Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Muhammad in the Bible redux

This came up a few weeks ago. Checking back, it seems the small amount of good RS material in the article has now disappeared and a lot of new stuff added some of which seems distinctly ORish, though at least there now appears to be some sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Distinctly ORish is an understatement. I just deleted the whole lot as OR and synth based on unreliable and primary sources. But it got reverted back. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems likely to be a problem so long as User:Dananmohammad is participating. No offense to Mr. Mohammad intended; I'm sure he believes that he's helping us by bringing these truths to light.Stenen Bijl (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Though I note Wikipedia doesn't yet have articles Tony Robbins in the Torah or L. Ron Hubbard in the Vedas, perhaps he'd be willing to help create those and bring them up to par.Stenen Bijl (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not helping you in particular but there are 7 billion people on this earth , some of whom might be interested. 2 billion muslims believe in the subject and all those would like to know more. Many non muslims buddists hindus communists etc want to know more about the subject.

If the subject was proven beyond doubt that indeed some people 3 thousand years ago predicted Muhammad by name etc, then all the world will become muslims. However you can't just put only knowledge that is proven beyond doubt in wikipedia, since all human knowledge is relative theories that get broken every few years to hundred years. Since this is a topic 2 billion people believe it is true without evidence, and that hundreds of books published about the subject including Quran and Hadith circa 1440 years ago, then such material should be included in wiki as long as there are 2 references for each statement, which I am doing. If you belive a reference is week let me know in the talk page and I will get you one to ten references in a week span, but please don't edit delete everything because you believe it is a fringe theory. If 2 billion people belive in it then it is not fringe theoryDananmohammad (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What I see here is that you can quote the Quran and the Hadith in support of what you believe. You provide no evidence that anyone else believes it, much less that it is an analysis widely respected in the Islamic world. Therefore you cannot gain acceptance here for your theories by quoting scripture as your justification. If you do not understand this, we can attempt to explain to you why that is so. Mangoe (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The number of uninformed people who believe something is not relevant, though you provide no evidence that two billion people do in fact believe this. The mere fact that they are Muslims does not entail belief that Muhammad is in the Bible. It has been stated to you repeatedly that no one is opposed to an article listing passages in the Bible that Muslim writers have claimed to be predictions of Muhammad. But you should use scholarly sources to explain these arguments. Paul B (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's ludicrous that this has been going on for nearly two weeks now with no administrative action. Hmm, why do people "edit war?"Stenen Bijl (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is atrocious, unintelligible gibberish in many places, full of unreferenced apparent OR, pushing what appears to be a personal POV.Smeat75 (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Dananmohammad cannot engage in meaningful discussion, but interprets all opposition as the product of an anti-Muslim agenda. There is probably valuable content buried in the semi-intelligible mess written in garbled English, but the effort to dig it out would be too great for all but the strongest-willed. Paul B (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. If he reverts to the long version again it's off to AN/I. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Michael A. Hoffman II

Michael A. Hoffman II needs attention again. Sourced material is being replaced by material not backed up by the citations given. Thanks! Location (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Bump. Location (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Abiogenesis

Hi! Could someone review the recent changes to Abiogenesis? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This reply won't be very helpful. I tried to review the changes but the subject matter is beyond my areas of expertise (which is also different than my areas of interest). You might want to try Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology or something similar. What I did note was that the material the other user attempted to delete has been tagged for well over a year. Location (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's from Richard Dawkins, in The Ancestor's Tale. I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed source that makes the statement, but the research seems to be here and the additional statement "competition within a population with heredity...could be interpreted as a rudimentary form of natural selection" seems to me to be self-evident, and indeed watered down. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two other editors making dubious changes as well. All three are brand new. And to be clear: I have been reviewing the edits, and I would revert or heavily modify quite a few of them. My thought is to return the page to the last stable version, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The editing history of that page in the last day or so smells of socks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Smells like a WP:SOCK, sounds like a WP:DUCK. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AbioScientistGenesis. I haven't done this before, so it would be great if anyone could look it over and make additional comments. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there. Something is fishy but I'm not sure these are socks. Location (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motionless electromagnetic generator

Another perpetual motion device, this one using a transformer. Looking at the patent circuit diagram, it is surely a hoax, as I can hardly imagine that current would flow at all given the polarity of the various diodes in the circuit. In any case there are promotional problems. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a hoax, just wrong. There are a complete dearth of sources about this machine unfortunately, a secondary source going into the details of why the machine is wrong might have been interesting. The only secondary sources aren't about the topic. I think it's a good idea to mention the issues somewhere, just not in it's own article.

Interestingly, their one paper they have is based on a discredited hypothesis: Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory (something we of course can't mention in the article without OR). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Craniosacral therapy

Has some interesting recent issues over how strong/conclusive the scientific consensus is that it's pseudoscience/quackery, and whether Edzard Ernst should be debunked as a debunker. I recommend this article to fringe experts' watchlists. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems there is a line between Fringe science and alternative medicine. Here, I think we have "alternative medicine" as far as it being in the same category as chiropratic, acupuncture, etc... (i.e. if they are "fringe" or quackery, then so is this, but as these other alternatives generally are not, most people would probably argue that "alternative" medicine is not inherently "fringe" -- just a different POV on a field that has yet to have enough scientific study to become "evidence-based") To me "fringe" in the medical world is the tinfoil helmet, dangerous, or disproven stuff like Laetrile. Looks to me that the article suffers from good sourcing and needs someone to actually go out and look at the studies. I'd say that Ernst has a pretty strong POV and should be described as such, his critiques could be mentioned, but he certainly is quite dogmatic. If we "teach the controversy" by having a NPOV assessment of the spectrum of opinions on various forms of alternative medicine, he could be placed at one end, with the uncriticalapologists at the other. I find that controversial articles usually benefit from having a section that discusses the range of views in an objective, sourced manner. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 18:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We need a few more users to weigh in on this issue if possible. Regardless of your position on the matter, it would be helpful to hear from a few more people. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology

There is a discussion about whether [1] is original research and synthesis designed to unduly promote a fringe theory on the talk page. More input from people familiar with the fringe guidelines is welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor claiming to have "detailed proof that parapsychology is not 'fringe' or pseudoscience."

Keep a close watch on these articles:

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Journal of Scientific Exploration

There has been some fringe POV pushing. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

...aaand now we have edit warring. What a shock. Could someone else take a look at this please? I have to meet with a client. Thanks!

An admin has semi-protected the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

Recent tagging and subsequent discussion here regarding the number and quality of sources that refer to Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience. I see adequate reliable sources that support referring to it as a pseudoscience in the article lead (although in my opinion, it doesn't need to be in the very first sentence). Other opinions welcome. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Centre for Fortean Zoology <-- also may want to look into this article about an obscure UK organization, currently being used as a coatrack for unsourced fringe views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

An editor would like additional opinions regarding the naming of Lee Harvey Oswald as a "suspect" rather than the "perpetrator". Location (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer‎ yet again...

Due to a paper recently submitted to arXiv [2], our Energy Catalyzer‎ article seems to be sparking back to life once more, and will no doubt soon be producing copious amounts of heat, clouds of steam, and other evidence of the catalytic power of wishful thinking, before returning to quiescence. As always, a few extra eyes on it would be most welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Psychochemical weaponry

Appears to touch on aspects of chemical and biological warfare etc. but at best such material is only tangential to "psycho-" anything. Also, some of the sourcing looks distinctly iffy. Could do with some expert eyes ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Many reliable sources are thinly connected using WP:SYNTH. Similar to its sister article Water supply terrorism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to be the basis of a reasonable article there, but currently it extends into speculation too much. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucid dreaming mask

Lucid dreams are real, but this device seems extremely dubious. It's possible I missed something, but I didn't find anything non-promotional about this. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a thing. Remee got a lot of press because of the kickstarter funding, but there's also a lot of links to home-made ones and other brands. [[3]] "About 245,000 results" Bhny (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing: Notices about AfDs should be "nonpartisan [and] reflect a neutral point of view." The AfD already has two votes that are likely to be discarded by the closing admin (neither "pseudoscientific" or "promotional" is a valid argument for deletion; see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying the article is purely promotional seems like a legitimate argument. Sometimes articles are so rubbish it's best to delete or stubify, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Point well taken. I was mentally picturing a notable topic that could be a great article but instead is full of promotional rubbish. As you correctly point out, sometimes when all the promotional rubbish is removed there simply isn't anything left and there is nothing notable to replace it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Given comments made in the deletion discussion about Stephen LaBerge I'm suspicious that all the lucid dreaming material needs to be gone over. It shows up in The Skeptic's Dictionary here and a lot of the "see also" links are, um, interesting. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Stephen LaBerge article needs work as well, it's pretty grandiose claims sourced to primary sources, but it looks like it might be notable considering the skeptic's dictionary source; more can probably be found, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

LaBerge has extensive JStor and GScholar footprints, but a lot of it is rather odd. I'm not seeing much in the medical oneirology side of the house; references tend to be in philosophical studies or dream interpretation, with a strong flavor of fringy self-help works of the "take control of your dreams and you can take control of your life" school. This may take a lot of expert help to sort out properly. Mangoe (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

wikiproject psychology, would be the closest thing I can thing of, any other idea? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about kicking over the nano-thermite anthill

I have a communication on the talkpage [4] reporting a second study identifying the notorious WTC red dust as "consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments." There is a citable paper, though it is independently-published (and therefore not peer-reviewed). The testing lab is well-known in the industry and reputable. The person reporting this appears to be a materials science guy from the Czech Republic. Randi's board and other skeptic sites have extensive discussion of this paper (e.g. this thread). I'm inclined to add it to the relevant articles but would like some other input on this. The paper can be found here but I must warn you that it is technical and detailed both to an extreme degree. Mangoe (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A cursory read-over indicates that it's good work, but it's unclear to me how this would fit under RS. Surely there's some precedent with reports issued by, say, Exponent (consulting firm)? Also I would note that it doesn't seem that pressing as the article doesn't currently mention the fringe theories. a13ean (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Marcel Torrenté

Swiss butcher turned "magnetic healer" is the subject of enthusiastic Swiss TV coverage but is of questionable notability (it's up for AfD). Article features a number of non-notable details such as Torrenté's love of cows, and showcases some favorable comments made by the founder of a legit Swiss medical journal during a TV interview, possibly taken out of context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

BlackLight Power

Solfeggio frequencies

I came across this on WP:RS/N: it's a goofy theory of recent construction claiming that medieval and Indian musicians used a a special scale whose frequencies have numerological significance. I can tell you that it's utter bullocks because the tuning fork wasn't even invented until 1711 and decent pitch measurement wasn't possible until the early to mid 1800s. Also, "ut" (better know as "do" in modern scales) comes out to G above middle C, a little difficult for adult monks to chant at. It has three tags at the top so you know it's good. I'm doubtful about deleting this outright because it seems that every New Age book of the last decade mentions it, but again finding critical material has been difficult. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reduced it to a far more accurate stub. This is originated, BTW, by ~~David Horowitz~~ whose biography is also tagged for fringe theory problems. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"This is originated, BTW, by David Horowitz whose biography is also tagged for fringe theory problems. "

I think you mean Leonard Horowitz?Stenen Bijl (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, right. Mangoe (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that the article should just be deleted. The alternative is a stub saying, "Some people say such and such, however this is nonsense" as exists now.Stenen Bijl (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solfeggio frequencies. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Fritz Springmeier

Springmeier is a conspiracy theorist and convicted criminal. One lone editor User:Dataediting, keeps editing the article in ways which treat Springmeier's theories as if they were ordinary research. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Springmeier is a conspiracy theorist author, childhood farmer, and former criminal. One lone editor User:Orangemike, continues removing mainstream sources of the US Department of Justice and US government that show article subject is not a "right wing extremist" or "religious author" and was a childhood farmer. The lone editor continues to maintain purported ideas of article subject being a "religious author," "right wing extremist," and not being a childhood farmer. --Dataediting | Talk 06:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Famspear, joined lone editor User:Orangemike and removed mainstream sources of the US Department of Justice and US government that show article subject is not a "right wing extremist" or "religious author" and was a childhood farmer. The editors are going against Fringe theories policy with the editors theories of article subject being a "religious author," "right wing extremist," and not being a childhood farmer. --Dataediting | Talk 14:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As you've seen, Dataediting, a number of experienced editors concur with our edits. Yours, on the other hand, include The Alex Jones Show, famous as the home of the wacky "Obama's secret weather control machines" theory, as a reliable source!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 May 2013‎

Similar problems now at Nick Begich (author). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I merged the later into HAARP since he has no notability outside his conspiracy mongering. Mangoe (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Orangemike, it really doesn't look good for you to have done the block here. People will get the wrong impression. Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not block him until he started edit-warring with an entire raft of other editors than myself, including Louie and Famspear (the latter an expert on tax protestors and conspiracy theorists in general), while calling them WP:FRINGE violators. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to seem harsh, but in that case it should have been a simple matter to get another admin to do the blocking as required by WP:INVOLVED. I don't think your block showed any COI, but we need to avoid even the appearance of COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if some other admin wants to undo my block and substitute their own, clarifying that it's for the reason Guy gives above, I won't get whiny about it. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Marfa Lights

This article was getting into pretty good shape, but I'm not sure about this series of edits, which replaces most of the article with a new one of a different tone, that seems to imply that while the skeptics have disproven MOST of the lights, approximately 3% of them are still of mysterious and probably paranormal origins. Clearly user:Bigbender9 has spent some effort on this essay, but most of it seems like it's not an improvement. APL (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If you name an editor, you need to notify them on their talk page (see the top of this page for details). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Done. APL (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The added material appears to be lifted from here without attribution and written as an essay. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And if it isn't lifted from there, it is WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like somebody has reverted to the pre-essay form.

Would the correct thing for me to have done have been to be bold and revert it myself? I'm always a bit nervous about removing large amounts of text. APL (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. If someone makes bold changes, and it is reverted by you then the next step (hopefully!) is for the original editor to discuss the issue on the talk page. It is often useful if the reverter starts a discussion if the original editor does not. See WP:BRD for more, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The most definitive remarks in the above is that APL doesn't like the changes. Something more precise would be appreciated. I removed statements that are incorrect. I've added statements that are true and needed. I've added a more coherent organization of the material. And I've leveled the emphasis. A specific example of the leveling is to reduce the spectral discussion about Bunnell et al from a paragraph to a sentence or two. After all the effort was a failure. Be precise and I'll respond precisely. By the way, I'm a novice at using this system, so please note that I am bigbender9. talk

Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter

Images recently added purporting to be the work of a U.S. Army soldier. Sample: [5] The fringe theory being advanced is that the drawings were created by the "US Army during official Army investigation of this incident". A secondary problem is that a copyright free "US Government" status is being claimed on the image file permissions. The origin of the images is unverified. When image files are tagged with file permission problems, SPA simply uploads new, untagged versions. I should add that I see no problem including these images in the article...provided they can be proven to have come from the U.S. Army and are verifiable as such. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading the description of the incident, it sounds like an early test run of Wikipedia with an unsuspecting group of farmers as subjects.Stenen Bijl (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur)

The Andrea Rossi page has been stable for a long time, but now two experienced editors are removing what I think is important info from the lead on the grounds that it's a BLP. I thought we'd already referenced this well and said what needed to be said. Mentioning a company like Petrodragon without mentioning its history seems absurd. Bhny (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia has a fairly extensive article on Petroldragon. [6] I think the best way to proceed with this might be to find an Italian speaker to look into the sources cited there, to see if we can come up with an appropriate paragraph or so on this. Judging by what is written there, and going by a (rather poor) Google translation, it looks as if there is sufficient material to give reasonable coverage. Clearly, we have to abide by WP:BLP policy, and state that Rossi was ultimately acquitted on most of the charges he faced (though at least one seems still to be outstanding, and he appears to have been fined for minor infringements), but that shouldn't prevent us from pointing out that the Petroldragon affair cost Italy billions of Lire to clean up the resulting pollution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

yes the "acquitted" part is wrong isn't it. one charge is still a charge. anyway I'm done with editing Rossi's page (my edits are all knee-jerk reverted), so if you or anyone would like to take over. Bhny (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia should absolutely have an article about Petroldragon rather than a redirect. In the Rossi biography, the Petroldragon case should be prominent, and it should certainly be mentioned in the lead section, per WP:LEAD. I added some additional text and references. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Soylent (food substitute)

Nutrition is an area notoriously rife with weird untested unscientific mumbo jumbo. Soylent is a new liquid food, meant to substitute regular food. It's being marketed as suitable for everyone, with no real testing. None of the people involved have any qualifications, or registrations, or experience, as nutritionists or dieticians. Indeed, none of them have any medical qualifications at all. Soylent is successfully creating a lot of publicity buzz, so there is a lot of coverage in newspapers. So I think it's hard to get the article deleted on notability grounds? And I'm not going to register so I can nominate an article for deletion. But there are many liquid food products available, and most of those have extensive testing. There are medical products (Ensure; Nutricia; all the Abbott Nutrition brands; etc. There are domestic and diet products (complan, slimfast, etc etc.) So the untested nature of Soylent, and the tested nature of other products should be in the article. 31.126.158.75 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't especially well written but at a glance, the references look good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have a problem with a malformed AfD - there is a notification on the article page, but no linked AfD page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

My first thought was Soylent Green. The flurry of news-like references within a relatively short period of time make me think that there was a recent PR campaign for this product. I'm wondering if WP:NOTNEWS might apply. Location (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Unregistered editors can only complete the first step of the AfD process -- somebody else would have to do steps II and III. I'm reluctant to do it, because it's pretty clear to me that an AfD would fail. In fact, my inclination is more to undo the addition of the AfD template to the article. Looie496 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to undo the AfD addition. Per WP:AFDHOWTO, the IP should have posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion after posting a rationale for deletion on the article talk page, asking for the process to be completed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think the AfD nom should be completed, please do it. If that doesn't happen within a day or so, I will probably remove the template, on the basis that the AfD nom was incorrectly done. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soylent_(food_substitute)...malformed still. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The AfD is thankfully fixed, but the article has taken some odd turns such as Rhinehart's own blog being used as an authoritative source for an inappropriate listing of Soylent's ingredients. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That is the only source for a list of ingredients. It's troubling because they've just had a crowd-sourced launch campaign. They're part of YCombinator and they're in startup-launch mode. 109.144.174.125 (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there has to be a vote for this is utterly moronic. Why not a vote before someone can create junk articles to begin with? This asymmetry guarantees their proliferation.Stenen Bijl (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Fringe claims at March Against Monsanto

Recently fringe claims have been inserted into March_Against_Monsanto, such as

"Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences.[15] Protesters addressed the issue with signs that read "Label GMOs, It’s Our Right to Know" and "Real Food 4 Real People"."
"Supporters of the movement expressed concern about Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds and their effect on bee population, holding signs printed with "All we are saying is give bees a chance", and citing connections between GM seeds and colony collapse disorder (CCD)."

etc. No mainstream perspective is given. More input welcome here Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#.22Broad_scientific_consensus.22_and_WP:POVFORK, Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Editors_are_trying_to_insert_fringe_claims_into_this_article. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Censuring at Energy Catalyzer

An editor is censuring mainstream rebuttals at [7]. More input welcome: Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#PhysOrg_article.2C_plus_comment_from_Ethan_Siegel.27s_blog. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

now see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Energy Catalyzer. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"Doug Weller’s Fake Wikipedia Users and their attacks against Kaveh Farrokh"

I've taken a brief break from my wikibreak to comment on a new website attack on me at [8] (fortunately my daughter let me know about it). I thought it a good idea to respond at Talk:Kaveh Farrokh. I may email Farrokh's website about these libels. I wish I had the money to sue them. I love the repeated use of Metapedia. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If you work toward keeping Wikipedia free of self-serving material added by someone with an axe to grind, there is a possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers any limits on their behavior to be a personal affront and who considers it their duty and obligation to "expose" the person they fixate on. This is actually rather pathetic, but they can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Update - page removed

After a very friendly exchange of emails with Kaveh Farrokh (who likes my website at [http:www.ramtops.co.uk)] he's deleted the webpage. He seems to be a nice guy. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

mnemonic

An IP editor added a statement about ancient Egypt to the article, referenced to a web page. I reverted per WP:RS, and the IP responded by re-adding a shorter statement, this time with no source named. Rather than continue a one-on-one dispute I am bringing the issue here for the attention of others. I will also try to open a discussion on the talk page of the article. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

First Earth Battalion

"The First Earth Battalion was the name proposed by Lieutenant Colonel Jim Channon, a U.S. soldier who had served in Vietnam, for his idea of a new military to be organized along New Age lines". Is this total moonbattery, or is there something to it? Anyone know anything about it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It derives from The Men Who Stare at Goats. There are a few good sources that mention the topic within the context of "The Men Who Stare at Goats", but the rest is cut-and-pasted from something purporting to be the "First Earth Battalion manual" and articles that don't mention the "First Earth Battalion" at all. Inclined to merge it to The Men Who Stare at Goats. Or it could go into Jim Channon. - LuckyLouie (talk)

Cleaned up. Can possibly be merged to Jim Channon. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwennan Gorn

Gwennan Gorn is a content fork of Madoc and should be a redirect. I've taken a break from my Wikibreak to comment on the many problems it has on its talk page. It's up for a DYK as well. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Tau

Outside the scope of this page, the subject of a recently closed RfC. a13ean (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be an effort to keep tau the math constant from having a article. They claim that there is not enough "notable". I have yet to see any comment from the fringe theory side on this. What can be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs)

What can be done is respect the outcome of an RfC on the subject that closed less than a month ago. Give it some (substantial) time and if a new body of sources become available that show an enhanced notability, the issue can be reintroduced. Forum shopping shortly after a vote doesn't go your way is not a productive approach. Agricolae (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

James Bacque getting skewed again

The author of Other Losses is starting to pick up material again suggesting that people actually agree with the thesis of the book. Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

PRISM (surveillance program)

This news story broke in the last 24hrs and a new article is growing at a rapid pace. Since certain aspects of this topic are a conspiracy-theorists' wet dream, fringe experts may want to keep an experienced eye on proceedings to ensure everything is being done properly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

GM food controversies FAQ

Editors are invited to comment on (and improve) a draft FAQ for the Genetically modified food controversies page (possibly to be transcluded to related pages as well). This is a topic area associated with a lot of fringe science; editors familiar with the FAQs on other such pages (e.g. evolution, global warming) are especially welcome. The talk page section for discussion is here. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers

This group has come up again WRT sourcing for a claim made in thunderbird. The article makes it sound terribly important, but from what I gather the thirteen women in question have no real call to speak for anyone about anything. It's not at all clear how they personally were selected. I'm increasingly inclined to question whether they should have an article, but at any rate the article needs major deflation. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that they were selected by mystical calling of some sort. It's unclear whether this "council" has met at all since its inception in 2004, or what it actually does other than make new-agey pronouncements. Paul B (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's been nominated for deletion. It seems "Jeneane Prevatt" invited various female elders to meet regularly, which they do, so my comment above is inaccurate. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Each Grandmother has her own page too it seems. Sourcing indicates there is no coverage from the mainstream, and so I'm fairly sure that these are not sufficiently notable to warrant an article each. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. He iro 01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole process of checking the references and establishing that they're dubious was a waste of people's time. One look at the article reveals that it doesn't belong in a serious reference work.Stenen Bijl (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So. who's up for figuring out which of the grandmothers have Wikipedia pages and possibly going to AfD with them? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I found ~~eleven ten~~ eleven (Clara Shinobu Iura and Maria Alice Campos Freire don't appear to have articles here):

and also, relatedly:

Energy Muse

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I blanked Flordemayo, since none of it is based upon reliable sources, and more generally is obviously ridiculous, but an "anti-vandal crusader" using automated tools restored all the material.Stenen Bijl (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You might try prodding the ones that don't seem notable, and taking any challenged ones to AfD. Or requesting speedy deletes for those that are completely unsourced and promotional. I'm adding the lot to my watchlist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why bother? According to MelbourneStar, I "may lose [my] editing privileges (emphasis mine.)" Why do I not feel that it's a "privilege" to be allowed to help clean up Wikipedia's mess? I think I'll pass.Stenen Bijl (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flordemayo He iro 22:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice how they all say that the subject "gained international recognition as a member of the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers"? Although this isn't at all true? All these articles are spam. They should all be deleted as a batch. If I understand administrator permissions correctly, this will take all of about two minutes.Stenen Bijl (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julieta Casimiro He iro 08:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/the remaining members of the council of grandmothers Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The "remaining members" AFD was extended for lack of consensus if anyone else wishes to comment. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Theistic Evolution

Not exactly fringe per se, but related to the topic of creationism/evolution that input from regulars here would be helpful. The article on Theistic evolution seems to contain an awful lot of OR and synth based on primary sources. I've removed the worst of the material, lists of adherents and proponents that were either completely unsourced or synth. There is a discussion going on on the talk page. Would appreciate it if more editors would examine the article and weigh in. There is a valid topic here, but the article seems to have become a coatrack article on a vague concept. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the article in large part is an extended piece of OR/SYN in which the editor(s) are riffing on the concept of "Theistic Evolution" (itself worthy of an article), and exploring how it might apply in various ways to various religions and positions. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Solutreans: The first Americans

This is an article about a Discovery Channel - also called "Ice Age Columbus: Who Were the First Americans". I can't find anything discussing it so maybe it should go to AfD. But at the moment the problem that I have is that it states as fact stuff that is either flat out wrong or misleading. We have a decent article on the Solutrean hypothesis so perhaps the best solution is to turn this into a redirect with a paragraph about it in the main article? The main article, for instance, makes it clear that DNA studies show that what I'm guessing is the DNA mentioned in the documentary didn't come via the Atlantic, but the article we have on the documentary says baldly "DNA evidence found a pattern that traced its lineage back to Europe in about a quarter of all Native Americans." It also says "Also, in sites across Europe and North America, stone age man apparently buried caches of oversized, thin spearheads that were impractical for hunting in ritualistic manners" - this has no context and I have no idea what is being referred to or what "impractical for hunting in ritualistic manners" even means. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Um that would be, "Also, in sites across Europe and North America, stone age man buried in a ritualised manner caches of oversized, thin spearheads that were impractical for hunting". Not saying it is true (though I have vague recollections of an archaeology lecture where something of the sort was mentioned). The point being made is that similar high-status objects (of limited utility) were being buried in both locations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the sentence is intended to says that they buried "in ritualistic manners" spearheads that were impractical for hunting. There should be a comma after 'hunting' at minimum, but really the sentence should be rewritten. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Humm, edit conflict: Like Andy says. Paul B (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You can see this docudrama on You Tube [9]. Those Solutreans have cool face paint and seem to be speaking in Klingon. Paul B (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see a one sentence mention of the show in the main article, but nothing beyond that. Interesting how many white supremacists groups show up high in the search results, though. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No significant coverage of the show - the only reference is to IMDB, meaning it is all WP:OR. It needs to be redirected to Solutrean hypothesis, with one sentence added saying that the Discovery Channel broadcast a show in 2005, {give title}, promoting the hypothesis, or something of the sort. Agricolae (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done the merge. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Christian_scholarship#Implications_of_Academic_Faithfulness_and_Christian_Scholarship

Can people review this article from this section on? The references are very sparse, and the tone feels a bit promotional, but I'm not sure if I'm just seeing things. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am uneasy about this type of article. It seems an ill-defined and rather nebulous concept is invoked ("Christian scholarship") and the article then becomes a dumping groud for anything editors consider is in-scope (e.g. people who are in some senses scholarly and Christian). It is a kind of coat rack, and similar to the case of Theistic evolution above. My inclination would be to insist on a firm definition of the concept, and then excise any mention of people that isn't backed by good sources that themselves state the concept applies to them. My hunch is this would lead to a significant reduction in article size. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ego (spirituality)

This article is, uh, interesting. I removed a section that looks to me like pure OR -- the first sentence is, "Ego is the characteristic of the age, at least as far as the West is concerned," and it goes on from there. The removal was reverted by Drg55 (talk · contribs), with an edit summary saying, "The opition that there is a balance between ego and god is supported by references. 40,000 people found this interesting. Wikipedia ignore all rules." It would be useful to have more input here. Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, Looie496. Religious articles require following available sources very closely because of their contentious nature. Andrew³²⁷ 13:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Pure original research (and the extrapolation is from poor sources to boot), IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary its very logical. The thing about ignore all rules is making an article which is educational not partisan, and that's the final arbiter. We have three positions, ego, religious, and something new here but its not, a balance. Anyhow I'll be rewriting it sometime in the near future.Drg55 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ignore all the rules was never intended to give carte blanche to anyone who wants to express their personal philosophy in the voice of Wikipedia (or to summarize the personal philosophies of random people with web pages). As I look at what remains, I am not sure the entire article shouldn't be deleted - just quoting what a bunch of so-called 'spiritual' people have to say about ego is just as much original research, and in no way defines a spiritual concept of ego. This is particularly the case when almost half of the remaining references are to a self-styled occultist, who can be assumed to have a unique viewpoint on spirituality to begin with. I vaguely think an article might be possible on the subject, but this isn't it. Agricolae (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. This is pure OR. A personal essay. I'd !vote to delete at AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego (spirituality). Mangoe, destroyer of articles (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

March Against Monsanto

Things are reaching a critical mass at this article, with a lot of vitriol, claims of paid editing, and denial of the scientific consensus in place. Some extra eyes are necessary. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwennan Gorn

I've started work on this, trying to strip out the off-topic stuff and the bad sources. Just started though, will work on it more tomorrow. I still think it belongs in Madoc. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that some of the stuff I removed, eg sources such as William Cullen Bryant and the self-published stuff by Huyghe are back. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just merge it already (g). The legitimate content merits about half a paragraph on the Madoc page, which will be just fine without an illustration of what a deer horn is. Agricolae (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Power factor

Over at Talk:Power factor we have two editors who have been pushing the fringe claim that there is no such thing as a negative power factor despite there being exactly zero sources for that claim. Any additional eyes on the page would be most appreciated. Those who help will be given special privileges when I become Dalek Supreme... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Definitely! Followers may also want to watch for multiple references that do not support arguments they were supplied for (bogus), and excessive usage of disruptive side arguments, poetry, personal attacks and IP sockpuppetry accounts. Please also note the article is currently locked in the editwarring position without valid support and not the original text. Please do help out if you have technical knowledge. Please help out with disruptive behavior there if you have WP knowledge. Thanks for forum shopping. :) 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from the above, those who hold the fringe position that negative power factor does not exist are great at typing words into the edit browser. Providing an actual citation that supports the claim? Not so much. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My general take from experience is that any sentence that requires twelve references is probably wrong. Looking at those references, they all appear to be things like patents and primary sources -- not RS-level. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The twelve references were added by a user who was frustrated by Wtshymanski's repeated attempts to remove any reference to power factor being negative from the article. As Guy notes, neither Wtshymanski nor his (currently) suspected sock puppets (as there are now two of them) have provided any evidence to support their view. I grant that the twelve references that are currently present are not very good references, but not very good references are better than no references at all. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The twelve references were brought in by new account User:JohnJuliusFeinstein that has only completed 7 edits all editwarring with the accepted, de facto, existing article text. Now McEachern has used them in his draft article and will soon discard most of them as an embarrassment to engineering science. One even uses negative power factor to describe the phase angle between currents. Duh! As Wtshymanski stated on the discussion, when McEachern gets his draft finalised, reviewed and published it may be the king source for WP reference. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The assertion that McEachern got his references from a Wikipedia comment that came after he put his draft on the web is a bald-faced lie. The claim that "[he] will soon discard most of [the sources] as an embarrassment to engineering science" is just one more attempt to distract the reader from the fact that there are no sources that support the fringe theory that negative power factor does not exist. Classic WP:IDHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would trust the expert input of Alex McEachern more than others. The article should say that PF can be negative. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, this kerfuffle has been going on for over four years between AMcEachern and Wtshymanski. The first AMcEachern shot was this correction to the article in December 2008. Following that was a discussion with Wtshymanski across both user's talk pages, which did not prevent a quick little edit war between AMcEachern and Wtshymanski. AMcEachern tried again in October 2012 to bring some sense to the article talk page, but was resisted by Wtshymanski. April 2013 again saw some sense brought to the article talk page by Alex McEachern, but nothing came of it. I think it's high time that acknowledged industry experts such as AMcEachern are given a chance to correct the longstanding falsehood about there being no such thing as negative power factor. Binksternet (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying that AMcEachern is editwarring with this. Wtshymanski is using the accepted policies of WP and others should too. I could be God and what I say doesn't get in the articles. I haven't seen Wyshymanski go forum shopping, constantly ridicule editors opinions, or launch SPI attacks to rally support for his content disputes either. Some should be ashamed of themselves here. As stated, if you cared to actually read the talk page, when McEachern actually gets his peer reviewed article launched in the IEEE archives it will be a resource for Wikipedia. Currently the draft has embarrassing errors and is not a valid resource for WP. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't even need an acknowledged industry expert. Any ordinary Wikipedia editor can see that this is a case of two editors with zero sources for their WP:FRINGE theory wanting to talk about pretty much anything but the lack of sources and why we should treat the theory as fringe (hint: it's the lack of sources). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

174.118.142.187 has been blocked for a month, and will no doubt earn a six-month block if he resumes the behavior that got him blocked. Wyshymanski appears to have moved on. It looks like this has been resolved for now. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Socks or meat puppets at Gavin Menzies

5 IPs so far editing from the same Chinese city. Request at RPP but not responded to and the pov edits are still there. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, the editor Dougweller (talk) and others are engaging in a unscrupulous campaign of character assassination and personal attacks of the Gavin Menzies page. Is it not official Wikipedia policy that we as civilised editors must adhere to the policy of Neutral Point of View. Which in this case is routinely violated as the character assassination continues unabated. Thank you! 49.84.13.116 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies is not a historian. His theories are not accepted by mainstream historians. Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories guidelines, our article must reflect these facts. 'Neutral point of view' does not mean giving credence to fringe theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to Judge Mr. AndyGrump??? Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged (Bible), You guys are engaging in personal attacks against Gavin Menzies and assassinating his character. What gives you even the slightest right to say that his theories are so-called "fringe theories" just because you don't personally agree with him. Mr. Menzies has completed countless years of historical and academic research into the subject matter of his history books. In addition he has presented an enormous amount of historical evidence ranging from old navigation maps to historical documents that show that, at the very least, there is some truth to his theories. And for you to engage in Character Assassination against Menzies is utterly unwarranted and uncivilised. Maintaining a Neutral point of view is the official policy of Wikipedia. 49.84.13.116 (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This IP now has two warnings for 3RR and one for adding copyvio links. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Dougweller is not acting civilised, I merely posted a sourced link to show proof that Turtle Ships made in Korea predated 19th century Ironclad ships. And Mr. Dougweller has repeatedly deleted my edit summaries in an unscrupulous act of hostility. I posted this link which he continuous tries to delete, please watch and understand that even Youtube accepted it being posted as Youtube usually removes videos IF they violate any copyright laws which in this case they do not:

< copyright violation redacted AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC) >

Thank you! 49.84.13.116 (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A video about a Korean warship clearly not designed for exploration has no obvious relevance to Menzies' claims about Chinese seafaring. Paul B (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please block this idiot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And now Mr. AndyTheGrump (talk) is engaging in Personal Attacks against me by calling me an "Idiot".....how civilised of you Mr.Grump??? 49.84.13.116 (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Your idiocy is self-evident. You have been repeatedly told to stop violating policy by posting links to copyright violating material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Your hostility is also self-evident. And this is the 2nd time you have engaged in a personal attack against me by calling me an "idiot". You are the trouble maker here, please refrain from uncivilised conduct Mr. AndyTheGrump! :) 49.84.13.116 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To the User AndyTheGrump (talk), the previous editors statements have been restored, everyone has a right to state their views here and it is not allowed according to Wikipedia guidelines gto delete anyone's statements. The copyrighted link we can understand, but everyone has a freedom of speech to voice their opinions on this page. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, not a totalitarian platform. 180.118.162.225 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Free speech. And WP:NOTFORUM. And WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. YouTube only removes videos of the copyright holder requests deletion. In any case, edit warring after 2 warnings. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(@User:Dougweller although you have probably already seen it) Obvious sock is obvious, readding the youtube link elsewhere. a13ean (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control RFC

There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

How does this relate to the fringe theories noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Several participants in the ongoing debate have stated that the facts/opinions that are under dispute are WP:FRINGE. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:BiasEXPOSED

If you want to see a fringe editor trying hard to be blocked, see User:BiasEXPOSED. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not "trying to be blocked" liar. All I have to do is post Truth and the gang of pagans running Wikipedia does the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiasEXPOSED (talk • contribs)

So, you are having your own BiasEXPOSED against Pagans, and presumably the vast majority of the people in the entire world who do not accept RedneckFUNDAMENTALISM. Paul B (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

|}

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

More fringe POV pushing at Aquatic ape hypothesis. Could use more eyes on the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sergio Focardi and yet another fringe tech term

News has come that Focardi, the physicist connected to the Energy Catalyzer cold fusion device, has died. I notice his biography here has a section titled "Studies on nickel-hydrogen exothermal systems". Never heard of such a thing? This appears to be a code phrase for the supposed working principle of Rossi's E-Cat, which is to say, it's a euphemism for a "cold fusion" theory. I'm not sure what to do with the paragraph in question, but I am concerned that it gives an inaccurate picture of this research as well as give the E-Cat-pushing crowd another place to work, especially now that BLP protection for the article has lapsed. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that was the name of his paper, so it's not really a euphemism. Cold fusion is mentioned in the paragraph above. The "Studies..." section could be merged into the lead since both are so short Bhny (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is problematic because of poor sourcing. ~~I'm not even sure Focardi is notable enough (JSTOR - 0 hits for "Sergio Focardi") to warrant an article~~ (UPDATE: actually he appears to have had a reasonable footprint in the scientific community, on further searching). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

BlackLight Power

Just came out of protection. Needs to be watched for more IP abuse. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

E-Cat

An editor keeps reverting information that Focardi has died. Obviously this is relevant information since he was the only scientist behind the device. Bhny (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is far from clear that Focardi had any real input into the development of the E-Cat. Unsurprising, given the continuing lack of credible evidence that there is any actual science involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all obviously relevant, as I wrote on the Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes things are far from clear, other than he is dead and he will have limited input in the future. Bhny (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Forced to agree with OP. Clear that ecat is fringe, but as a highly notable member of an ongoing controversy, his death is very relevant to the future of the controversy, and therefore the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said on the Talk page I think it would need a source to back the "relevance" of his death before we did this stylistically odd thing. Imagining a narrative: "the E-Cat was showing promise, but the work could not be continued after the untimely death of Focardi". In truth it's bunk whether Focardi is alive or dead. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The question, as always, for this board....is the bunk notable and sourced reliably. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The pertinent term here would be "noteworthy" or "relevant" to the specific topic of this article, not "notable". Without reliable independent secondary sources saying that it is and thereby giving it weight, it is merely a trivial fact of indeterminate relevance. Also, we would need a source that states that Focardi's death has had a concrete effect on the topic of the article, not just speculation that it might have in the future. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Prescott

Paranormal/spiritualist writer Michael Prescott the owner of a spiritualist blog has been ranting that a source is wrong on wikipedia. You can find his rant here [10] entitled "wiki whacky". The source that he is moaning about is The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero by William Kalush and Larry Sloman. The book itself was published by Atria Books, it is notable. It was a New York Times Bestseller. It has received some positive reviews. Most of the book appears to be sound, but apparently there is some far-fetched speculation towards the back of the book about Houdini's death. Anyway down to the current controversy.

Michael Prescott is a convinced spiritualist who believes everything from ectoplasm to spiritualist table rapping is real, he even posts on his blog defending long debunked fraudulent mediums. There is even a page about Prescott's wacky beliefs here [11]. I am not deliberately personally attacking Prescott just merely stating his fringe beliefs. Prescott has moaned on his blog that Cesare Lombroso and Charles Richet (two spiritualist believers) were not in a sexual relationship with the medium Eusapia Palladino. According to the source by Kalush and Sloman, Palladino had slept with both Lombroso and Richet.

This issue was raised here [[12]] the user Shii is a long time poster/friend on Michael Prescott's blog. Both Shii and Prescott and now claiming victory on Prescott's blog [13] as the reference to the Sloman book has been removed. Please let me know how this issue can be resolved. Is the Sloman book reliable? A search in google books reveals other references which document that Palladino had sexual relationships with her sitters, this is well known but spiritualists such as Prescott deny it. Doubter12 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Sloman and Kalush book is a reliable source for the opinions of Sloman and Kalush. Note how it's used at Arthur Ford. Follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and you should be fine. On the other hand, Michael Prescott's blog is not considered a reliable source for any purpose. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Prescott's blog would be a reliable source for the opinions of Michael Prescott, should they ever become an encyclopedic concern. Looie496 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Bates Method

An alternative therapy devised by William Horatio Bates, M.D., who in 1920 published The Cure of Imperfect Eyesight by Treatment Without Glasses.

Reading the article here it would seem this is a controversial treatment which has met with skepticism from the "mainstream" but for which in some senses the jury is still out – space is given to claimed successes and support for the therapy from people such as "philosopher Frank J. Leavitt".

However, reading outside Wikipedia it seems Bates' approach is totally discredited and indeed highly dangerous (I have added a ref from the BMJ stating this). See for example this Quackwatch article.

I'd welcome an expert view on whether this article deals with this fringe topic well. More generally, does WP:FRINGE apply to such medical topics, or is there a point at which they are more appropriate for WP:WikiProject_Medicine? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that our article does quite a good job of explaining that the method is discredited. The material that you added refers to "sunning", a practice recommended by Bates but not by any of his modern followers, and no longer really considered part of the Bates method. Sunning is extraordinarily dangerous, as you say, but the Bates method as taught by his followers nowadays just means trying to reshape the eyeball by squinting for extended periods of time. It is useless but not especially dangerous. Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's often good to notify both boards in cases like this, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Kariong, New South Wales

Fringe and perhaps misrepresented source stuff here being added by an editor I've taken to WP:ANI for copyvio. See Talk:Kariong, New South Wales - I think he's not just using unreliable sources but misrepresenting sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Old text reinserted by another editor now, hopefully this will be over soon. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe not. The editor is past 3RR now and his new edit is better but still some dubious sources, including one< I'd love to use but I don't think qualifies. If it does, the author (Strong) has written other debunking stuff we could use but it's on his blog. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hinduwisdom.info and nationalist pseudoscience

Hinduwisdom.info is a WP:FRINGE website that selectively quote mines dubious and unreliable sources to push the point that Hindu civilization is superior to Western (or any other) civilization. Many of the claims made on the site are pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical, and xenophobic.

This article claims that the ancient Egyptians and Ethiopians were "colonized" by ancient India and that Hinduism is the basis of Egyptian religion and philosophy.
This article minimizes the role of the Alexander the Great's conquests and the widely documented Greek influence on Indian society. It also claims that the Greek philosophers were directly influenced by Hinduism.
This article claims that ancient Indians discovered the Americas, not Europeans, and that the cultures of the Mayans and Aztec are based on Hindu culture.
The site also promotes Ayurvedic medicine, a form of alternative medicine that is considered a pseudoscience.

Ancient India was the source of many of the world's religions and technological innovations, but the website serves a single purpose: To demonize the contributions of other civilizations, especially the contributions of Europeans, while glorifying Hinduism. This historical revisionism has been cited on multiple Wikipedia articles, and needs to be immediately removed. Thoughts? --Rurik the Varangian (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd find it hard to imagine any case where the website could be considered a reliable source. If the sources it's mining really do contain significant information that will be in other, reliable, sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say that is a view of history that differs sharply from mine, and probably from most other English speakers. What about in India? Is this representative of the kind of thing that's taught in schools there? If so, "fringe" may acquire a badly needed global perspective, as what is considered "mainstream" on this side of the globe may be considered "fringe" on that side of the globe, and vice versa. On the other hand, if this is considered "fringe" in that country as well, that's a different story. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The historical revisionism propagated by nationalists is also controversial in India. Many moderate Hindus and minorities have objected to the revisionism. This article published as part of Harvard's FAS Scholarly Articles and this article by The Times of India offer an overview of the controversy. Fringe theories like the claim that ancient Indians discovered the Americas prior to Columbus have no support among actual indologists in India or elsewhere.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The source is absolutely useless for any purposes on WP. Pure fringe bullshit. Any material supported by it that cannot be reliably sourced should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Devasahayam Pillai‎, whose beatification by the Vatican was opposed and martyrdom was denied by some Hindus, the website serves to provide an online copy of articles in reliable sources that are not available online. I have therefore restored a citation in that article, as I judged it significant for maintaining WP:NPOV. If it is not acceptable to keep hinduwisdom.com then I suggest the citations should be shortened by removing the offending URL and keeping them as offline citations, rather than deleting the material. – Fayenatic London 20:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Hinduwisdom often alters or misrepresents their quotes to fit whatever argument their trying to make. For example, on that page, Hinduwisdom citing UNESCO claims that the United Nations declared that:

"Veda is ultimate source of knowledges (sic): United Nations"

But UNESCO has never made that statement. The quote isn't mentioned anywhere on the official UNESCO entry for Vedic Chanting. The quote was actually lifted from a BBC article reporting on UNESCO's recognition of Vedic chanting, and was significantly changed in the process. This is the original quote:

"The Vedas is seen by India's religious majority as the ultimate source of knowledge."

By removing a portion of the quote and misattributing it to the wrong source, Hinduwisdom has altered the meaning of the quote to promote their fringe point of view. Hinduwisdom should not be trusted, even as a repository for offline sources. There's no way to verify that their excerpts are genuine.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, and thanks; I won't use it again. However, I have reinstated the objections in that article with better citations; those objections were also noted by the body criticised. Is Hindu Vivek Kendra "scholarly" as stated in its Wikipedia article? – Fayenatic London 23:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Pseudophilosophy

WikiProject Philosophy are discussing whether the creation and use of Category:Pseudophilosophy is a good and worthwhile idea. Input from fringe theory noticeboard regulars is welcome. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think that if a philosophy is notable enough and backed up with enough reliable sources to be on WP, that it is a philosophy. Even if it is total crap. I would not use such a category, it smacks of POV labeling something one doesn't like. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we need to avoid applying our own POV labels. I could, however, see it being a legitimate category if the ideas that have been so labeled by reliable sources (ie someone outside of Wikipedia)... but in that case, I would expect to find a statement in the article that actually says that someone labels it a pseudophilosophy... and who does so. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Some POV on some Paranormal articles

There may need to be some eyes on this user's contributions [14] he has already been blocked before it seems but he keeps inserting fringe material in paranormal articles and deleting reliable sources as "biased" and claiming they were written by "materialists" or "atheists". On the paranormal article he has written a long rant [15] which is mostly trolling claiming Wikipedia editors are atheists and materialists suppressing evidence for the paranormal. I have reverted some of his edits but he will probably start an edit war on some of these articles. Doubter12 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Have already noticed trolling at Ian Stevenson, and removed a rant myself. Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Will keep an eye on their contributions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see his rants on the article and talkpage of Frederic William Henry Myers. How do we handle this issue? Doubter12 (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE, as evidenced by this. I don't have time today, but WP:AN/I seems the next logical step. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Max Gerson

Needs eyes on - attempts to weasel-word the lede to imply that fringe 'therapy' isn't scientifically unsupported and potentially hazardous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Tartessian as Celtic

Please keep looking out for mention of "Tartessian" and "Celtic from the West" in articles related to Indo-European and specifically Celtic languages and peoples, to the Bronze Age of Europe, and the (pre-)history of Portugal and Spain. John T. Koch's and Francisco Villar's proposal, in various publications since 2010, that the (obscure and quite ancient) Tartessian language (of southern Portugal and southwestern Spain) was a Celtic language, due to the activities of POV-pushing editors, keeps popping up in at times only marginally related articles, variously presented as unqualified fact (as in Indo-European languages), or more carefully worded, but conspicuously – and conveniently – neglecting to mention the failure of this proposal to gain significant traction in the scholarly community (as in Celts), or with puffery added (as in Atlantic Bronze Age), as well as typically an exaggerated number of footnotes, apparently intended to impress the reader, falling afoul of WP:REFBLOAT and WP:RECENT.

It is important to know that Koch and Villar are by no means outsiders or amateur linguists, but respected specialists in Celtic studies and historical Indo-European linguistics, but the significant methodical issues with their readings cannot be ignored and have not gone unnoticed. Except in Tartessian language, Celtic languages and perhaps Tartessos and Celts, the proposal hardly even merits mention at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's also Atlantean (documentary series) and perhaps more articles like it which display POV in being overly sympathetic to the fringe view and playing down or failing to mention its problems, or letting misunderstandings go uncorrected.

No mainstream linguist is going to claim that the native population of the British Isles claiming a "Celtic" ethnic identity (itself a recent historical-linguistics-based construct, make no mistake) is derived purely from Iron Age populations of Central Europe – that it goes back exclusively to a single source, which would mean that there were no inhabitants preceding the Celtic/Indo-European influx (which the archaeological facts are incompatible with), or that they were completely eradicated (as some earlier scholars held); the genetic and archaeological data are easy to reconcile with the linguistic facts if we allow for multiple origins: ancient Celts, immigrants from the continent, could well have formed only a relatively thin ruling class over a native population with links to the south – Iberia and perhaps North Africa. But their original languages (which formed a substratum to Celtic) are completely unknown, making the British Isles, unfortunately, a blank spot on the linguistic map of Bronze Age Europe – only fragments of this map can be reconstructed. (See Insular Celtic languages and Goidelic substrate hypothesis for some more detail on the issue, and Pre-Celtic for investigations beyond linguistics.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A geographical problem

Hi all,
There is a fringe theory that Kosovo is still part of Serbia. (In reality, it declared independence a few years ago). In prose, it's generally a good idea to cover both sides in context, but categorisation doesn't really permit such nuances, and unfortunately people still seem keen to use categorisation to revoke the independence. What's the best way to deal with this? bobrayner (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't even belong here. Not every place that declares independence actually turns out to have been (just ask the people in Biafra or the Confederate States of America). As 47% of UN member states still do not accept Kosovo as independent, this view is not fringe in any rational sense of the word. Anyhow, categories are finding aids, not hard and fast definitions. Agricolae (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you focus on recognition by other states rather than the other available evidence, and pretend that every state which hasn't sent the right piece of paper continues to regard Kosovo as an integral piece of Serbia, it can be framed as though there's 47% real-world support for the notion that borders of Kosovo are actually borders of Serbia. Alas, reliable real-world sources don't say that, and categories are still supposed to be verifiable and neutral. bobrayner (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is poor attempt to use this Noticeboard to feed the nationalist POV. Location of this is the Kosovo, we do not dispute that, but designation is Serbia, as this is Serbian cultural heritage, and not Kosovo's. And we have THE one reference about it. WHC.UNESCO. Kosovo is not the independent country, like France or Germany. Kosovo is the disputed territory between Republic of Kosovo and Serbian Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. And it must be represented like that in neutral encyclopedic system. Deal with it. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a question for this noticeboard. Try the categorization noticeboard or the NPOV noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, what do a bunch of actual nations (or the UN for that matter) have to do with geopolitics in the real world? These things take years, even decades, to resolve themselves (e.g. Spanish Sahara). To just call this a fait accompli and everyone who disagrees 'fringe' (or 'part of the problem') does no justice to the complexity of the issue - an issue of NPOV, yes, an issue of categorization, yes, but not an issue of fringe. Agricolae (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae and White Writer. This is just a poor POV attempt and should be taken somewhere else. 23 editor (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a fringe theory. TFD (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding "hoax" to the title of Bosnian pyramids article

Bosnian pyramid hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Bosnian pyramids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Latest discussion
2008 discussion
2010 discussion

Calling it a hoax in the title of the article seems a step too far without much better sourcing. To title it a hoax currently violates WP:COMMONNAME. My impression is that we have there is wide consensus to use words like "hoax" in a title sparingly and only when it's well-documented that a outright hoax was perpetuated. Note the rarity in List of religious hoaxes and List of hoaxes.

Because of the multiple types of hoaxes, many with legal aspects, there are NPOV and BLP issues with using the label at all, but I believe the use of "hoax" within the article is appropriate given the sources. However, we do not have sources that go into the hoax accusations in any depth, nor do we have sources demonstrating the label is commonly used. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that the debate has already been ongoing for two weeks, it would be more productive to continue discussion there, rather than starting anew here. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul Marmet

This article may also need sorting out. The references are amazon and his own website. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation Trojan Horse

This article is complete original research. I spent over an hour looking for sources, all I could find was one review and a mention of it in a few other UFO books which are unreliable. I believe a redirect may be the solution and perhaps mention the book on the article on John Keel if any reliable sources can found but an entire article to see is completely over the top as no references can be found to back up what is written in the article. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the article's Talk page. The originating editor responded with WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, WP:HARDWORK, and WP:PLEASEDONT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The article as written was a fawning advertisement for the book and an uncritical repetition of Keel's views, however wacky. Deleted as unsalvagable advertisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs

This article is in a seriously bad state (mostly original research), and the references that are cited are to fringe UFO websites. Most of the article is similar to what is on the Interdimensional hypothesis. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's basically OR based on shoddy sources. AfD seems the best venue for this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Paraphysics

Please see the edit history of this article, it was a redirect since 2007 but was restored recently. This seems dodgy fringe material. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Presents 'paraphysics' as a subject of 'research' without making clear that such research lacks recognition within mainstream science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Im not even sure there is a possible article here. Would vote "delete" at AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any chance anyone can submit the paraphysics article for an AfD? I see no reason why the article should be kept, original research, lack of sources and some of the ones that are used are completely fringe and not even a notable topic etc. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

‪Minnesota Iceman‬

Owner of the "Museum of the Weird" who recently opened a new exhibit of the "Minnesota Iceman" is looking to remove mention of it being a hoax, despite his obvious WP:COI. Bears watching. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy

A bunch of sockpuppet accounts has been deleting things from the Mary Baker Eddy article, he admitted in his edit history to being a "Christian scientist" and his agenda appears to be deleting any criticism from the article and adding in fringe sources. He's done the same on the Christian Science article it seems as well in the past. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Socks? Really? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

They are all the same person, I would request an SPI case to be opened but I don't know how to do that. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have evidence you file out a request at WP:SPI, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know about the other users you've accused, from looking at their postings in the talk pages they are probably different. I can say that I've only edited the articles you mentioned using the Wikiuser1239 account. Also you should engage with editors of an article on the talk pages when making edits. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You have made mistakes and given away your identity in some of your edits, I know you are at least 89.100.155.6 and Bridge bendek. I don't have time at the moment but I will open an SPI case. As for the article, you made your agenda clear you admitted to being a christen scientist, and all you do is bit by bit remove criticism from the articles of Eddy based on your personal belief. From your edit history it appears you have had disputes with other users over this issue. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiuser Can you make it clear why you have removed the british israelism from the MBE article? I won't get into an edit war over this so I have reverted to your edit removal, but Timothy Miller is not a fringe source or a "crackpot" like your edits claimed. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are not edit warring. I responded to your post of the MBE talk page and it is probably best to discuss it in more depth there so that other editors on that article can weigh in. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Filling out the WP:SPI report takes only about 5 minutes, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Viking spacecraft biological experiments#Labeled Release, i.e. Life on Mars claimed to have been discovered

Can someone add more views to that section? Smacks of WP:FRINGE. It's currently mostly based on Levin's publications. A search in Google Books finds plenty of material... Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not mainstream and agree the article is heavily biased. Second your proposal.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it pseudoscience, so not quite WP:FRINGE. It is more accurately Fringe science in the wider sense of minority view science, and based on scientific methods, which has its place in a scientific article so long as it is clearly described as minority view. Few of his colleagues accept his ideas. But they don't have a totally convincing alternative that everyone agrees on in detail AFAIK. Robert Walker (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Magnetic motor

Article about a perpetual motion machine that was patented in the 1970's. Lots of weasel-words about "some people think this is impossible", needs more neutral language on perpetual motion. Additionally, not much notability is established in the article; the only source is "FreeEnergyNews.com"; a quick Google didn't turn up anything that looks too reliable. Mildly Mad^T_C 17:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced pseudoscience - I've tagged it, and clarified that it is bunkum. Unless proper sources can be found (including such mainstream sources necessary per WP:FRINGE to establish notability), it will have to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected the article to a plausible search term. The article had no sources and contained lines like "Since magnetism is a large scale manifestation of nuclear and electronic forces, ... , a successful magnet motor would be a means of harnessing atomic energies via magnetism", nothing worth salvaging and it does a disservice to anyone meaning to get to Induction motor to land at that article, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action. Zarnivop (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Fritz Springmeier and Cathy O'Brien

User:Shanethegadberry, a new editor, has been editing these two articles to make them match with the subjects' own conspiracy theories. His edits use non-reliable sources and generally take the subjects' side, ignoring or deprecating any non-fringe sources and claiming persecution of the subjects. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Dougweller gave me good advice and I edited what he recommended. He did not make any changes after that. Shanethegadberry (talk)

Some of my advice was taken onboard, but the reason I didn't make any changes at all today is that I've been away. I've mentioned some of the problems on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Burzynski Clinic

A new editor and an IP have been attempting to make some changes that I would not consider WP:NPOV on Talk:Burzynski Clinic. I'm short on time (which is really just my excuse for really not wanting to deal with these types of conversations anymore :D) but some gentle explaining of neutrality might be helpful before this editor gets him/herself in trouble. N^oformation ^Talk 21:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Damorbel

Has non-std ideas about what heat is. Not sure whether he's a crank or what, but may need to be monitored if he doesn't cease (or is made to desist). Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

See especially Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Request to community-ban User:Damorbel from all articles and talk pages on thermodynamics. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Human genome

This is borderline fringe. An nearly SPA editor (at least in his recent postings) is insisting at human genome that to refer to it as "the human genome", with the the, gives the article a "bias in favor of 'big science'" and so has replaced "The human genome" at the start with all kinds of combinations to avoid using that specific phrase. He also keeps restoring text (currently a whole section, the first after the lede) to indicate that (as opposed to just 'human genome') the specific phrase 'the human genome' has a special meaning (at one point putting in the article that it was used by scientists to camouflage their differing interests). While the section is littered with references, only one actually comments on the use of the phrase itself and it doesn't say what he portrays. More eyes would be helpful. Agricolae (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

Some discussion coming to boil over whether Chopra's views on quantum science are really fringe, and whether/how skeptic commentary on him should be present. Wise editors' opinions could benefit the discussion I am sure. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

how notable are the natterings of a famous person? Unless his comments have generated a lot of commentary in the quantum science world, I think they are best left off en.wp all together. He's a Dr. and health advocate, not a chemist or physicist. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that hardcore scientists just don't bother with it; skeptics and commentators on science pooh-pooh it, and new-age types might give it a more sympathetic hearing. It's one of those interesting cases where it's so nonsensical the scientists-in-question don't even bother to rebut it ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I can understand how this would happen. You wouldn't believe the sheer volume of crazy that shows up in your email inbox if you're listed on a physics department web site. I'm afraid I got lost with the wall of text on the talk page though. a13ean (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Chopra's views on quantum mechanics are fringe, but also quote famously fringe; plenty of sources do exist characterising the fringiness of his views. I'll dig up some at the weekend, but the current sources are fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Recipients of the Nobel Prize are obviously notable as such. I would presume that Ig Nobel laureates also are due some (though lesser) notability for that award, too.--R.S. Peale (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Valentino Bocca controversy

A new article on a case where an Italian judge apparently awarded damages to a family claiming the MMR vaccine causes autism. Some content on the same topic was added at MMR vaccine controversy which I reverted. No scientific literature is cited. I'm leaning towards a PROD or AfD but I'd like to ask for opinions here first. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The case should not, IMO have it's own article, but it clearly is relevant to MMR vaccine controversy, since it has created more controversy! It is citable to reliable sources that it is linked to the controversy. Obviously a legal judgement is not a scientific one, but that's a different issue. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been previously discussed at the MMR controversy article and the consensus appears to have been not to include it. Anyways, I've redirected the article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons

Possible topic ban in this fringe-medical-related topic. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A comment about this post by 84.* has been made here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#fringe_theories_notice_board_vs_forum_shop_.26_canvasing. More input welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Transgenerational epigenetic observations?

This seems like rather an exceptional claim (that circumstantial information is transmitted to subsequent generations genetically), also evident in the links from here. The Överkalix study seems to have had some press coverage and is also treated as "reviving" the evolutionary debate in this piece. Any geneticists in the house?

The specific result is a bit odd (the opposing gender-specificity of the descent), but the concept that there can be trans-generational effects mediated via epigenetics doesn't surprise me in the least. As big as genomics are, epigenetic inheritance is the hot topic in genetics these days. Maybe, though, I am missing your point. Is there something specific that raises issues for you? Agricolae (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite probably just my ignorance - but it seemed maybe some there was some suggestion of Lamarckian inheritance in play. Is it really mainstream science now that environmental influence is transmitted by some kind of genetics? Well, I live and learn! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, environmental influences can induce systemic changes in DNA methylation and this can alter gene expression, and some DNA methylation differences are passed to subsequent generations. Neither of those are debated. Is that Lamarkian? Depends on your criteria for Lamarkianism, I guess. Bear in mind that the environmentally-induced epigenetic changes are not necessarily adaptive, so in one sense it is no different than exposure to a mutagen, which makes changes that are then passed down. With this particular study, I would have to read it to see whether they controlled appropriately - it may just be classic Darwinism. If the famine killed off one end of the gene pool, then the progeny of the survivors would have different allele frequency than the non-famine population, whether those allelic differences are methylation-based or simply nucleotide sequence-based. Still, the general concept is accepted, at least in theory. Agricolae (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is probably adaptive. I think the word "reviving" is hyperbole though. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I am reassured the article has wise eyes on it :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FTN Discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales

An editor has raised concerns with FT/N on UT:Jimbo, thread can be found at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#fringe_theories_notice_board_vs_forum_shop_.26_canvasing. N^oformation ^Talk 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Could use some eyes on Acupuncture. Some editors are trying to elevate some unsupported or poorly supported explanations to the level of "theories". A lot of the material in the section on "Proposed mechanisms of action" is not supported by sources complying with WP:MEDRS, and the most widespread explanation, the placebo effect, is played down, probably violating WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which of my sources do you think fail WP:MEDRS? -A1candidate (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which of the sources being used for highly speculative ideas about mechanisms violates WP:MEDRS? Is that your question? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Precognition

A new user Seleukos256 has been pushing some fringe views and deleting scientific sources on the precognition article. I did some further research. Here is one of his comments (it is obviously the same guy):

"I visited the Wikipedia page on precognition this morning and it was awful. It said things like: no replicable experiments, violates scientific principles (I have a Ph.D. in physics and say this is a B.S. excuse and no I don't mean the degree), no scientists believe in it... yadda, yadda. I fixed and replaced some of the most painfully false statements today. But I think we need to be more proactive in promoting and defending scientific parapsychological results on Wikipedia. It is the first place many people go for reference.

If you see these kinds of statements on Wikipedia pages, please DELETE! The "skeptics" have nothing to back them up."

From a spiritualist blog [16]. Eyes may need to be put on some of these parapsychology articles, I suspect that other stuff may start being deleted and all kinds of crackpot claims are going to be inserted. I don't have time for this because I am busy working on some other articles. But just giving a heads up, if anyone wants to watch that article. Thanks. Fodor Fan (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Added to watchlist, I also note "I have a Ph.D. in physics and say this is a ..." is an appeal to authority, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The section on "Tachyon theory" does injustice to the word "theory". Surely this is conjecture at best? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed it wholesale, undue weight fringe theories. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli

Please see Talk:Ruggero Santilli#Page seems to be giving credibility... The page is giving credibility to the man and to several of his theories, that are clearly fringe theories and fringe science, without giving due warning, or showing credible sources of refutation, thus giving it undue weight. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the BLP makes it clear that none of his theories have been accepted. Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

March Against Monsanto Deletion discussion

I've put the article March Against Monsanto up for deletion. It is of interest to this board because the reason for deletion is that the article inherently fails WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE because it appears that the scientific consensus can not be stated without WP:OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

While the movement might be full of crazypants, the article is notable enough. What does scientific consensus have to do with a political-ish movement? It behooves us who frequent this board not to get too wrapped up in fighting against the crazy that we forget that properly described and referenced crazy has a place in an encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's being kept. For me, the crunch point comes (when taking fringe guidance into account) when the article states, of the protestor's concerns, "GM foods can adversely affect human health, causing 'cancer, infertility and birth defects'". Should that be allowed to stand as-is, or immediately qualified as a fringe view in accord with the fringe guidance? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

After a quick search of the article, I could not find the claim Alexbrn cites. petrarchan47 t c 19:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Try the "Concerns" section; first bullet point. Of course the content may go since the article is in flux, but on a point of principle in how to apply fringe guidance, the question of how this content should be dealt with is of interest to this board, I think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fringe or not, a statement like that needs a real reference, not my 17 yr olds blog. And that's really my point, crazy views are fine, IF there are references to back them up and other references to explain the real context. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well this is sourced to the International Business Times, one of the better sources in the article, and based on some material on the March's official site which states: "Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects." Clearly IBT haved toned this down a bit by removing the "Research studies have shown" claim. So, given that the sourcing looks good, the fringe question remains: does this "crazy view" need to be qualified with the scientific counter-view, or not? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO, one cannot make that statement without 'research studies' of some kind at least. So, if there are none, then it should be qualified. If there are some, then the article should either say that, or link to another Wikipedia article that discusses the matter in detail. My preference would be to keep an article like this focused on the group, not whether they are right. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In my understanding there are no reliable sources that support this protestors' concern. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not complaining about anything in the wiki article, but rather that someone related to the protest printed something off-wiki that you disagree with? Why does that deserve mention at a noticeboard or on wiki at all? petrarchan47 t c 21:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's right there in the article text: "The stated belief that GM foods can adversely affect human health, causing 'cancer, infertility and birth defects'[28]". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if you have such a big problem with this, why did you add it to the article? This was pointed out at the last ANI about Viriditas' behaviour... did you not realize this was pointed out? He said that claims were being added by the very people who then used them as evidence for their complaints. Reread Viriditas' comments, my friend. This looks highly suspicious to anyone with a brain stem, I would imagine. petrarchan47 t c 22:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WTF? are you just trolling us now Alexbrn? I thought you generally had a good approach to the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As discussed at the time on Talk, I don't believe a solution to the issue is to sanitize the protestors' views or be selective with sources so as to swerve around the issue. They hold a certain view, and are reliably reported as doing so. It simply wasn't/isn't honest to pretend otherwise so the fringe issue goes away, surely? That would just be editorial expediency. (And in any case, Viritditas' less good source made mention of more vague "serious health conditions", so it is not as if that resolves the fringe issue here either). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what Alexbrn has said. He never denied adding it, and he appears to be looking for guidance as to whether an incorrect view given through a quote should be added to an article when there is no contextualisation to the scientific consensus. He did not state he had a problem with it, he stated he was not sure where policy stood, and thus was seeking guidance. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - I drew attention to my edit at the time and raised the fringe concern, so it's not as if this is some kind of revelation. There's been too much focus on supposed editor behaviour in this article, at the expense of content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So what are the options?

Taking this case of the claim that GM food has adverse affects health (which runs counter to science) it seems 3 options are in play:

Do not include the claim in whole or in part. An editor recently attempted this solution but was reverted on the basis that "we include claims made no matter the science".
Let the fringe claim stand 'as is', accepting that it is the view of the protestors, and inaccurate, but sufficiently qualified by the overall context of the article that this does not matter: readers will understand it's a view and not a scientific statement. This is the situation in the article right now.
More immediately qualify the statement with a statement of the scientific consensus.

I am not sure the guidance in WP:FRINGE gives clear enough direction in this kind of case. It says "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Is the MaM article "covering" the GM health view "in detail"? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We should never mislead readers into thinking something inaccurate is true. If something can not be written in context, then it should not be included. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What makes this tricky in my view is that omitting (or watering-down) the protestors' #1 stated concern is also a kind of "untruth" by misrepresentation. I suppose if it came to it this would be a lesser problem than having false health information ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(Add) And it seems to me the fringe guidance is a lot softer here than the actual policy itself, which states "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. ... This also applies to other fringe subjects ..." (my bolding). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI}

I disagree that the guidelines are softer. They conform to the above. Any specific part of the guidelines you are thinking of? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevant quote from WP:FRINGE: "Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality". IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Any fringe claims anywhere in WP absolutely must be clearly identified as such and placed in the context of the mainstream view. There is no conceivable reason for making an exception here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, call me a language-lawyer but "located within a context" (guideline) is more wishy-washy than "clearly described as such" (policy). Indeed, the argument has been made about the MaM article that since the topic is a protest march, that fact in itself provides all the "context" necessary to address any concerns about fringe claims. I think the guideline would be better mirroring the policy wording more closely here: "Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and ~~located within a context~~ clearly identified as being so derived [example] Such claims may, for example, contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality" (new wording in bold). That could make the provisions of the policy more clearly applicable to the MaM problem. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We would not remove a statement of principles and goals from the Communist Party article, no matter how much of a consensus may exist that Communist principles and goals are wrong. There might be a major debate about March on Monsanto's ideology and the veracity of the goals it espouses. As long as it is not asserted, within the article, that MaM's views represent a scientific consensus, we ought to present their views fairly and even-handedly. Endless back-and-forth debates about the veracity of each claim should probably go in Genetically modified food controversies, the article conveniently existing for such debates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hear, here.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

To test the content conforms to policy we must ask: is the fringe view "clearly described" as such? Simply "not asserting" the fringe view's fringeiness would not pass that test, and so the content would be in violation of WP policy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds do you assert that MAM is "fringe"? Its views on the science of the effects of GMO food may be out of the mainstream, but its other assertions are not necessarily science-based, but rather are allegations and conclusions about corporate control of agriculture and the bioethics of genetic modification that are not subject to a falsifiable test. We should describe their conclusions about the health effects as out of the mainstream of current science, but the rest of their ideas and beliefs cannot be so described. It is clear from the data that a general distrust of GMO foods is not, in any way, shape or form a fringe belief. For example, polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans support requiring that GMO products be labeled as such.

In other words, we are required to note that the health effects issue is opposed by the weight of current scientific data. There is no scientific data that can prove or disprove a concern founded upon bioethics of transgenics or a concern based upon the issue of corporate control, patents, etc. relating to agriculture. This may represent minority views, but they are quite clearly not fringe theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

MAM itself is not necessarily fringe, but the claim that GM food causes cancer, birth defects and infertility certainly is. It is that specific claim which is under discussion here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The article already spells that out. "There is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater health risk than conventional food."

If you are referring to the mention in the "positions" section, there is absolutely no call to emplace a rebuttal to each and every claim made in that statement of positions. The section title makes it abundantly clear that those are the positions held by MaM. A "Positions" section would be rendered useless and incomprehensible if every statement of position was followed by a lengthy back-and-forth about whether that position is right or wrong. The point of the section is to lay out the claims made by MaM - no more, no less.

If you believe that further rebuttal is required, why could a sourced critique not be inserted in the "Monsanto and industry response" section below? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

An example is to be found in the concepts section of our Marxism article. Marxism today is, if anything, far more of a fringe theory than opposition to GMOs. A vast majority of economists and political scientists would probably consider it entirely disproven. But we do not overload the "Concepts" section with an endless debate. Instead, the "concepts" of Marxism are clearly laid out, in a manner that clearly and unambiguously presents them as the tenets of the theory and ideology. Criticisms of those tenets are placed in a separate section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

First, There is some straw man argumentation here. There is no proposal for "every statement of position" to be "followed by a lengthy back-and-forth". The discussion is about fringe claims: in this case the single claim that GM food causes cancer, etc. Secondly, what happens on the Marxism article does not determine WP policy, so is really irrelevant. The statement that GM food causes cancer is, as the article stands, a fringe statement that is not "clearly described" as such, and so this content violates Wikipedia policy. The fact we have a sentence a dozen paragraphs earlier that qualifies it is not "clear description". We simply need to add a rider in situ. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Atacama skeleton

A new editor appears to be re-inserting POV pushing content without discussion to make it appear that the Atacama skeleton is possible alien. More eyes are welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a good name for the article if anyone has any good ideas, see the talk page. I called it the Atacama skeleton. I was considering Ata (anthropology) since that is what Science (the journal/magazine) calls it, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Medical claims

I don't know if this is the right place. They told me at the Administration noticeboard to try here. Can Mindfulness (psychology) really treat these diseases? I'm not a scientist so I can't decipher the medical studies. Maybe someone can look at them if they have time. Alexbrn reviewed the MBSR article but I think this one needs a review also. Research suggests that mindfulness practices are useful in the treatment of pain,[4] stress,[4] anxiety,[4] depressive relapse,[4] disordered eating,[4] and addiction.[24][25] Mindfulness has been investigated for its potential benefit for individuals who do not experience these disorders, as well, with positive results. Mindfulness practice improves the immune system[26] and alters activation symmetries in the prefrontal cortex, a change previously associated with an increase in positive effect and a faster recovery from a negative experience.--LarEvee (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

For Mindfulness-based stress reduction the research did appear to indicate some positive mental effects for people taking the program, though nothing like the miraculous curative effects the article was falsely claiming before it was tidied-up. I'll take a look at Mindfulness (psychology) this weekend. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was also worried about the topic some months ago, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_30#Within_scope.3F. The guideline of interest is WP:MEDRS. If you want to start making changes consider also giving the people at WP:WPMED a shout, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'm glad to see there are members who can look at these things and evaluate the research and make the claims and statements accurate and scientific.--LarEvee (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice

I don't think it's worth naming the article, but on a long-standing problem article I added MiszaBot archiving to the talk page after 7 days. This seems to have vastly reduced the problems, since threads didn't stay active to be constantly resurrected. May be worth trying elsewhere. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Astrology

There is an ongoing discussion about the definition of astrology at talk:astrology. Part of the problem is that our treatment of the concept of divination is split between two articles, Divination, which deals with religious rituals, and Fortune-telling which deals with non-religious forms of divination like astrology. I'm reluctant to use the term "fortune-telling" in the definition in the Astrology article, and would much prefer to use the term "divination". However, that would mean wikilinking the word "divination" with the article on fortune-telling. Further input would be appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The closely-related question of the definition of fortune-telling was brought up at Talk:Fortune-telling after this edit.--Other Choices (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Some very quick GScholar searching tends to show that they are nearly the same thing. The very many more hits for "fortune telling" are to a large degree accounted for by many laundry lists of spiritualist/occultish practices and to a lesser degree by discussion of fortune telling as a source of Romany livelihood. There are numerous hits which show they are taken as synonyms by the authors. My sense of it is that divination and fortune-telling are largely the same thing, but that there is a contextual difference. Divination seems to invariably imply that the practitioners take it seriously, whereas contexts where people are just fooling around or entertaining themselves with it (e.g. using a Ouija Board at a party) invariably use fortune telling. It seems to me that a unified article would make more sense. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I did suggest that a merge might be in order, though I'm not sure that it would succeed. While I personally think the distiction is artificial and doesn't reflect what I'm seeing in the literature, I can sort of understand the desire of the ediotors involved to distribute the religious and non-religious practices into separate articles. Disagree that the difference intended is serious vs. non-serious. It seems like it's religious vs. non-religious. Some people take fortune-telling methods like astrology very seriously. Talking to someone who does can be quite an, um, interesting experience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also the question of to what extent astrology is reliably associated with divination and/or fortune-telling. From what I have seen, there is NOT a 1-to-1 correspondence. Brockbank's Ph.D dissertation, Chapter 2 (p. 57 and following), discusses divination as one of several explanations of astrology. And Peter Whitfield's scholarly Astrology: A History has the following on page 8: "It would be easy to argue that its motive was simply the desire to see into the future, but astrology has always made intellectual claims which were far higher than fortune-telling or crystal-ball gazing."

And Whitfield on page 128 states that during the Renaissance "astrology was not merely a system of divination, but had widened into a system of beliefs about cosmology, natural events, health and disease, destiny and death."

--Other Choices (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the abstract of the dissertation you cited says: "Instead, it [the thesis, the dissertation] argues that astrology cannot be a science and should be seen as a form of divination;"... Also, I don't see why a "widened system of divination" (as other sources you gave seem to describe it) should not count as a "system of divination"... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Whitfield, I don't think that "widened system of divination" fits Whitfield's beginning statement that "astrology has always made intellectual claims that were far higher than fortune-telling or crystal-ball gazing." If the essential difference between fortune-telling and divination is the context within which the activity takes place (as Dominus Vobisdu argues), then Whitfield's statement logically applies to divination as well as fortune-telling. But perhaps such reasoning is WP:SYNTH.

--Other Choices (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Brockbank, I think there are two separate issues here. First of all is Brockbank's SUMMARY of different explanations for astrology in Chapter 2, which shows that there are long-standing non-divinatory explanations (or rationalizations, if you prefer) for astrology. My understanding is that this material is within wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Second is Brockbank's own conclusion that astrology is a form of divination, which he situates within his new "Responsive Cosmos" hypothesis, and this is a whole new layer of fringe for wikipedia editors to deal with. (Brockbank's "Responsive Cosmos" could easily pop up on the talk pages of the Theology or Religious studies articles, not to mention the Astrology or the Divination or the Astrology and science articles.) He summarizes in his conclusion, starting on p. 381.

--Other Choices (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, I don't think I understand. If you say that Brockbank's dissertation is "fringe among the fringe", then, um, why should we care what it says? Can't you find something that is at least "mainstream among the fringe"..? Also, it doesn't even seem to have full bibliographic information in some comfortable place. For example, year. Or school. Thus it doesn't look like a reliable source...

Likewise, could you, please, give a little more bibliographic information about the other source? For example, if I understand correctly, Whitfield's book you mentioned was published by Abrams Books, which is described as "publisher of high-quality art and illustrated books"... At this point it does not really look very "scholarly" (as you described it)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Brockbank, I'm making a distinction between his summary of existing scholarship (standard procedure in a Ph.D dissertation, and within the scope of reliable sources) and his presentation of his new "Responsive Cosmos" hypothesis, which is by definition fringe because it is so new, so it should be used with extreme caution, if at all. A quick google search shows that his dissertation was accepted by the University of Kent in 2011.

Regarding Whitfield's Astrology: A History as a source, I'll quote a comment by User:Dominus Vobisdu from the Talk:Astrology page: "Whitfield is a real historian, and has written the ten-volume Grolier History of Science. His Astrology: A History was published by the British Museum, which is very reputable. It's on par with the Encylopedia Britannica article."

My copy of Whitfield indicates that it was published by the British Library.--Other Choices (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You are really over relying on this thesis. On Astrology: A History', of I recall, if you check the book it says Abrams. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, could you please explain your vague statement that I am "over relying on this thesis"? Regarding the publisher of Whitfield's Astrology: A History, I have a copy of the book in my hand. The publishing information reads as follows: "First published 2001 by The British Library, 96 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB." The British Library and the British Museum used to be housed in the same building; hence Dominus Vobisdu's identification of the British Museum as the book's publisher. EDIT: And you can check amazon.com here: the publisher is the British Library. --Other Choices (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

And the same "Amazon" in a different page ([17]) tells us "Publisher: Harry N. Abrams; First edition (September 1, 2001)". Is that the same book? Is that the same author? I don't know. That is one reason why I asked you for full bibliographic information for all your sources. Please, supply it. It shouldn't be that much work. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm surprised by your evident belief that I haven't supplied full bibliographic information for both sources I mentioned. Could you please tell me what information you're looking for that I haven't already included? If you want the source of my information on Brockback's Ph.D dissertation (I understand that British use the word "thesis" instead), you can check Patrick Curry's website here.
By the way, the amazon link you supplied shows that Whitfield's Astrology: A History is indeed the same book that was published by the British Library. The Abrams version has a different-colored cover, but the design is the same. If you scroll down to the bottom of your link, you will see a reference to the "British Museum" edition of the book, and of course the British Library used to be part of the British Museum. Evidently Abrams published the book in the United States simultaneously with the British Library in England. My copy (published by the British Library) indicates that the text is copyrighted (2001) by Peter Whitfield, and the illustrations are copyrighted by the British Library (with its extensive collection of old manuscripts which are the basis of the illustrations).--Other Choices (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that the British Museum/Library publish books. I've never heard of it. They would hold copyright to many images, but that does not make them a publisher, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it has it's own press [[18]]. The problem is whether it's reliable for this claim. I've been looking like crazy for other reliable sources that back Whitfield up, but so far, I've found nothing. So his claim appears to be a minority view.

Brockbank, on the other hand, is worthless. Other Choices tried to get it into the Astrology article last year, and the consensus was strongly against it. Check the article talk page archives. Basically, it doesn't carry enough weight. Again, because it's an extreme minority view. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the discussions in Talk:Astrology/Archive_28#Core principles, Talk:Astrology/Archive_28#"Correlation" and reliable sources and "Other astrologers prefer not to attempt to explain astrology." and Talk:Astrology/Archive_29#Brockbank on astrological methodology and empirical science do seem to confirm that... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That earlier discussion was focused on whether Brockbank could be used to counter scientists' claims that astrology claims to be empirically-based. The current discussion involves a different topic. Perhaps I'll start a thread on Brockbank at the RS noticeboard.--Other Choices (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Um, I'm surprised by your evident belief that I haven't supplied full bibliographic information for both sources I mentioned. Could you please tell me what information you're looking for that I haven't already included?" - at least the information in "required" fields in BibTeX. For "phdthesis" the fields are: author (Brockbank), title ("The Responsive Cosmos: An Enquiry into the Theoretical Foundation of Astrology" - though it would have been nice of you to write that down here), school (University of Kent; some search in the website you mentioned was required), year (2011 - one again in the same website). I would also like to see the name of scientific adviser (if there is one) and some hint that it was defended successfully, but, if all your information comes from that website, you probably won't be able to supply that. For "book" the required fields are author/editor, title, publisher, year. Now that you have confirmed that it is the same book, they can be found from Amazon, but at the time I asked you, that was not completely certain. Next time you can also look at the citation templates. And use them to format the bibliographic record. After all, you know what source you are presenting.

Now, a second part. Since Amazon doesn't seem to offer a preview of the book, perhaps you could describe it a little? My first guess is that is is an art book - many large illustrations, not that much text (and text is meant to explain the illustrations). That would explain the publisher and the customer reviews that praise the illustrations (one of them writes: "It is beautifully laided out with pictures and boxes and is not set out as an academic text."). Could you, please, give some evidence confirming or refuting this guess?

And third, since you gave a quote (well, two quotes to be exact, but let's start from the first one), what is the context of this quote? If it talks about "intellectual claims", are, let's say, any examples given nearby? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Whitfield's Astrology: A History isn't an "art book." It does have a lot of illustrations -- large and small -- but the illustrations don't drive the text. The book does not have footnotes, just a bibliography on page 204 followed by an index. It is clearly intended as a popularization of existing scholarship on the subject, but I'll withdraw my earlier use of the word "scholarly." It is divided into five chapters: (1) Babylonia: The Dawn of Astrology; (2) Greece: The System Perfected; (3) The Middle Ages: Eclipse and Re-Emergence; (4) The Renaissance: Triumph and Downfall; and (5) Undefeated: Astrology in the Modern Era. (This last chapter is very short.)

Whitfield's quote about astrology's "intellectual claims" comes in the final paragraph of the introduction, clearly referring back to the beginning paragraph, the first half of which I quote as follows: "This book is the history of an idea, an idea both simple and profound, and which can be traced in many cultures and in many religions. The idea is that man is somehow related, organically linked, to the universe around him. In itself this is not a bizarre idea, and it is once again alive and well in some scientific and philosophical circles today. But in certain ancient civilizations, this idea was developed along rather special and unexpected lines. This was that a network of relationships existed between man and the heavens which, if correctly understood, gave a key to human character and destiny. The study of these relationships was the science of astrology. Whether some power in the heavenly bodies was responsible for shaping human destiny, or whether they acted merely as signs of it, was a matter of argument from the first. The most distinctive feature of this idea is that it was not employed to found a philosophy in the usual sense, but that it became the starting-point of a system, which was technical, mathematical and, in the context of its time, scientific."

--Other Choices (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

With that said, the real issue here, in my opinion, is Dominus Vobisdu's recent change to the lede of the astrology article, identifying astrology with divination. To support my objection, I initially provided two reliable sources that do NOT support Dominus Vobisdu's edit, and I have since provided a third on the astrology talk page (Zarka's "scientific" evaluation of astrology here, which makes no mention of divination in its introductory summary of what astrology is). Of course it is possible that reliable secondary sources support Dominus Vobisdu's edit, but up to now no such sources have been provided. I request that Dominus Vobisdu (or anybody else) provide reliable secondary sources that support the change that has been made in the lede of the astrology article.--Other Choices (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As has already been stated the Encyclopaedia Britannica calls it divination. Case closed, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

And I just list a whole bunch of reliable sources from scholarly journals and books published by university presses on the article talk page. Not only closed, but nailed shut and buried deep. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I will add that Catechism also condemns astrology as divination: "All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers." (part 3, section 2, chapter 1, article 1, paragraph 2116). And "Other Choices", even the extracts of sources provided by you do not seem to contradict such definition as clearly, as you seem to think. At least, you still have to explain (clearly), what it is supposed to be, if not divination. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, DV has provided an abundance of reliable sources equating astrology with divination (and not with fortune-telling). Case closed, as far as reliable sources are concerned. Thank you all. Whitfield's view that astrology is not "just" a form of divination is clearly a minority view. To what extent Brockbank can be used to support anything in a wikipedia article properly belongs, I think, at a different notice board.--Other Choices (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion re splitting List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

FYI

– A discussion about splitting List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is underway at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Splitting article: science .26 non-science topics.

I have posted a proposal to split List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. The talkpage section is Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Splitting article: science .26 non-science topics. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting the question as to whether the list should be named List of pseudosciences might be appropriate. A separate List of pseudoscientific claims might then be created for things that are not pseudoscience as a topic. For example, while phrenology is a pseudoscience, the lunar effect is a pseudoscientific claim made in the context of other discussions around human behavior, psychology, and the like. jps (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that that is an official RfC so please don't confuse people by calling it one. Certainly discussion should run it's course on the article talk page before RfC launched. User:Carolmooredc 17:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Carol... how is a request for people to come and comment at a talk page not an RfC? A request for comments is a request for comments... even if it is not "offically" listed at the WP:RfC page. Wikipedia is Not A Bureaucracy Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Some things shouldn't be listed in the article in the first place. We have the religion of Christian Science listed as a topic characterized as a pseudoscience apparently based off it being labeled that way by a science fiction author, a magician, an English professor, and a philosopher. That dog don't hunt. I say that only fields of study widely considered to be pseudoscience should be included. If the characterization of the field as pseudoscience is contentious or nuanced, then it should not be included in this list. A separate article for "pseudoscientific claims" would seem to be asking for trouble, though. We already have cosmetics listed on the current article, because some news source criticized them for making pseudoscientific claims. I am sure there are no shortage of industries that make not-so-accurate claims of a scientific nature in their advertisements. Seems it would more likely turn into a shit list for people to hate on groups or people they dislike. Even then, certain things such as "Face on Mars" and "Tunguska event" will not be logical inclusions in either proposed article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As you did in discussions of this topic before, you appear to have a set of opinions about what is pseudoscience, and wish the article to conform to that. You have previously stated you think many of the items in the list are legitimate subjects.

The claims of christian science are pseudoscientific, and it deliberately confuses itself with science (some people have incorrectly stated that science had a different meaning at the end of the 19th century, when in fact the term was the same but more authority laden). Just because something is classified as a religion does not imply that it does not make claims covered by science. You haven't shown a source that disagrees or says this is controversial, you have merely asserted it The cosmetics industry is very well known for its use of misleading science, misleading names, pseudoscientific claims etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There actually is a distinction made in the literature between Christian Science practice (a pseudoscience) and Christian Science as a religion. As the formal organization has mellowed in some 150 years, their claims about the literalness of Science and Health have also mellowed. Still, there are practitioners who advocate for pseudoscientific proposals. It's just no longer the universal interpretation of the church. jps (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My opinion about what is pseudoscience is based off facts, i.e. what is generally accepted as pseudoscience rather than what certain academics label pseudoscience. That people make pseudoscientific claims about x or when believing y also does not mean x or y belong in a list of pseudosciences. Similarly a living person should not be included as a listed item just because he or she has some pseudoscientific views.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There are very few sources that can attest to what is "generally accepted as pseudoscience". It's only the big ticket items that get the attention of National Academies and the editorial boards of established journals. The vast majority of pseudoscience is identified by experts who have taken the time out of their lives to point out a problem or a misconception. Trying to base one's demaraction off of "general acceptance" is not the best editorial practice for a reference work that seeks to be reliable, in my humble opinion. jps (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My point is that any characterization that amounts to little more than "this guy called it pseudoscience and he's got a degree!" should not be included.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that one should not use credentialism. The content of the critique is important. jps (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This posting is simply a notification about a discussion regarding a possible article split. It is not a thread to discuss what is or is not pseudoscience. Nor is the list talk page discussion. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the inclusion criteria for that list ultimately will be an issue for any reorganization or renaming, but your point about staying on-topic is well-received. jps (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health

Cross post about an article filled with pseudoscientific medical claims: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Some cancer 'cures'

There has been some to-and-fro recently on a couple of article for substances which are associated with fringe claims of cancer treatment: Essiac and Soursop (and its related article Annona muricata). Wise eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Your framing of linking to relevant historic material and your removal of scientific literature, still doesn't make it fringe. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Prokaryotes‎ has now been blocked for 72 hours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Annonaceae to the list of articles to which Prokaryotes has added material not supported by WP:MEDRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Chandra Wickramasinghe

This article seems to be suffering from fringe bloat and quite a bit of coatracking. Wickramasinghe is a giant in the field of ISM studies and, as one of the last students of the late, great Fred Hoyle, is an important connection to the previous generation of astrophysicists. However, the panspermia ideas that he has been promoting over the last 30 years or so have gotten stranger and stranger to the point that he has ended up working with predatory open access journals like the Journal of Cosmology to promote his views.

A culling, at the very least, is probably what would be best here. I encourage editors to read through the ongoing disputes and decide how best to handle this delicate matter.

jps (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

For a better understanding of the distracting user, an WP:SPA, I suggest you also read User:BSmith821's user page and his posts at Talk:Panspermia. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

List of hoaxes

Resolved

An editor is arguing that their addition of a non-notable UFO hoax is notable based on two original research docs posted at scribd.com. They also cite an article at nicap.org and fringe source www.theufochronicles.com sources…which mention nothing of any "hoax", but do promote fringe views regarding alien UFOs deactivating nuclear missiles at a military base. I've reverted once, and they've requested that the matter be taken to an appropriate noticeboard, so here it is. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear the information was added some time ago diff1. I reverted it's removal without discussion since there was a section on the talk page discussing the material here. I also invited discussion and attempt to find consensus on the talk page of the article before moving to a noticeboard here. I have noticed that some of this information has been removed/restored several times and if a discussion here will lead to a knowledgeable consensus I welcome it. As a note, I have not done the research to support the inclusion or removal of the information, I simply restored diff3 material removed diff2 without discussion and then restored diff4 it again when again removed diff3 without discussion. If this material does not belong in the article I have no issue with it's removal, I suggest discussion on the talk page of the article. MrBill3 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew

Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Google Books However there is a dispute as to whether this is fringe?

The views of Papias were preserved by the early Christian historian, "Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, (Casey 2010. pp 87-88) and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” (Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101) & (Edwards 2009 pp 2-3) The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)

See most up to date sources:

A) FRINGE

Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not fringe as its existence is supported, not only by the above contested sources but also by older sources from Lessing to Ehrman.

Davidson, (1848) p xii,

Ebrard 1863 p 530,

Baring-gould, 1874 p. 122

Nicholson 1879 p 26

Morison, 1902 p xxxvi

Schoemaker 1902 p 199

Barnes, 1905 p 361

Cassels, 1905 p 420

Paralipomena by Pick 1908

Schonfield, 1937 p 246

Andrews, 1962 p 46

Harrison, 1971 p 152

Pritz 1988 p 83

Bütz 2009 p 176

Just a quick comment: Of all these books, only 3 date from the last half-century, which indicates that they're not quite the current state of play. The most recent is Jeffrey Butz, whose most recent book, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, "offers the thesis that the Judaistic teachings of Jesus were passed in underground fashion from groups such as the Nazarenes and Ebionites to the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, via the Cathars and Freemasons" (that's from his Wikipedia entry). I have doubts that Professor Butz is quite within the academic mainstream. PiCo (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

How can you claim that a formerly standard theory is now fringe? I'd understand if it were geocentrism but this is literary theory, not hard science. It is at least a "former standard theory". Shii (tock) 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A theory is fringe if it has no significant backing by reliable sources. Many theories which were previously standard (or even still are in the sense that many people subscribe to them) now have no backing in reliable sources for New Testament scholarship. For example, it was a standard view that Matthew the disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Now no reliable source supports that theory; so how could it not be fringe? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

B) Theory

Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not a theory but a "statement of fact". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)

This "statement of fact" may be contested. Scholars can debate whether or nor the "Gospel of Matthew" was a translation of the "Hebrew Gospel". They may argue that the Hebrew Gospel is the Fountainhead but they cannot say Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is theoretical.

Therefore WP Fringe Theory cannot apply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, not quite. The "fact" is not that the Hebrew Gospel existed; rather, it is that the Church believed it existed for 1700 years. Simply put, if the "mainstream" conjecture of modern scholarship is right, then 1700 years of Church history is wrong. Our job as an encyclopedia is not to elucidate the TRUTH of these two positions; it is to document the ongoing debate. Ignocrates (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You should also make some sort of visible effort to not attempt to engage in somewhat pointless editing, which, honestly, I believe that this rather inherently prejudicial thread is. There is a significant difference between WP:FRINGE, which you seem to have unilaterally and I believe falsely asserted is the reason for the contesting of this content, and WP:WEIGHT, which is in fact an entirely separate guideline. Please make a more visible effort to show willingness to engage in constructive dialogue with others, rather than starting threads such as this which could perhaps not unreasonably be seen as attempts at straw man arguments and also be seen as perhaps raising very serious questions regarding conduct. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? This is exactly the place to discuss these issues. How is it bad conduct to start a conversation on a topic and request other people's feedback? I'm not a biblical scholar but I have found reading the debate here very educational and it's useful when considering other topics where there are only second-hand reports of the primary sources. I think this solicitation of other editor's opinions is quite a "visible effort". Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a broad consensus that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. So whether Matthew's Hebrew Gospel actually existed (as in minority view), or not (as in majority view) is irrelevant in an article about what is now called the Gospel of Matthew, since if it ever existed it has nothing to do with what is called the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is broad consensus that the Gospel of Matthew is not a a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Casey, Ehrman & Edwards all state this. They further state that Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew and then Casey argues that Hebrew Matthew was the fountainhead or source for the Canonical Gospel of Matthew. Can you name any sources that disagree with Casey.

Most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. They present both those who support and oppose Papias. We should follow the reliable sources and also write our article from NPOV Google Books - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not what Casey 2010 argues. Casey argues that Matthew the apostle collected sayings in either Hebrew or Aramaic to which Papias was referring and which were a fountainhead for some traditions, and these traditions were in turn sources for the canonical Gospel of Matthew. He is not saying that Matthew wrote a gospel or some such work in Hebrew and the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew used this as a fountainhead or source. Such implies that what the apostle wrote was like Q or the Gospel of Mark, which is not what Casey is saying at all (in fact, he suggests that some of these traditions from Matthew the apostle made their way into Q [p. 89]!) But even this view of Casey has reliable sources that disagree with it, including sources which you have been citing: Duling 2010 (p. 302), Edwards 2009 (pp. 260–262). Try asking instead: What reliable sources agree with Casey on these points? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has become about SCOPE and WEIGHT, which can only be decided by consensus. Therefore, it should be ended here and continued on the article talk page or in DRN. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE - the meaning of Papias' statement is indeed discussed by just about every important scholar who writes about the composition of this gospel, but the important thing is that the overwhelming majority (and it really is overwhelming) don't see an Aramaic or Hebrew original behind it. We do discuss this in our article - we have a whole paragraph about it - and that's enough. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Is that correct? Is the discussion over as far as this noticeboard is concerned? I'm not sure how much this noticeboard can help rather than wikiproject christianity/religion. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I too agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE and I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Still, we should keep the discussion open a little longer to make sure nobody is left out and that everyone who is interested has been notified. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a simpler point to be made: you have quoted some reliable sources in order to prove exactly what these sources disagree with. So, you made a misleading summary of what these sources actually say. Do you expect such edits to pass as good faith edits? You were either unable or unwilling to render the actual viewpoints of the sources and posited your own view as if it were the view of the sources. So, this is not a case of weight vs. fringe, it is a case of something made up against something verifiable. The point which you have made up is not supported by the sources, except by the fundamentalist Christian apologist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to Ret.Prof, he brought this question to FTN because of a lot of loose talk on the article talk page about the fringiness of the topic of a Hebrew Gospel as a justification for the deletion of reliably-sourced content. I think we are in general agreement that this dispute is not, and never was, about FRINGE. The beginning of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith signals the end of rational discussion, so I propose this emotive dialogue stay on the article talk page and we finish up here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to others, much of that loose talk about fringiness was really his own fault, as at least one of the threads one the article talk page about it being "fringe" was started by himself. I agree that this never has been about WP:FRINGE, but WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Those are entirely separate pages, and I believe it would be in everyone's interests if certain editors made a clearer effort to familiarize themselves with all those pages, and the differences between them. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu - I just finished reading your comments, and I think I found the problem. You were reading from an older version of Ehrman. Please look at the following quotes, but sure to follow the links to see their context! Feel free to point out any errors, add any important material you feel was left out and of course add more up to date sources. Thanks for taking the time to join our discussion.

Taken from David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303

Author and Setting The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated [he ̄rme ̄neusen] them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)

Taken from William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed)' The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602

We encounter a striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language...the widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. (quote from p 602)

Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 After quoting the Papias tradition which states "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue"

Still, on one point there can be no doubt. Papias may pass on some legendary traditions about Jesus, but he is quite speciflc—and there is no reason to think he is telling a bald-faced lie—that he knows people who knew the apostles (or the apostles' companions). This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)

Taken from James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

This is corroborated in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.7 and 14, where Eusebius says that Papias confessed to having received the words of the apostles from their followers. Of course, if John the Elder was in fact John the Apostle — although this seems unlikely — then Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead. It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age. Eusebius records Papias's relevant testimony: “Matthew organized the oracles (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”8 This testimony does not specifically identify the Hebrew work of Matthew as the Hebrew Gospel, but it is reasonable to equate the two.9 Papias's primary intent seems to have been to emphasize the Hebrew composition of the work. (quote from p 3)

Taken from Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88

Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)

It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew.It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now I hope this clears up the confusion. Thanks for being patient with an old guy who was clearly overwhelmed! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Ignocrates Thanks for restoring sanity when needed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The confusion and lack of "sanity" is I believe pretty much inherent in the prejudicial, emotional approach one editor, the starter of this thread, has seemingly taken from the very beginning. I once again extremely seriously urge that individual to review all the relevant conduct guidelines before engaging in further conduct which could not unreasonably perhaps be taken as both disruptive and tendentious. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as Ehrman's book is concerned, the quote starts with "Many conservative Christian scholars use this statement to prove that what Papias says is historically accurate (especially about Mark and Matthew), but that is going beyond what the evidence gives us." So, Ehrman does not claim that Papias would be accurate in his reports, except for reporting the fact that he knew people who knew the apostles or their companions. As shown from another source, Ehrman believes that almost everything else Papias told is inaccurate and there is no indication that Ehrman has changed his mind about Papias's reliability. So, you cannot make Ehrman say that what Papias reports about a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew would be a reliable report. What Ehrman stressed is that Papias is not a reliable source for the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and it could be even be inferred that Ehrman affirms that Papias is historically inaccurate (with the exception of knowing those people). Just read the quote above ignoring the parenthesis and you will see what I mean. So, using Ehrman to establish the historical reliability of Papias's report fails verification, it is using partial quotations to justify an idea that Ehrman rejects. So, I was at least right about misrepresenting Ehrman's view. That's why I said that I cannot assume a fair rendering of the viewpoints of those sources, either you have failed to understand Ehrman's point or you have willfully misrepresented it. At least you could concede that you have misread what Ehrman has to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the sources who say that the Gospel of Matthew was written anonymously:

E P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, (Penguin, 1995) page 63 - 64.
Bart D. Ehrman (2000:43) The New Testament: a historical introduction to early Christian writings. Oxford University Press.
Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1995:287) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P MATTHEW, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Quote: „Matthew, like the other three Gospels is an anonymous document.”
Donald Senior, Paul J. Achtemeier, Robert J. Karris (2002:328) Invitation to the Gospels Paulist Press.
Keith Fullerton Nickle (2001:43) The Synoptic Gospels: an introduction Westminster John Knox Press.
Ben Witherington (2004:44) The Gospel code: novel claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Da Vinci InterVarsity Press.
F.F. Bruce (1994:1) The Gospel of John Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Patrick J. Flannagan (1997:16) The Gospel of Mark Made Easy Paulist Press

List by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Quantum Mind

An editor has expressed concern on the talk page that Quantum mind does not belong in the pseudoscience category and that the article is somehow biased. I disagree, but I wonder what others think. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why it would -- it was a scientific hypothesis when proposed; experimentation discounted some of its propositions, but that ought not operate to undo the scientificness or its original enunciation. I have found that there were some who, when the theory of relativity was first published by Einstein, denounced it essentially as pseudoscience, and the same can be claimed of the discovery of the Big Bang, challenged by scientists like Hoyle as being a religious proposition. DeistCosmos (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Failed hypotheses can become pseudoscience if they become the primary assumption of the supporters. This may be happening in this instance. The hand waving explanations of current proponents of quantum mind ideas are pretty difficult to describe as anything but pseudoscientific. jps (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems like one of those situations where clear presentation of the history of the idea and how it has come to be not a current theory, then discussion of the supporters and their lack of adhearence to evidence might be the way to go. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well allow me to be direct here. Ought we to classify Steady state theory as 'pseudoscience'? There are certain Pantheists who still believe there was no Big Bang, and our Universe is simply an eternal and eternally expanding infinitude. Ought we to so classify Punctuated equilibrium? How many 'believers' must it take for a once-scientific idea to be so classed? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Steady state theory isn't exactly supported by very many people anymore. It's much more famous as an example of a falsified model. However, inasmuch as certain diehards continue to believe and propose evermore baroque fixes to steady state theory to accommodate their visceral disdain for the Hot Big Bang, the thing does fall into pseudoscience somewhat. We're in a something of the opposite position with quantum mind where the idea is still being promoted by a number of rather loud people who are waaaay out on a limb while the initial "serious" proposal has been more-or-less sidelined. I think the only way to really answer this question is to look at the sources. Are the majority of the reliable sources treating it as a superseded idea whose time has come and gone (as is the case with the other two topics you mention) or are the sources pointing to a concern over the advocacy of proponents as having the characteristics of pseudoscientists? Not having done a thorough review of the literature, I withhold judgment. But I think that's the way forward. jps (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Shan Hai Jing

A new editor, Kimen027 (talk · contribs) continues to add material to this article sources to Henriette Mertz and David Hatcher Childress despite my post to her talk page. I've reverted her twice but that's had no effect. I'll notify her about this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Stephen C. Meyer

Could use more eyes on Stephen C. Meyer. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my post on the Talk page of the article under heading of 'Darwin's Doubt critical review'. It summed up the issue and the progress. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Poaching

On August 8, I ran into a notice that Poaching was on the list of articles for improvement. At first glance, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poaching&oldid=567139087 I saw that the lead was a very unusual definition that did not represent the common meaning. The acts of poaching section directly listed items as poaching that are legal in many places, confirmed by links in the article. I broke that list into two sublists that were more consistent with current law and more factually correct. Both of these edits were removed with no real comment. I continued to try to accommodate the non standard definition with little constructive feedback from the other editor. I have had several edits reverted or removed, also with little or no communication. I perceive the attitude of the other editor as superior and dismissive. At this point I feel that the three reversion rule has been violated. In my opinion, the conflict is primarily over language and references that impact the NPOV in this article.

The lead still contains wording consistent with the overly broad definition that I do not believe belongs in the lead as it represents a very radical redefinition of poaching that belongs, as far as I can see, in a historical discussion of the motivations and effects of such a broad, nonstandard, and I contend, unworkable definition. I am characterizing the definition as fringe and feel way to much emphasis was and still is being given to this definition.

It is clear from quick look at the Talk:Poaching page that I do not have the tolerance or perspective to deal with this sort of conflict. I would very much like to be able to continue to contribute to Poaching It is severely lacking in historical and contextual information that I would love to help develop and reference. I have neither the time nor inclination to play this game and I am asking for administrative intervention.Economic Refugee (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

From your overview I think WP:NPOVN is the appropriate noticeboard and calling the issue one of WP:FRINGE is probably not correct. I think whether some forms of hunting are legal in some jurisdictions (and thus not poaching there) and illegal (thus poaching) in others is irrelevant to the definition. Can't see anything of relevance for this board. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the main issue here is that another editor is conflating wildlife smuggling with poaching. Personally I think it would be clearer to reserve "poaching" for the more time-honored sense of illegal hunting and fishing, but I would agree that it really isn't our bailiwick to sort these issues out. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head, except the selected reference being used is where the conflating took place. I spent a lot of time trying to decide where to put this. I was unsure how to make a clear NPOV argument and it seememd to me that the definition and reference represent a fringe definition and it has been given too much weight in the article. I interpreted the guidlines as this being the place for issues of undue weight. Thanks again Economic Refugee (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Human sexuality; Pansexuality as "fringe"?

An editor, Edgth has now twice removed a cited passage about pansexuality, asserting that it is "fringe". I do not believe this to be the case; the cited passage is from a reference text. If there is a dispute about weight, that is something that can be discussed, but that is a different matter. Further, this editor cites the number of page watchers and the length of time since the edit was made as evidence that it is uncontroversial, and I believe this to be inappropriate.

As "fringe" has a fairly specific meaning on WP, and the talk page there is fairly inactive, I am coming here for suggestions. The pattern of other edits this editor has made seemed controversial and edit-war-like enough for me to post at WP:AN3. these were also on the topic of human sexuality. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

for the record, this is the edit in question. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For pansexuality to be fringe there would need to be a weight of reliable sources asserting that it didn't exist (or recognizing that it was a fringe position). Since even a cursory search shows that isn't the case there are no grounds for the editor to invoke fringe here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Pansexuality has been discussed at this talk page before, and there was general agreement among editors at this talk page that it is WP:FRINGE to call pansexuality a sexual orientation. Like I stated at the Human sexuality talk page where UseTheCommandLine cross-posted this matter: "It's WP:FRINGE to call pansexuality a sexual orientation, as agreed upon by various editors time and time again at relevant talk pages; it is not WP:FRINGE to call it a sexual identity or to state that some people view it as a sexual orientation. See this statement made by me during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for a summary of why it is indeed WP:FRINGE to call pansexuality a sexual orientation." What is and what is not WP:FRINGE is not only about "a weight of reliable sources asserting that it didn't exist (or recognizing that it was a fringe position)"; what is and what is not WP:FRINGE is made clear by WP:FRINGE. Flyer22 (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The edit in question (diff) omitted the underlined text in the following:

Human sexuality may also involve a person's sexual attraction to another person – which may be determined by their sexual orientation – whether it is to the opposite sex (heterosexuality), to the same sex (homosexuality), having both these tendencies (bisexuality), to all gender identities (pansexuality or bisexuality), or not being attracted to anyone in a sexual manner (asexuality).

It's probably not quite right to describe this as a FRINGE issue, but the edit which simplified the with-kitchen-sink text is welcome IMHO. The linked sexual orientation has a navbox that shows only "Asexual ∙ Bisexual ∙ Heterosexual ∙ Homosexual" as sexual orientations, and that seems good enough for the lead of Human sexuality which has no other mention of "pansexual". Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So, as was suggested at the outset, this is a common weight issue, not a question of whether fringe guidance applies? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If UseTheCommandLine is only asserting that pansexuality is a part of human sexuality, then this matter is not a WP:FRINGE matter because scientists already have a term for that -- bisexuality. It's not WP:FRINGE to call pansexuality a sexuality. But, as noted in the Arbitration case I linked to above, it is not recognized as a sexual orientation by any authoritative scientific source. Not any scientific source, actually, unless a person counts sources like the one that was used in the lead for it as scientific. Pansexuality simply is not considered distinct from bisexuality by scientists (not by the majority of them with regard to sexual orientation anyway) or the general public (the term is not in wide use by the general public). And it is often used (by those familiar with both terms) interchangeably with bisexuality, as noted in the Bisexuality and Pansexuality articles. Flyer22 (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The link to your statement isn't working. Could you fix please? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the Arbitration case? If so, that's odd. It's working for me. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah sorry - it works in MSIE but not Firefox. Odd! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Firefox is what I was using (still am); it's my preferred Internet browser. Flyer22 (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Moderated discussion on the Tea Party movement

Is this a fringe theory or reliably sourced fact? Independent, high quality scholarship on this issue have concluded that the United States political movement known as the Tea Party consists of both grassroots and astroturf components. Several Wikipedia editors, however, have called this conclusion a "fringe theory"[20][21][22], stating that the movement "is 100% grass-roots" and It's a grass-roots political movement. Period. ~~These~~ Wikipedia editors further claim that any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists.

Sample of reliable sources describing the movement as both grassroots and astroturf

So what is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this chapter: "Astroturf or Grassroots Populism?" The simple answer is that the Tea Parties have been created by both kinds of populism, in part by the few—the corporate lobbyists from above—but also from the passionate many expressing real grassroots populism. (Page 8) The Tea Partiers, finally, are routinely referred to in the media as conservatives. But their blend of astroturf and grassroots populism is more accurately labeled right-wing or reactionary populism. (Page 110)
— The Tea Party: A Brief History; Ronald P. Formisano; Johns Hopkins University Press; August 2012

"Some condemn the Tea Party as Astroturf, a movement directly funded and organized from its very beginning by conservative leaders. Others argue that the Tea Party epitomizes grassroots politics, an outpouring of aggreived citizens who spontaneously protested against big government. Both arguments contain at least a grain of truth." (Pages 98-99) "Local Tea Parties and national Tea Party umbrella groups are entangled with and significantly funded by the United States' conservative establishment and by parts of the Republican Party." (Pages 134-135)
— Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party; Lawrence Rosenthal, Christine Trost; University of California Press; May 2012

Many supporters also proclaim the Tea Party to be purely a grassroots rebellion, a "mass movement of ... 'regular' Americans with real concerns about losing the right to live their lives as they choose." This view captures only a small part of the truth, ignoring the fact that Tea Party participants are in many respects even more ideologically extreme than other very conservative Republicans. Similarly, the ‘mass movement’ portrayal overlooks the fact that the Tea Party, understood in its entirety, includes media hosts and wealthy political action committees, plus national advocacy groups and self-proclaimed spokespersons – elites that wield many millions of dollars in political contributions and appear all over the media claiming to speak for grassroots activists who certainly have not elected them, and to whom they are not accountable. What kind of mass rebellion is funded by corporate billionaires, like the Koch brothers, led by over-the-hill former GOP kingpins like Dick Armey, and ceaselessly promoted by millionaire media celebrities like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity? (Page 11) Considered in its entirety, the Tea Party is neither a top-down creation nor a bottom-up explosion. This remarkable political outpouring is best understood as a combination of three intertwined forces. Each force is important in its own right, and their interaction is what gives the Tea Party its dynamism, drama, and wallop. [...] Grassroots activists, roving billionaire advocates, and right-wing media purveyors—these three forces, together, create the Tea Party...(Pages 12-13)
— The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism; Skocpol, T.; Williamson, V.; Oxford University Press; 2012

The indirect lobbying we have discussed is often called grassroots lobbying, meaning that it addresses people in their roles as ordinary citizens. It is the weilding of power from the bottom (roots) up, rather than from the top down. Most of what we refer to as grassroots lobbying, however, does not spring spontaneously from the people but is orchestrated by elites, leading some people to call it astroturf lobbying—indicating that it is not really genuine. Often the line between real grassroots and astroturf lobbying is blurred, however. A movement may be partly spontaneous but partly orchestrated. [...] the Tea Party movement has been, in part, the project of Dick Armey, a former Republican House majority leader whose organization, FreedomWorks, promotes low taxes and small government. FreedomWorks and several other conservative groups, as well as prominent individuals including some commentators at Fox News, have lent their organizational expertise to the Tea Partiers but deny that they are orchestrating an astroturf movement. (Pages 497-498)
— Keeping the Republic: Power and Citizenship in American Politics; Christine Barbour, Gerald C Wright; CQ Press; January 2013

"Some of the issues that have been of central concern to the religious right over the last three decades have more recently been taken over by the considerably more volatile Tea Party movement. Insofar as the latter movement is a creation of media elites, it too qualifies as an example of top-down politics. The volatility of the movement derives, however, from the sponteneity of its populist spirit. The movement's distrust of elites, and "socialists" could rapidly morph into outright fascism if there were a further deepening of the economic crisis or a series of additional terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11. In any event, it is easy to imagine the movement's bottom-up populism becoming a more prominent force in American politics in the coming years." (Pages 230-231)
— Blessed Are the Organized: Grassroots Democracy in America; Jeffrey Stout; Princeton University Press; 2010

"The defining feature of astroturf groups is that they are generated by an industry, think tank, or front group, but designed to appear as a spontaneous, popular 'grassroots' effort. [...] The use of astroturf groups has flourished in the Obama era, being used to oppose healthcare reform and other progressive goals of the President and Democratic Congress. Especially important are the roles played by the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks front groups in generating a significant portion of the 'Tea Party'..." (Pages 154-155)
— The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society; edited by John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg; Oxford University Press; August 2011

The degree to which the Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement is debatable. Tea Party organizers have received extensive financial support from prominent conservative think-tanks and financiers. (Page 8)
— Popular Originalism? The Tea Party Movement and Constitutional Theory; Rebecca E. Zietlow; Florida Law Review

With expensive grassroots lobbying campaigns, however, comes the issue of authenticity. Many examples of such campaigns from recent years illustrate that they often are not the kind of genuine spontaneous activity indicative of grassroots advocacy. [...] More recent advocacy events have likewise shown an apparent lack of spontaneous organization, most notably some of the early “Tea Party” protests. Following CNBC pundit Rick Santelli’s call, in February 2009, for a “‘Chicago Tea Party’” to oppose President Obama’s mortgage bailout plan, numerous websites dedicated to the cause sprang to life, each supposedly part of a national grassroots Internet protest and each tied to the Sam Adams Alliance advocacy group. This group in turn enjoyed substantial financial support from the Koch family, multibillionaire owners of one of the largest privately-held corporations in the United States, and FreedomWorks, a public relations firm with former House Majority leader Dick Armey as its chairman, and which the Kochs have funded. [...] The above examples highlight a phenomenon more widely known as “Astroturfing,” or fake grassroots advocacy, a practice that has become popular among particular groups and individuals.
— Artificial Grassroots Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Legislative Identification and Control Measures; Jonathan C. Zellner; Connecticut Law Review; November 2010

Is the Tea Party movement a grassroots movement or not? On one end, it very much is a grassroots movement. It's a movement that surely sprung up out of the ether in a lot of people's minds. But then on the other hand, you have sort of an establishment that is somewhat preexisting. And these are the folks who have come to the game with a great deal of money, if not a great deal of energy, which certainly you associate with the grassroots end of this movement. Steve Inskeep: So you have two things going on at once here, is what you're saying. There really is angst out there. There really are people who are concerned about the direction of the country, but there is also this political structure and corporate structure that's driving them a little bit.
— Is the Tea Party Really A Grassroots Movement? NPR Special Series: The Tea Party in America; September 2010

The contesting Wikipedia editors have not, to date, produced any reliably sourced refutation of the scholarly consensus that the movement is made up of both grassroots and astroturf elements. They have, however, cited several sources (mostly news media reports) that only mention the "grassroots" components without mentioning the "astroturf" components, as proof that the movement must therefore be 100% grassroots. We'd like some uninvolved input on this matter. Are the above sources promoting a fringe theory? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As I expected, this was presented with a lot of high-velocity spin and some key facts which undercut Xenophrenic's argument were left out. Only three of these sources actually claim that any part of the Tea Party movement is Astroturfed. I will refer to them by the names of their principal authors: Zellner, Formisano and Dryzek. Dryzek is written by climate change experts and briefly mentions in passing some political phenomena in America. It's sort of a drive-by shooting from an academic standpoint. They're not writing about subject matter with which they have any expertise. They point their rhetorical guns at it, briefly spray some rhetorical bullets in its general direction, and move on as quickly as possible.

Zellner was a law student, not a professor. Almost all the other academic sources we use in the article are written by professors of law or political science, and many are chairs of their departments, teaching at Ivy League universities or other highly respected institutions, appearing multiple times on TV news networks as experts on the law and politics, etc. Zellner just isn't in the same league, and proves it by sourcing his Astroturfing claims with sources that Wikipedia would not consider reliable for anything but their own opinions: AlterNet and an opinion column by Paul Krugman, a highly partisan opponent of the Tea Party.

Formisano is a professor of history, not law, not political science, at the University of Kentucky. He has published at least two op-ed columns which demonstrate that he likes Barack Obama and the Democrats (political oopponents of the Tea Party) very, very much. Some of us suspect that an anti-Tea Party bias crept into Formisano's work, particularly since he has based his Astroturfing accusation on a claim that absolutely no one else has made: that the "Institute for Liberty," a genuine Astroturfing group which purports to speak on behalf of the Tea Party when it isn't Astroturfing for Indonesian corporate clients, is in fact a part of the Tea Party.

The remainder of the sources cited by Xenophrenic do not explicitly claim that any part of the Tea Party is Astroturfed, and to claim that they do is an example of WP:SYNTH. Some of them refer to "top-down" organizing, which is not necessarily Astroturfing; and when you take a closer look at the actual organizing activities they describe, it's the sort of thing that Formisano, Zellner and Dryzek would cheerfully call "community organizing" if it was done by Barack Obama instead of Dick Armey, with the same amount of money provided by billionaire George Soros instead of the billionaire Koch brothers.

This takes us to the next problem. Formisano, Zellner and Dryzek are trying to redefine the word "Astroturf" to include community organizing activity, but the word "Astroturfing" has been a stable and well-recognized political science term for roughly 30 years. It refers to a deceptive effort by paid corporate and political operatives to pretend that a grass-roots movement exists where there is no such thing. All these sources acknowledge that there is a very strong grass-roots or "bottom-up" element existing in the Tea Party. The rest of these elements merely amplify an actual existing grass-roots element, rather than manufacturing one where one does not actually exist.

Xenophrenic is left with three sources. Each is shaky in its own way. They're countered by literally dozens of reliable sources, including the peer-reviewed academic writings of Elizabeth Price Foley, a law professor who has repeatedly appeared as an expert on law and politics on CNN and other news networks. There are also sources from such eminently reliable, fact-checked news organizations as The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, CNN, and National Public Radio. Generally these sources say, "The Tea Party movement is a grass-roots movement." Period. Full stop. Or they refer to members as "grass-roots activists." Implicit in these statements is a refutation of the claim that the Tea Party is partially Astroturfed.

Xenophrenic presented only half of the truth. Now that the other half of the truth has been presented, let's hear from previously uninvolved editors and admins, to determine whether "The Tea Party is part Astroturf" is (A) the majority viewpoint that belongs in the article lede per WP:WEIGHT, (B) a minority viewpoint that belongs farther down in the article per WP:WEIGHT, or (C) a fringe opinion that doesn't belong in the article at all per WP:FRINGE. Xenophrenic supports (A).^{[citation needed]} I support (B), along with four other editors. Arthur Rubin supports (C). What do you think? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC) (I've indicated no such support. -Xenophrenic)

"he likes Barack Obama and the Democrats" is not a valid reason to describe someone's opinions as 'fringe'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, and it's also not a valid reason to describe a fact as 'fringe', as several editors have attempted to do. Also, after having looked at the 2 links to Formisano pieces provided by P&W, the allegation of 'bias' is unsupported - not that it would matter anyway when determining the reliability of sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

All that is required to support a statement of fact is one reliable source. A book about the Tea Party written by a professor of history (Formisano) and published by Johns Hopkins University Press meets that standard. The publisher has determined that he is competent to write about the subject, and his personal opinions are irrelevant to whether the facts in his book are accurate. John Dryzek is an established expert on both democratic theory and evironmental politics. While Zellner was a law student, his article appeared in the Connecticut Law Review, which meets rs.

AFAIK there is nothing fringe in saying that the Tea Party movement consists of both groups set up by wealthy individuals and groups set up by concerned citizens, i.e., "astro-turf" and "grass-roots" organizations. Of course even reliable sources may be wrong. It could be for example that the Tea Party Express is not part of the Tea Party movement, or that it was not created by a Republican consulting firm, but was set up by tens of thousands of citizens acting together. If that is true, then the way to challenge what the sources say is to find sources that say something different.

TFD (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the above reliable sources say that the TP movement is astroturfed, not just three. Five of them specifically use the "astroturf" word, while the remaining sources explain the astroturfing in detail as "top down" organizing, inauthentic/fake grassroots advocacy, and "front group" manipulation -- all decades-old definitions of astroturfing in the context in which they are used. Your claim that several scholars published by Oxford, Princeton, Johns Hopkins and peer-reviewed journals have redefined "Astroturfing" doesn't help your argument; if true, it discredits your argument. Your claim that all of the above reliable sources are "countered by literally dozens of reliable sources" is false, and it is time to call your bluff. Please produce some here, with the exact verbatim text you are citing from those sources, that "counter" the fact that this grassroots movement is also astroturfed. All I've seen so far are sources that just mention the grassroots part, and there is no "implicit" or "explicit" refutation of the astroturfed part there. To quote a reliable source above: "Often the line between real grassroots and astroturf lobbying is blurred, however. A movement may be partly spontaneous but partly orchestrated." Your claim that being one "implicitly" disallows the other is a fiction. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Jumping is, as a completely uninvolved editor:

I don't think this is a "fringe" issue; this is more about public relations and American politics isn't it?
Astroturf has wide currency as a term meaning a fake/deceptive/paid-for effort to ape popular ("grass-roots") support; other uses of this word are peculiar
The terms "grass-roots" and "astro-turf" are PR terms (POV-labelling) and we can expect them to be used by partial and hostile commentators respectively. I would usually avoid either of them in the lede of an article, except my impression (from across the Atlantic) was that the TP movement was formed largely from within the Republican party by disaffected members who formed a kind of mass pressure group. The proposed wording along the lines of "grass-roots with astro-turf components" is the kind of writing that makes WP look bad. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right that this isn't a "fringe" issue, but at least 3 editors called it that. Looking at the argument above by P&W, it appears that WP:RSN and RS:NPOVN would be better suited to address his concerns. You are absolutely correct that "astroturf" and "grassroots" are PR terms, and the PR industry is partly responsible for the "peculiar" synonyms and definitions (Example: They redefine "astroturf" as "front group"). Proposed wording for the lede about the movement's dual nature (grassroots and astroturfed) would definitely benefit from a more thorough explanation of the nuanced make up of the movement. That might be better relegated to the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be forumshopping at its most intriguing. Not only is it not related to the stated topic of this noticeboard, is not phrased in a neutral manner etc. it also manages to take absurdist potshots at other editors without notifying them of this discussion, yet another venue for what the OP has posted in far too many places already. [23], the TPm moderated discussion page (multiple posts), [24] self-deletion of his own RfC/U, BLP/N, AN and AN/I posts inter alia all pretty much insisting that he only wants the WP:TRUTH <g> Collect (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And that is yet another example of pure, unadulterated Collect, misstating the facts as usual. I did indeed announce this posting to the editors; I've taken this Talk page matter to only one noticeboard/forum, this one; I've never "self-deleted" an RfC/U, BLP/N, AN, or AN/I post. TRUTH-challenged as usual I see, but I'm sure you are just trying to be a "good faith participant [sic]" with your comment here. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not fringe and TFD's summary appears to be correct. I'd suggest you guys go to DRN or similar, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Not fringe. The arguments against "astroturfing" as an essential part of the founding story of the Tea Party Movement are squarely in the "I don't like it" category. Formisano is quite clear. Rosenthal and Trost are quite clear. Skocpol and Williamson are quite clear, etc. Binksternet (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
A theory can't be fringe unless there is some dominant mainstream academic point of view in its field, and I don't think we have that with the Tea Party movement. So this is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Also, much of it is a political argument. The disagreements over what sources are reliable could be discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, if they haven't been already..Cardamon (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Collect says: "It [this thread] also manages to take absurdist potshots at other editorswithout notifying them of this discussion."

Xenophrenic responds: "I did indeed announce this posting to the editors."

Well, I can certainly attest to having no knowledge of this and was clearly the recipient of an inaccurate portrayal by Xenophrenic. To his defense, though, I would probably also avoid inviting fellow wikipedians to a thread I've used to make up bullshit positions for them and which cannot be verified because I'm talking out of my ass.

But I digress. †TE†Talk 01:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

- Obviously, inasmuch as academic sources describe the TPm as partially astroturfed, there should be no question to the inclusion of a statement referring thereto.

How many times to we have to rehash basic policy-based arguments against the POV pushing pro-TPm affinity group editors? --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed a great deal of POV-pushing by "pro-TPm affinity group editors." That's something easily-identifiable to the other side. But hate is stronger than sympathy, so I guess it was a foregone conclusion. If you looked at my contributions to the now properly-linked section of talk, you'd see my position was the Tea Party isn't wholly grassroots. It would be asinine to believe it can be. My main concern was using astroturf to describe conclusions of scholars when that specific term is absent in their text. OR/SYN. Perhaps Xenophrenic's theories of the new astroturf will become reality in the future, but it's not our place speculate. And definitely not our duty to promote the redefining of it. †TE†Talk 12:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction: The "Astroturf" term is not absent from the scholarly sources (see above). Xenophrenic doesn't have any theories about astroturf, new or otherwise. Were you referring to the definitions provided by sources cited above? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to the discussion relevant to ThinkEnemies, and ThinkEnemies only. Xenophrenic spun a tall-tale which cannot be substantiated without a time-machine and an experienced hacker to take control of TE's account. This is easily-verifiable by clicking on the section title.

Xenophrenic is welcome to explain how:

ThinkEnemies concluded the Tea Party movement is "100% grass-roots" by agreeing with him "the TP movement cannot be described as wholly 'grassroots'."

Thinkenemies believes "any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists" when TE has inferred no such thing, let alone believes or has said as much. That is, unless Xenophrenic is referring to Nancy Pelosi or Paul Krugman during the spring of 2009. I don't see their quotes above.
Thinkenemies has "not refuted" the sources Xenophrenic provided when ThinkEnemies has never rejected or even criticized any of them. Not a one. ThinkEnemies actually provided text from Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson to be used as a scholarly repudiation of the hackish comments by Pelosi and Paul Krugman from 2009 -- Which are actually presented at TPM while better, academic perspective is readily available. Xenophrenic can prove this one at his own peril.
And... I'm bored with this. Xenophrenic should know that I did read http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/opinion/grass-roots-mobilization-by-corporate-america.html?_r=0 per his request and may be sympathetic with parts of his new definition for Astroturf. I will not, however, bend the rules of OR/SYN to help advance his interpretation of RS content. †TE†Talk 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

On the first three bullet-points: I didn't attribute any of those quotes explicitely to you.

Bullet-point 4: It's great that you are sympathetic with his definition of Astroturf, but it's not his ... and it's not new. It actually goes back a couple decades, but he is one of the present day academics speaking on the matter, and he abhors the use of the word "astroturf" anyway. And OR/SYNTH do not apply to him - those are Wikipedia policies that apply to Wikipedia editors only. We actually depend on our reliable sources to do the original research and synthesis for us. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: "I didn't attribute any of those quotes explicitely [sic] to you."

Alright, please go below and exclude me. †TE†Talk 02:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Box below posted by ThinkEnemies for Xenophrenic to remove him from false positions.†TE†Talk 02:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this a fringe theory or reliably sourced fact? Independent, high quality scholarship on this issue have concluded that the United States political movement known as the Tea Party consists of both grassroots and astroturf components. Several Wikipedia editors, however, have called this conclusion a "fringe theory"[25][26][27], stating that the movement "is 100% grass-roots" andIt's a grass-roots political movement. Period. These Wikipedia editors further claim that any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists. The contesting Wikipedia editors have not, to date, produced any reliably sourced refutation of the scholarly consensus that the movement is made up of both grassroots and astroturf elements. They have, however, cited several sources (mostly news media reports) that only mention the "grassroots" components without mentioning the "astroturf" components, as proof that the movement must therefore be 100% grassroots.

Oh, and if Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) would please inform ThinkEnemies (talk · contribs) after the removal of these patently false positions are complete it would be really helpful. Thanks. †TE†Talk 19:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No "patently false positions" there, so you'll be waiting a long time. In fact, you aren't even named. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Lest I be accused of pulling an Artie, however, I've struck a word in the original post to make it clearer. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)