality. Please stop arguing about this study, which is not about vertebral artery dissection but about mortality after CSM.

The source says that practicioners of CSM have disputed the link. I will happily quote a more biased source from the CSM camp that disputes the link if that serves your agenda. JFW | T@lk 19:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A more biased source from the CSM camp should meet MEDRS. The current source is obviously being taken out of context when the source says "many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation".[42] The source repeatedly associates CSM with VAD which the outcome or prognosis can be stroke or death.[43] So, in fact, it is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

break 1

• Jfdwolff has ignored that the source says "They suggest that many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation.48,49"[44] So, in fact, you are taking the source out of context.
• Jfdwolff claimed the proposal was redundant but could not back up his claim. Stroke and death due to chiropractic spinal manipulation therepy is associated with VAD is in accordance with MEDRS. I am not arguing about a study. The Ernst2010 source is a highly reliable systematic review that is very relevant to the topic.
• Jfdwolff, do you still believe the text is redudant. If so how is it redundant when there is nothing in the prognosis section that is about CSM is associated with VAD followed by stroke and death.
• See WP:MEDRS: Ideal sources for these aspects include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals; professional and academic books written by experts in a field and from a respected publisher; and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.
• See WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.
• This MEDRS compliant source does discuss vertebral arterial dissection associated with manipulation of the spine throughout the systematic review. If this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT then we must give the recent systematic review due weight.
• "What’s known Chiropractic upper spinal manipulation has repeatedly been associated with arterial dissection followed by stroke and, in some cases, death."
• "What’s new The article is the first systematic review of all fatalities reported in the medical literature. Twenty-six deaths are on record and many more seem to have remained unpublished."
• "Vascular accidents after upper spinal manipulation are a well-recognised problem (e.g. 1,2). Dissection of a vertebral artery, caused by extension and rotation of the neck beyond the physiological range of motion, is thought to be the underlying mechanism(2)."
• "This systematic review demonstrates that numerous deaths have been associated with chiropractic. Usually high-velocity, short-lever thrusts of the upper spine with rotation are implicated. They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death (1,2,26,30)."
• "Reliable estimates of the frequency of vascular accidents are prevented by the fact that underreporting is known to be substantial."
• E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.

• The systematic review should be included per WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS. A relevant and reliable systematic review must be given its due weight when the source does discuss VAD related outcomes. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

QG, why do you want to see the good article about VAD turned into a debate about the risk of stroke and death from cervical manipulation? It is currently a good NPOV article. The article you propose to add examines death from CSM and then speculates about the association of VAD and CSM, it adds no information specifically about VAD that is not already found in the article. What it does add to the VAD article is the POV of that author. If it is included in the article then it must be balanced by opposing quality research so that the VAD article maintains NPOV. If you indeed want to convert this good article into a debate about cervical manipulation then dont forget what else we 'know'. Which of the following should be used to balance your proposed addition?:

• "the association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke is similar to the association between physician visits and VBA stroke. This suggests that, on average, patients who seek chiropractic care for neck pain or headaches, and who then developed a VBA stroke may have actually been in the prodromal phase of a stroke when consulting the chiropractor; that is, the neck pain or headaches, which lead them to seek care were early symptoms of a VBA stroke." and "because this increased risk is also seen in those seeking health care from their primary care physician, this association is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke."

Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, Nordin M, Guzman J, Peloso PM, Holm LW, Côté P, Hogg-Johnson S, Cassidy JD, Haldeman S; Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (2008). "Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders". Spine. 33 (4suppl): S123-52. PMID 18204386. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

• "No cause-and-effect relationship has been established between cervical spine manipulation and CAD, but it seems that cervical manipulation may be capable of triggering dissection in a susceptible patient or contributing to the evolution of an already existing CAD. Despite the many risk factors that have been proposed as possible causes of CAD, it is still unknown which of them actually predispose patients to CAD after cervical spine manipulation."

Hanelinea MT, Rosnerb AL (2007). "The etiology of cervical artery dissection". J Chiropr Med. 6 (3): 110–120. doi:10.1016/j.jcme.2007.04.007.

• "Recent evidence has clarified the relationship considerably, and suggests that the relationship is not causal, but that patients with VADS often have initial symptoms which cause them to seek care from a chiropractic physician and have a stroke some time after, independent of the chiropractic visit."

Murphy DR (2010). "Current understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulation and stroke: what does it mean for the chiropractic profession?". Chiropr Osteopat. 18 (22). PMID 20682039.

• "...spinal manipulation is associated with frequent, mild and transient adverse effects as well as with serious complications which can lead to permanent disability or death. Yet causal inferences are, of course, problematic. Vascular accidents may happen spontaneously or could have causes other than spinal manipulation. A temporal relationship is insufficient to establish causality, and recall bias can further obscure the truth. Moreover, denominators are rarely available."

Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7). PMID 17606755.

• Even Ernst in his 2007 review recognizes that causation is still only speculated, his 2010 review adds nothing to the evidence for causation. I would prefer NOT to see the article turn into a discussion of CSM and stroke. You have already done a great job of that at the chiropractic article and the spinal manipulation article, lets let this one remain specifically about VAD. Lets wait until there is new evidence for or against a causational link before we add more discussion about CSM in the VAD article. Puhlaa (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the 2010 Ernst systematic review meets WP:MEDRS. None of those sources you provided meets MEDRS except for the Ernst 2007 review. The MEDRS approved source adds information specifically about VAD that is not already found in the article. I have shown how the proposal is not redundant when the outcome or prognosis from CSM associated with VAD can result in stroke or death is not in the article.

You wrote "Lets wait until there is new evidence for or against a causational link before we add more discussion about CSM in the VAD article."

The newer source is the newer evidence. The newer 2010 source does make a claim about the causality.

Here is a specific proposal for Prognosis using a newer MEDRS compliant source: "The causality between chiropractic neck manipulation and vertebral artery dissection that can result in stroke or death is probable."E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.

If you require specific text about the causality we can include this proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

First, you said that the newer source does make a claim about causality...here I agree, the author does restates the speculations he has made in previous article on the same topic about causation, however, his speculations are based on the older research already incuded in the article, his 2010 article adds no new evidence on the subject of causation. Second, although 2 of the sources I posted are only general reviews (thus they do indeed meet MEDRS but are not considered the highest level of evidence), the 2008 best evidence synthesis by the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force published in Spine is definitely a secondary source.

Methods:"We systematically searched Medline and screened for relevance literature published from 1980 through 2006 on the use, effectiveness, and safety of noninvasive interventions for neck pain and associated disorders. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis."

Further, the 2008 review is in some respects a better source than Ernst 2010. Ernst 2010 is the production of a single author, whereas the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force Review is a collaborative and heavily vetted publication that can be taken as broadly representative of scientific opinion. Your proposal simply pushes you POV and is not balanced by other research in the area. As I said, if you want to turn this good article on VAD into more of a discussion of CSM, there are plenty of alternate sources that can balance the 2010 review. Why dont we just copy the paragraph from chiropractic-safety and paste it right into the VAD article? This is where you are leading with your proposals.Puhlaa (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The 2008 source is about CAD not VAD. That is a different issue. VAD is more likely to be a result of CSM than CAD. I know a lot about this stuff. Someone has to read the studies before they are published to ensure their accuracy. But our job is not to continue to question the researchers. If you think Ernst is not neutral that is irrelevant according to Wikipedia policy.

See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of your above comment is meaningless to my comment, and I dont think wikipedia cares how much you know about the subject (I know a fair bit myself, but its impossible to compare our knowledge as you veil yourself in mystery :). However, I am amused at your point that the 2008 collaborative and heavily vetted review is about CAD and not VAD, when you are pushing to include a 2010 single author review that is about death and CSM. Since you obviously agree that it is pointless to fill up a VAD article with discussion of sources not specifically about VAD, I think we can agree that Ernst 2010 will add nothing to this article.Puhlaa (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is relevant because it specifically discusses VAD. "Chiropractic upper spinal manipulation has repeatedly been associated with arterial dissection followed by stroke and, in some cases, death."[45] You agreed we should wait for newer evidence about the causational link. The newer source is the newer evidence about the link.

I know a lot about the subject of Wikipedia policy. Obviously, you are ignoring my comments. See WP:IDHT. WP:V is not a meaningless policy. Why do you claim the source is not relevant when the source specifically says "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death".[46] QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were indicating that you know alot about the issue of stroke and CSM, not wikipedia policy. You have a clear advantage over me in your understanding of policy I admit. However, your link to a policy on disruptive editing seems pretty rich considering your history (need not go into detail). A quick look at my short record will show no complaints (except perhaps from you). Isnt there a policy on accusing other editors of bad faith? especially when it is over a clearly minor misunderstanding? You would know better than I.Puhlaa (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote: "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death" adds nothing because this has already been established in the literature and is already described in the VAD article using the earlier sources that determine the causational link. What does Ernst add? "This systematic review demonstrates that numerous deaths have been associated with chiropractic." As quoted from his review, Ernst 2010 adds a count of cases of people who have died after CSM, then simply reiterates the already established association between CSM and VAD, and then simply reiterates the already established speculation that there is a causational link. The VAD article already describes these established associations and speculations. If anything should be added to the VAD article it would be a discussion of how pre-existing conditions, temporal relationships, and biases may be overinflating the issue. The problem is, we dont know! Perhaps the relationship is causational (although the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force suggests not). Until we have more evidence either way, there is no point in expanding the discussion of speculated causational links in the VAD article. Save it for the chiropractic and SM articles. Puhlaa (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You claim it is "speculated causational links". It is not our job to decide if the source is bias or neutral. See WP:V again. We don't need to wait for more evidence when we do have a reliable systematic review. See WP:MEDRS again. The quote: "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death" does add something to the article becuase the outcome of stroke and death is not found in the article.

"There is likely under-reporting in the literature of the true incidence of death associated with VAD due to manipulation, although no reliable data on incidence is available.[1]" Under-reporting is also not found in the VAD article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

you claim that Erst 2010 "does add something to the article because the outcome of stroke and death is not found in the article", however, this info is not found in the article because it is not relevent to a discussion specific to VAD. The goal of this article is to discuss VAD, not death and stroke from CSM. Puhlaa (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct QG, under-reporting is not given mention in VAD. However, there is already a source referenced that mentions under-reporting and is specific to VAD (Ernst 2007) "...vertebral artery dissections due to intimal tearing...under-reporting may frequently be high.". Thus, a summary of this may be added to the first sentence dealing with CSM in trauma: "Chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been linked to vertebral artery dissection, and under-reporting of incidents is likely common." I would be OK with this proposal. I will post the proposal on the talk page for consensus with other involved editors. Puhlaa (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Be both agree that relevant text is missing from the article. But we might disagree exactly what is missing from the article. The source specifically says "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death".[47] When CSM is repeatedly associated with VAD followed by stroke and death it is relevant to the article. It is also clear under-reporting is also missing from the artcle. Both are relevant to the topic. So, the article is incomplete. I'm not the only editor who has proposed text for the article. You can take a look at the different proposals on the talk page and make your own proposal. I suppose anything is better than the current text. A brief mention that chiropractic neck manipulation associated with VAD can result in stroke or death would make the article complete. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your conlusion (we disagree with what is missing). I am ok with adding a mention of under-reporting (it is a major weakness in chiropractic RCT publications and needs to be improved). However, I can see no value to the inclusion of a mention of the potential CSM to cause death. VAD can cause stroke and death no matter what the cause, what value is there in specifically attempting to link CSM to stroke and death in an article about VAD? I think I have made my view clear on this, I have little more to add to this discussion. I would rather see the opinion of other editors than re-hash this further. I will not object to a mention of under-reporting, but will continue to object to trying to link CSM to death in an article about VAD (unless other editors consistently agree that this has value to a VAD article, but this doesnt seem to be the case). I will consider putting together a proposal for the traumatic section on the talk page. Puhlaa (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Under-reporting 'is' important, and I don't know why we wouldn't use the newer source as a reference, but otherwise let's not waste time on Ernst-Death regarding CSM causality at VAD. That systematic review cannot stand by itself unless you want to comment on, as Puhlaa in part has mentioned: i) pre-existing conditions prior to seeking care (spine 2008), ii)temporal association not equaling causation (ernst 2007), iii) Ernst's biased, iv) force required for VAD exceeds spinal manipulation forces (jmpt 2005), v) need for further research to establish causality (neurology 2008 and spine 2009), vi) objections of practitioners (rosner), vii) flaws in Ernst-Death including case reports, before VAD was even recognized, and not exclusively from chiropractors. These complex issues belong at Chiropractic and Spinal Manipulation where they can be handled in detail, and only at VAD if all relevant MEDRS studies are included, not only the systematic review you favor. Ocaasi (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I will start new sections to focus on the remaining problems with the article. The above discussion did help improve the article and did clarify a few points. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Marginal fringe view

Proposal to remove the fringe view from Traumatic.

The association between chiropractic neck manipulation and vertebral artery dissection is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities.

See WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief.

The other point from the source is "They suggest that many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation.48,49"[48] The source is being taken out of context and this is not an important point to cause for the vertebral artery dissection page. The minor fringe view is getting a lot of attention in the article which is a violation of WEIGHT and FRINGE. The tiny minority view should get zero WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

People who challenge that the earth is round are ignoring accepted fact backed by unarguable evidence (thus a Fringe view). Critics of the link between C-manipulation and VAD point out the fact that there is not yet any evidence to prove that cervical manipulation CAUSES VAD, it is still only a temporal association. As this criticism is not against established knowledge, it is hardly a fringe view like QGs example of the flat earth society. It is just good science to question causation without good evidence for it. This is what drives us to do more research! Manipulation has only been associated with VAD in the literature. Critics like Ernst claim it is a probable cause, and chiropractors contend that there is still no good evidence of causation. Ernst clearly describes both of these perspectives in his 2007 review and this is how the VAD article expresses it, citing Ernst's 2007 review. As such, the article currently conforms to Weight, Fringe, NPOV and MEDRS. There is no good reason to alter the article any more than has already been done to try appease the POV of QG. Puhlaa (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You did mention there is newer evidence from the Ernst 2010. The section in VAD is about Causes. What is this marginal view doing in VAD. The article is about VAD not about the chriopractor's fringe view. The Ernst claim that it is a "probable cause" is newer sourced evidence that you seem to know is sourced. When it is sourced using a recent systematic review it is NPOV. You don't seem to want to use the newer evidence. The term "Critics" is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Incoherent vague sentence

This proposal is to rewrite a vague sentence in Traumatic.

Current vague sentence.

Chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been linked to vertebral artery dissection.

Proposal to improve vague sentence.

The causality between chiropractic, particularly neck manipulation, and vertebral artery dissection is probable.

It is speculation that chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been 'linked' to VAD. The text does not pass V. This specific proposal is to replace the vague sentence with newer 'sourced' evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed speculation that neck manipulation has been linked to VAD, there is only a temporal assocation as stated by Ernst (2007). In fact, now that QG has pointed this out, it may also be necessary to add further discussion on this subject, such as the fact that "A temporal relationship is insufficient to establish causality" (quoted from Ernst 2007). Thus, QGs proposed changes do not reflect the opposing point of view that Ernst 2007 discusses as valid, making QGs proposal violate NPOV. Thus, the sentence should read:

Chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been temporally associated with vertebral artery dissection, however a temporal relationship does not itself establish causality.

This specific proposal with sourced evidence is to replace QGs proposal, which violates NPOV. However, I would also be willing to simply leave the article as it currently exists until research examining causation has been published. The VAD article currently satisfies NPOV, FRINGE, MEDRS, and V and does not necessarily need to be altered. Puhlaa (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.

This proposal does not violate NPOV when it is sourced. You have not shown how it violates NPOV when there is a newer 2010 Ersnt source. This is newer research examining causation using a newer source from the same author. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)