Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 454: Line 454:


:::As you can see, he's done that. After referencing at least one of those and then removing the references ending up with a reason for the AfD being lack of references. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
:::As you can see, he's done that. After referencing at least one of those and then removing the references ending up with a reason for the AfD being lack of references. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

*Articles are not going to be deleted. I have added references for all of them. Let's hope Hrafn doesn't continue his vandalism. [[User:Liveintheforests|Liveintheforests]] ([[User talk:Liveintheforests|talk]]) 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


== [[Avro Manhattan]] ==
== [[Avro Manhattan]] ==

Revision as of 18:01, 23 May 2011

    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

    We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

    Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Battle of the Falkland Islands

    A section has been added to this article "Secret Service Trap" by User Hubertgrove which claims that false orders were broadcast to the German Squadron by British Intelligence. This claim is supported in a book Franz von Rintelen (in ENGLISH). The Dark Invader: Wartime Reminiscences of a German Naval Intelligence Officer (October 31, 1998 ed.). Routledge. pp. 326. ISBN 0714647926. The issue here is that while the citation might be valid, this German officer is relaying something that was told to him by a friend. Search as I might, I can not find a single other source for this claim. In point of fact, at least two of the Historians Massie and Halpern give views quite to the contrary of this assertion. I have searched the online British Archives without finding a single supporting piece of evidence. User USER Simon Harley's research list here:

    As far as I can tell the basis for Mason being the stellar witness Hubertgrove claims him to be is this sentence from the introduction to The Dark Invader: "The conversations which he records depend, of course, upon his memory; the main facts we are able to check, and we know them to be exact." A very dubious assertion for an overseas R.M.L.I. staff officer to make. Rintelen's claims regarding his conversations with Hall and Herschell are absurd. Tirronan, have a google and you'll find a copy of von Rintelen's book available from an Australian version of Project Gutenberg. I've been through a good number of the Room 40 material in Britain and so far have come across nothing to do with the Falkland Islands. In March I picked up the official reports of the Falkland Islands battle and there's no mention in there. Last week I copied both post-war Naval Staff Monographs (official histories) of the battle. There's nothing in those to substantiate von Rintelen's allegation, even though those works do deal with SIGINT and Room 40. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As always, finding something contrary to a single assertion presents its typical difficulty but at some point common sense has to play a part here as well. An Intelligence service broadcasting false orders in a broken naval code would be announcing the fact that their codes had indeed been broken, inviting the enemy to change codes immediately. The base problem is that unsupported claims like this do much to undermine the project's credibility and user trust.Tirronan (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tirronan has been harassing me and abusing me on this subject now for a month. His unwonted intervention can be seen here in the section "Secret Service Section". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Secret_Service_Section I really urge some senior editor to please come to my assistance here. I must make a longish reply to outline the issue - I will try to be as succinct as possible.
    The section in the article itself is NOT a fringe theory at all - and it IS supported. It is verified by three primary sources and two secondary sources. Tirronan simply denies all this because, without any primary or secondary evidence, he speculates it's 'unlikely'.
    In the Battle of the Falkland Islands (1914), the German squadron under Admiral Spee attacked a British coaling station in the Falklands. There, they were ambushed by a superior British naval squadron and almost destroyed. During the war, there was bafflement on the part of the German navy as to how the British had managed to find the Germans in many thousands of miles of open water and to ambush them on the date of their arrival. Kaiser Wilhelm himself wrote on the official copy of the incident report: "It remains a mystery what made Spee attack the Falkland Islands. See 'Mahan's Naval Strategy'." [1]
    After the war, one possible explanation came to light. In 1925, Korvettenkapitan (Captain) Franz von Rintelen, a former intelligence officer of the Nachrichtenabteilung (Information Department) German Admiralty interviewed Admiral Sir William Reginald Hall who had headed the British Naval Intelligence Division (NID) during the conflict. Admiral Hall confirmed to him in the interview that the British codebreaking department - nicknamed Room 40 - had broken the German naval codes early in the war. Moreover, he said that the German naval sqadron had been deliberately lured to the Falkland Islands by means of a 'fake' signal sent in the German code to the German consul in Valparaiso and then transmitted from there to the German squadron at sea. It is now accepted fact by academic historians that the british had broken and trafficked in German naval codes throughoout the war. [2]
    The specifics of this assertion are contained von Rintelen's memoir, "Dark Invader" [3]This memoir was published in 1933 by reputable publishers, (in London by Lovat Dickson Ltd. in 1933, and in Penguin Books in 1936, and in America by the Macmillan Company of New York). and republished again in the late 90s by Routledge.
    The English translation of Rintelen's memoirs contains a personal endorsement by Admiral Hall himself plus a preface by the playwright and politician Major AEW Mason (who was also an officer in the NID during the war). These two men, primary sources, attest to the contemporary credibility of von Rintelen's account. The incident itself is attested to in Thomas Boghardt's "Spies of the Kaiser" (2004) [4]
    In other words, I have cited credible primary sources, credible secondary sources, contemporaneous accounts, personal memoirs and later academic histories in support of my edit. Tirronan has not done any of this. He simply says "he doesn't believe it". "it's not likely" and then goes on to threaten me, both on my own talk page and on the discussion page of the article itself, that he will ban me. This guy's driving me nuts. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 May 2011
    As posted on the talk page you have exactly one citation and an endorsement on the preface. It would seem that all your claimed citations are at variance with your citations. I don't consider the endorsement of an entire work to be the endorsement of a single claim. Opposition to an edit is not a personal attack. Unfortunately you have directed at me many times, various personal attack by you on the talk page despite repeated warnings by me about this. You are correct that I have posted on your talk page a warning about your behavior and I shall do so again if you repeat said violation of Wikipedia guidance. There are real historians that refute your singular claim, please provide actual evidence that you have any other real support by an actual historian or document. If you are claiming to use primary sources you are in violation of Wikipedia:Original research.Tirronan (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope other editors reading Tirronan's post can now see what I am having to deal with. He says that I am abusing him - this is not true. However, he has constantly threatened to have me banned and to vandalise my edit.
    As to his argument: it's bizarre. "All your claimed citations are at variance with your citations" literally makes no sense. He says that he doesn't "consider the endorsement of an antire work to be the endorsement of a single claim". This is bananas. The head of the British secret service provides a preface to Franz von Rintelen's book. I genuinely can't think of a more ringing endorsement. It doesn't matter whether you don't believe it or not - Admiral Hall and AEW Mason - who were there - endorse Rintelen's claim; Patrick Beeslsy and Thomas Boghardt, academic historians, attest to it too. I hope I am not being too blunt, but I don't think he understands what "primary sources" means. They are certainly allowable by wikipedia, being verified first person contemporary reports and eyewitness accounts.
    I have now had to put up with six weeks of his circular arguments which boils down to 'I don't believe it'. Well, I'm sorry, primary sources, secondary sources. eyewitness accounts and academic historians support my edit.
    Tirronan has posted threats to ban me on my Talk page. He has also started posting similar abuse on the page of another editor who previously looked over the dispute over my edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jezhotwells#The_Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 May 2011
    Rintelen's book is not a fringe source. Rather, his view of the trap theory is a very minor opinion which is not supported by mainstream historians. His version can be mentioned briefly but with very little weight given it, per WP:NPOV. It cannot be augmented to make it appear more plausible.
    Editor behavior is not a matter for this noticeboard. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted and agreed.Tirronan (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Genetic origins of the Turkish people

    The usual genetics train wreck. Salvageable in principle, but we don't have enough editors with genetics expertise to keep up with the patriotic kids adding this "genetics of $MY_ETHNICITY" trash. --dab (𒁳) 17:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Singularitarianism

    I can't make head nor tail of whether this article is about a fringe cult, a satire, or a monopoly capitalist conspiracy. I think it needs looking at though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    yes it needs more eyes, I fear that some other fringe sources are being used in the article to criticise this fringe movement. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it might be a bona fide academic neologism that has not really caught on. Perhaps it could be merged with transhumanism. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network

    Main page: Talk:National Broadband Network § RFC: NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network

    RFC was called about the NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network. —[d'oh] 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything "Fringe" here. Did you post this to the correct noticeboard? Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think I went a bit overboard posting here. The WP:NPOV dispute mentions this noticeboard, but I should have read up on what is fringe theories before posting. Feel free to close and archive. —[d'oh] 12:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe science discussion at ANI

    There's a discussion going on (well, actually getting stale now) at WP:ANI regarding what appears to be a fringe scientist by the name of Luis González-Mestres and a theoretical subatomic particle he has proposed called a Superbradyon. No one but González-Mestres seems ever to have taken notice of this particle's existence. The article on the particle (hey, I rhymed) has been nominated for deletion. The one on González-Mestres - well, it seems very long with a lot of references (a great deal of them to his own work) for a bio of someone of what seems to be marginal notability, although I haven't reviewed it in detail. Both of them have been heavily edited by someone who refers to himself as "our collective." I'm cross-posting here because I think both articles (and the deletion discussion) could benefit from the attention of editors who are familiar with fringe science. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Global brain

    Seems full of original research, especially the latest edits. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I started deleting stuff, but it is all just an essay, little rescuable. Perhaps it could be a section in superorganism. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps a better solution is just to mention it as a synonym in collective intelligence. (That article itself needs attention.) Itsmejudith (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be a good solution. Or just stub it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Starchild skull - note it is already covered thoroughly in Lloyd Pye

    Additional eyes may be needed for a while at Starchild skull and perhaps at the related Lloyd Pye. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your help here, it's always been a problem.
    However, I've just realised we have two articles on this, see Lloyd Pye and particularly a recent set of edits [1] (which ended up with some duplicated material in his article. Perhaps the Starchild Skull article should be turned into a redirect to Pye's article with anything useful merged? Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy

    The article Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy seems to present some new medical insights (not reported in scholarly sources at first glance) as reality. It seems to be more like "alternative medecine", but I have no idea how fringey it actually is. Fram (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe fringe and it might not, I can't tell what it is talking about at all which is typically a Redflag of Fringe. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Soren Lovtrup

    Soren Lovtrup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


    Resolved
     – Article Deleted after discussion Noformation (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This embryologist appears to have written a lot of rather WP:FRINGE-sounding material about evolution, including in the notorious pseudoscience-peddling journal Rivista di Biologia. Most of the article is cited to primary sources. I'm probably looking at AfDing it, but thought I'd post it for comment here first. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. His work is well sourced from many science journals. He suscribes to the macromutation theory of evolution similar to Richard Goldschmidt, it is a shame he has been quoted mined by creationists, but his work is not Fringe, it may not be mainstream but he is a well respected scientist. Also note he wrote the book Epigenetics : A treatise on theoretical biology which even C. H. Waddington claimed was a "refreshing" and "rewarding" book which will reward the reader with a "great deal of information" concerning evolution. Stephen Gould also had positive things to say about Lovtrup's work and Lovtrup is mentioned in 100s of articles and books on evolution. Liveintheforests (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If he didn't want to be quotemined by creationists, then why did he submit his work to a creationist rag like Rivista di Biologia? You have failed to address the lack of third-party sourcing (though from WP:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Bowden‎, I'd question whether you know what "third-party sourcing" means). Hopeful Monster notes that "Goldschmidt's thesis however was universally rejected and widely ridiculed within the biological community". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, Macromutation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is wholly unsourced, and probably deserving of closer attention. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability needs to be established, then after that it needs reducing to what can be established from good sources. Good for biography doesn't necessarily equate to good for science. For example, articles in science magazines would be appropriate. Even if we think he is a pseudoscientist he could still be notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rivista di Biologia is not a creationist journal, well respected evolutionists have written in it such as Goodwin and P. Saunders. They are evolutionists who question Neo-Darwinism, in the late 80's a number of scientists questioned the role of Neo-darwinism and some of them proposed new mechanisms for evolution instead of natural selection and micromutations, this has nothing to do with creationism. The fact that you call Rivista di Biologia a "creationist rag" shows your non-neutral side of this discussion, you know alot about wikipedia rules, but the one you never seem to apply to is WP:NPOV. Considering i created and wrote the Soren Lovtrup article, il deal with it, i already spent 12 hours on it, Hrafn you have a history of adding notability tags to wikipedia articles without trying to improve them yourself. Please look at the current sources on the Lovtrup article, you will see third party sources there, il put up another four later. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to be more rigorous with your sources though. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further references for Lovtrup
    The user Hrafn is a self-described "darwikinist" (whatever that is) Im guessing something to do with Dawkins.
    Here he is:
    Hrafn's abusive posts about intelligent design
    "Hrafn - "No, I have not read Behe's DBB - I would not waste my money on an incompetent crank's claims about a field he is neither qualified in, has done research in, nor is well-read in." So Hrafn has not even read Michael J. Behe's Darwin's black box but claims Behe is an "incompetent crank", nothing else needs to be said, this user has broken WP:NPOV he is not neutral regarding anything to do with evolution, and i strongly suggest he stays away from some of these articles. It must be pointed out Lovtrup is not a "Creationist" or "Intelligent design" proponent, he simply challenges the micromutation theory of evolution, he is an evolutionist with a PHD not a "crank".
    Here is your hereo Richard Dawkins - "Even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory... we should still be justified in prefering it over all rival theories" - Close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears, Darwin said it so it must be right! All other theories of evolution are false and thought up by "cranks"! Sound familiar?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveintheforests (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 May 2011

    Thank you Liveintheforests for this:

    1. Further pile of WP:PRIMARY sources, that do nothing to establish notability
    2. Furious defence of Rivista di Biologia, whose editor was until recently, creationist Giuseppe Sermonti, whose contributors have included ID creationists Jonathan Wells & John A. Davison, as well as WP:FRINGE figures such as Rupert Sheldrake. I would also note that I'm not alone in having a low opinion of it.
    3. Equally furious, and mostly highly irrelevant, set of ad hominem attacks against me.

    HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hrafn has broken WP:NPOV, he spends his time deleting any scientist on wikipedia who opposes neo-darwinism. "No, I have not read Behe's DBB - I would not waste my money on an incompetent crank's claims about a field he is neither qualified in, has done research in, nor is well-read in." - Anyone who opposes the modern evolutionary synthesis is a "crank" to him, he refuses to accept any evidence, his eyes are closed - Hes made his mind up. Biased user. Topic ban on these related topics? Who does this user think he is? He seems to think he owns wikipedia and is an authority on evolution, look how well referenced the Lovtrup article is. Hrafn is now taking part in WP:VAN.Liveintheforests (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liveintheforests clearly has no understanding of the meaning of WP:NPOV, WP:VAND or WP:AGF to be making such ludicrous accusations. I have challenged the notability of some of their pet projects and have made the blindingly obvious point that material written by the topics themselves are not third party sources. Neither is in violation of Wikipedia policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    1. Delete Macromutation as an unsourced WP:CFORK of Hopeful Monster
    2. Rename Hopeful Monster to Macromutation
    3. Merge the small amount of third-party sourced material in Soren Lovtrup into that article.

    Thoughts? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Actually, we might be able to achieve 1&2 by a WP:USURPTITLE procedure. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

    • More than enough information on the Lovtrup article, you only want it deleted becuase of your agenda you have broken WP:NPOV, Macromutation is not the same as Hopeful monster. You have a poor undertanding of evolution. And this is boring now. Lovtrup is referenced in many science journals, an a level genetics textbook, a newscientist magazine article and book from peter bowler etc all third party references. You may dislike Lovtrup becuase of your own personal beliefs, but it really is showing now and this is in violation of wikipedia rules.Liveintheforests (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    1. Hopeful Monster is (i) a subtopic of Macromutation & (ii) the most well-known subtopic of it.
    2. Macromutation is currently wholly unsourced -- so needs to be replaced with sourced material.
    3. The only sourced material we have is Hopeful Monster. The logical conclusion is therefore to replace Macromutation with Hopeful Monster (under the former title)
    4. The only third-party information we have on Soren Lovtrup is on his Macromutation claims. It therefore makes sense to roll this material into the new Macromutation article.

    HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lovtrup is well referenced

    Many reliabled third party sources here:

    Why does Hrafn deny all of this? And keep putting notability tags on the page? Liveintheforests (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Liveintheforests for confirming that you don't "know what 'third-party sourcing' means" -- Lovtrup's own writings CANNOT be a third-party source on the topic of Lovtrup himself. Hood et al and Bowler barely mention Lovtrup, which leaves just the Journal of Evolutionary Biology & New Scientist reviews as potentially substantive third party coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there are Lovtrups own writings included (own writings are found on almost every wiki page) - All which have been peer reviewed from journals in the case of lovtrup. They may be some primary sources but reliable ones, third party references include:
    • Review of Lovtrup's book in the New Scientist, Oct 15, 1988 - Probably the most detailed review on the internet, from a respected evolutionist.
    • Kathryn E. Hood, Carolyn Tucker Halpern, Gary Greenberg, Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics, 2010, p. 70, This source mentions Lovtrups and his macromutation theory of evolution and how it is similar to the hopeful monster theory. Two whole sentences -- NOT "significant coverage" HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    • onlinelibrary reference
    • http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho28.htm - by Gert Korthof - (lol) you just deleted this reference from the article (to try and make out there are less third party references). WP:SPS, not appropriate for WP:BLP HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    • Lovtrup is also referenced by the geneticists Waddington and P. Saunders, Waddington reviewed Lovtrups book
    • There are other references for Lovtrup on Google books, you refuse to look.
    • Looking on google scholar will reveal Lovtrup has published 100s of scientific papers, peer reviewed by many well known scientific journals. You have been proven wrong, there are both primary and third sources on the article, what you are doing, needs to stop now and you just have to accept this. Liveintheforests (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

    — WP:GNG

    Significant third-party coverage is REQUIRED for notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mistake

    KillerChihuahua has removed a third party reference claiming:

    "Remove reference which is not about subject at all, but about work on finches by Grant"

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1998.1030283.x/pdf

    Click on the link above, scroll down to page 3 of 5.

    Soren lovtrups book and work is reviewed in great detail with much description about Lovtrups theory of macromutation by W.Dohle in the Journal of evoltionary biology on page 3. What does this show? It shows that Killer is not even reading the references (he hasn't gone further than the first line which is actually a seperate review of another book), hes just eager to get these sources deleted. It also appears that this edit can not be undone now either and has done be done manually, i am not happy about what is going on here, no respect at all, users here are not even reading the references, they are making big mistakes, the source was third party. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    this is a duplicate complaint of one made, and answered, on Talk:Soren Lovtrup. Please place any additional comments there. Liveintheforests, please don't spam the same thing on multiple pages; this is difficult for others to follow and may be a violation of Forumshopping. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been deleted close case

    This article has been deleted now and you can close this case, but as you can see there was actually other third party sources out there, nobody bothered to look though except me:

    http://ep.physoc.org/content/59/3/261.full.pdf+html - Review of Lovtrup's work from C. H. Waddington a developmental biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, embryologist and philosopher who laid the foundations for systems biology - not at all a "crank", though Hrafn would probably call him a "crank" as outside of science he was influenced by the process philosophy of Whitehead.Liveintheforests (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there, I just left you a message on your talk page but also wanted to comment here that you should really avoid making this a personal issue. Hrafn is a long term experienced contributor to Wikipedia and I would ask that you assume good faith that he is doing his best to make Wikipedia articles as good as they can be. You can both disagree over what the article/Wikipedia should be like but it does not have to get personal. There are rules here and he is simply pointing them out to you. Noformation (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Malcolm Bowden and David Rosevear

    Malcolm Bowden and David Rosevear are two fringe creationists for the CSM (Creation Science Movement). I collected references for them both, but a user has claimed they are not third party sources (i partly agree on some but not all). See here: WP:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Bowden‎

    It comes down to three options:

    • 1.These articles are going to be deleted
    • 2.These articles are going to be kept
    • 3.Both articles (Bowden and Rosevear) to be moved to the Creation Science Movement article

    I tried the third option, but a user has deleted it all. - When we had third party sources from the BBC etc. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Current references for Malcolm Bowden:

    Liveintheforests (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    References for David Rosevear:

    Liveintheforests (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There isn't enough detail to evaluate these sources. BMJ is usually reliable, whether it is for this depends on whether it is a proper review. BBC is reliable, but not everything briefly mentioned on the BBC is worth an article here. His own website, websites of organisations he's associated with and political magazines/websites aren't enough to establish notability. Merger would seem to be a good idea. If you merged and then someone else deleted the text, it is still there in the history of one or the other article, to be recuperated if there is consensus for that. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See here Talk:Creation Science Movement - I have found three more sources which mention Bowden. Also there have been three BBC news (as mentioned) articles which mention Bowden and Rosevear in those articles it explains what their beliefs are who they are and even quotes from them in an interview. This is third party reliable sources, so both Bowden and Rosevear should be merged to the Creation Science Movement article with a paragraph explaining their beliefs and what their books are about. Liveintheforests (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • The BMJ piece seems to be more of a reader-contribution than an editorial review.
    • The BBC pieces are on the subject of creationism, and so feel obliged to seek a quote-from-a-creationist, who tends to be Rosevear. The content of the quotes tends to be fairly standard creationist anti-evolution boilerplate, so not really worthy of mention.
    • Most of the sources that Liveintheforests cites are WP:PRIMARY, affiliated and/or unreliable.

    HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles Deleted close case

    As you can see from above, many third party references for Both Rosevear and Bowden - Including in total three BBC articles, two Thirdway magazine, profiles at bcse, a review of Bowden at talk.origins etc etc, nobody even bothered to look or help out. - If Rosevear and Bowden were two mainstream evolutionists they would of been given a warm welcome at wikipedia even without references, but being two "crackpot" creationists who own a creationist museum (one retired engineer) and one (PHd biochemist) - they are not suitable for wikipedia. Articles deleted, case closedLiveintheforests (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Olan Hyndman

    Continuing Liveintheforests' creation of articles on WP:FRINGE figures of questionable notability:

    Olan Hyndman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    An obscure Iowan neurosurgeon whose book propounding his idiosyncratic theory of evolution/philosophy of science received a pair of reviews (in The Philosophical Forum and the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, not in any journal that specialises in evolutionary biology, or philosophy of science). Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • As shown above
      Hyndman is quoted in the American Heart Journal, the Neurology and psychiatry archives, Soil Science Journal Magazine, psychiatry journal, two reviews from third party sources etc etc. Again Hrafn makes unsuitable edits and wants the article deleted not becuase of the sources but becuase it goes against his own beliefs WP:COI.
    • Hrafn has broken WP:NPOV, he is now on a crusade to vandalise any article i create even when it is well sourced. Hrafn has clearly fallen into WP:VAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveintheforests (talk • contribs) 11:22, 19 May 2011
    Liveintheforests, you need to STOP accusing Hrafn of vandalism simply for disagreeing with you. You are completely wrong about what is and is not vandalism. These accusations poison the discussion. You have recently created a number of articles about people who subscribe to a fringe theory and Hrafn has every right to oppose, question, and comment on your work. Your responsibility now is to engage in discussion, not make accusations toward other editors. Oh and by the way, SIGN YOUR EFFIN POSTS. Also linking to what you say is Hrafn's blog my have problems where WP:OUTINGis concerned, I'm not sure because I don't know if he's openly identified it as his. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's just some comments I made, using the exact-same nick (so no real WP:OUTING risk), years ago on some Brit Ider's blog. Utterly irrelevant, and no worse than the well-deserved derision hundreds of others have heaped on the head of Mickey-the-Astrologist Behe. :) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack removed by KillerChihuahua. Liveintheforests; you are welcome to comment on the subject at hand. You are not welcome to make personal attacks. If you have concerns about the editing or behavior of another editor, you are welcome to open an Rfc, where you are welcome to describe in civil and concise terms how you feel his or her editing violates Wikipedia policy. Puppy has spoken; do not continue down this path. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Liveintheforests: (i) you have not substantiated your repeated claim that I have "broken WP:NPOV". Arguing against the notability of topics does not count. (ii) The "looney bin" was for people who (a) claimed I was in fact not a single person but some weird Kansas-based conspiracy & (b) a creationist. (iii) The post you are complaining about are from five years ago -- hardly "spends his time". (iv) "DarWIKInist" you less-than-observant individual -- the viewpoint that Wiki articles are subject to socially Darwinistic pressures -- nothing to do with Dawkins. (v) "universally rejected and widely ridiculed within the biological community" (not my words) is a reasonably approximation for considered "a 'crank' 'crackpot' etc".
    Have a WP:TROUT and get a clue! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrafn you are saying Richard Goldschmidt one of the worlds most successful evolutionists was a "crackpot". Nothing else needs to be said!!Liveintheforests (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Futher research has shown their are 4 third party references which mention Hyndman and his book, this is more than enough:
    1. Soil Science Journal: September 1952 - Volume 74 - Issue 3 - ppg 261 - Review of his book
    2. http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC195525 Reviewed by John J. Biesele, Ph.D.
    3. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/pdf_extract/110/9/720 Reviewed by Norman Ford Walker Ph.D
    4. http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/4/621.1.extract - His book reviewed in a journalLiveintheforests (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, taking a look. NOTE that none of these are peer reviews, they are all book reviews, a very different item.
    1. No access.
    2. "the book is a philosophical, not a scientific, work. The reviewer would not recommend that it be given any serious consideration by the student of biology."
    3. "To this reviewer the book is most disappointing, being based mainly on armchair philosophy and full of biological inaccuracies."
    4. "Altogether, an odd, philosophically mixed and unsound argument for the effectiveness and directive influence of environment is elaborated and applied to both embryogenesis and evolution."
    In short, all three of the links you provided support the view that this is fringe at least, if not complete nonsense and fluff. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So what if his book was poorly reviewed? Does that matter? He was a surgeon not a biologist, he developed his own evolutionary theory. They are still reliable sources. - By the way the first source is online, il try and find it. That's four sources describing him and his book, well over enough considering the lack of sources on some articlesLiveintheforests (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources clearly state his book is unacceptable; and his "theory" is not a scientific theory but - and this is according to the reviews! is rather poorly formed philosophy. You have shown the book is unacceptable fringe philosophy and no scientific theory of evolution or anything else is contained therein. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter what the sources say, the sources could say his theory came out of a dustbin that is irrelevant, what remains is that they are third party sources which describe his theory, they are still there, we have sources all over wikipedia giving negetive reviews, even if his theory was opposition to most accepted biological thought, it's still a theory, secondly you have cherry picked through those three articles, there were lines in there which claimed Hyndmans book was well reseached, doing further research online will reveal that Hyndman was a well respected surgeon, he was not a biologist and yes he wrote on a subject outside of his field, but that it not the first time a scientist has done that. His wikipedia article is nowhere near the lines of deletion, it's silly even putting it on here. Liveintheforests (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, are you serious??? It doesn't matter what the sources say? Please go start a blog and stop wasting our time. On Wikipedia, it matters what the sources say. Please see WP:V, WP:RS. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. Hfran, I suggest you list the article on Afd. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When i said it doesn;t matter what the souces say, i meant it doesnt matter which side they take, of course it matter what the sources say i did not clarify, my comment was expressing that the sources that either are for or against is irrelevant. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. - The 4 references for his book (either negetive or positive) are still third party sources - so no the article will not go on Afd, also note the writing i wrote was in line of exactly what the reviews of his book said.Liveintheforests (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article will indeed go on Afd if someone lists it on Afd. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    lol there are HUNDREDS of wikipedia pages like this: John Foster (philosopher) with no references at all on - they stay on wikipedia for years, untouched, hey are you gonna tag this one? Why do you only tag evolutionist pages?. I can list you another 40 articles of living people - no references all left on wiki. - These pages won't be touched becuase they do not mention "evolution" they have no third party references on them. As soon as someone proposes a new mechanism for evolution it is looked down upon and those peoples wikipedia pages are put into the "fringe watch" even when they are well sourced, "one law for them another for us". Liveintheforests (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:OSE; also I have no idea who you're saying "only tag(s) evolutionist pages" - please see todays page for Afd and I assure you there will be hundreds of pages on subjects other than evolution for every one which is even tangentially related to that subject. We are done here, now. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another reference - Hemispheric communication: mechanisms and models By Frederick L. Kitterle p. 20 claims he was a neurosurgeon at the institute.
    • The soil science journal, medical library association, American Psychiatric Association, Oxford Journal all reviewed his book. We also have reliable sources which show he was a surgeon and the University he worked at. No idea why you want to delete this. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of reliable sources that someone did a particular job, for example, does not prove notability. In the modern world there is reliable accessible information about millions of people, giving facts about their career histories and other details. That does not mean that they deserve an article about themselves. The fact that someone has written a book and got some (overwhelmingly negative) reviews is also not sufficient. Lots and lots of people have written a book. See WP:PROF for discussion of what makes authors of non-fiction notable. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been deleted close case

    Anyone with a decent pair of eyes could of seen that there were many references for Olan Hyndman, - also searching Dr. Hyndman MD or Olan Hyndman Iowa University brings up many other references in a search engine. Case closed, article deleted, if Olan hadn't of written his own evolutionary theory, his article would be left up on wiki without anyone at all caring who or what he was. Liveintheforests (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Qur'an and science

    I've removed some BLP violations which I suspect will reappear. There's still a problem with original research. It's a pretty poor article in any case. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yukky article, will tag for an expert in Islam and also post on WikiProject Islam. There are some good editors interested in Islam who can sort it. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete 4 of my Fringe articles

    I dont care anymore, just delete the articles I created: Delete the following:

    Soren Lovtrup Malcolm Bowden David Rosevear Olan Hyndman

    It isnt worth the bother - All articles have both a mixture of primary and third party references but they will not be aloud on wikipedia becuase apparently they challenge the mainsteam view of evolution and according to members here they are all "cranks". Hrafn will not give up until they are tagged and deleted so no matter which references i put up they will not be good enough. So may aswell delete them all anyway, users are not even reading the references. Cheers. Liveintheforests (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want the articles deleted, tag them with ONE of the following: {{db-g7}}, {{db-author}}, {{db-self}},. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? WTF? No one has even proposed the articles for deletion. Hrafn could easily have nominated them if he wanted them gone. Instead all he did was raise questions about notability and this is your response? Really? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has lots of articles on people who challenge maintream views - in evolutionary theory and in lots of other areas. It also has articles on people who are considered to be "cranks" (e.g. P.N. Oak). If these get deleted it will be because the individuals are not sufficiently notable, not because their alternative views are being censored. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrafn Talk owns evolution and creationism, intelligent design articles at wikipedia, no joke he is found editing every article from young earth creationists, to intelligent design groups, everyone knows that, he spends his life on it, he is the user to put almost every creationist with tags on the articles claiming sources are not reliable - He has never tagged an article which fits his own beliefs on evolution however. Hes been on wikipedia many years only to tag articles which oppose the main view of evolution, in his spare time he publicly on forums and blogs swears and calls intelligent design, creationist or anyone who challenges the mainstream view of evolution "crackpots" or "idiots", he has broken WP:NPOV. Everyone on wikipedia knows who he is, doing a search of his name on wikipedia reveals over 20 user pages who secretly have compained about his non-neutal stance to evolution and "bating tactics", sad thing is nothing will be done about this. - I have nothing further to say, he wins, articles will be deleted, evolution is a no go area, it's a heated zone if you are not for the mainstream synthesis you are discredited, ignored, dimmed a "crackpot" (even if you have a phd) or called a secret creationist. Sad but true story! I quit wikipedia articles relating to this now i will edit other stuff.Liveintheforests (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how these complaints can be "secret" if they are found by "a search of his name". Sounds like they are quite visible. People who come up with theories that depart wildly from the mainstream of scholarship are often labelled 'crackpots'. That's just par for the course. Hrafn has no power to delete articles without consensus. He has the right to tag them, but they are only deleted after they are discussed by the community as a whole. Also WP:NPOV does not apply to expressions of ones personal views. Paul B (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WHAT???!!! He swears in forums and blog posts? Say not so! Has anyone called the police? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "WP:NPOV does not apply to expressions of ones personal views." No, but WP:BLP does if they're calling any living person an "idiot". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence refers to Hrafn's statements on "forums and blogs", so , no, WP:BLP does not apply. WP:anythingwhatever does not apply (thanks Steven for restoring my lost corrections. I thought I'd dreamed I'd done that). Paul B (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, OK. As long as he's not doing that on Wikipedia, it's fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to sidetrack this thread any further, but, uh, I will anyway. Calling a living person an "idiot" on Wikipedia is not a BLP violation, since it's clearly a statement of personal opinion. On the other hand, saying that someone robbed a bank or (oh, I don't know) participated in the assassination of JFK without evidence is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, calling living person an "idiot" on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course, material on living people in articles still needs to be meticulously sourced, but people are still allowed to express opinions in talk pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they're not. WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages. (However, in practice BLP violations in article space are taken more seriously than BLP violations on talk pages, but the policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the term "idiot" is being used in its obsolete medical sense, I really don't see how it could ever be "sourced", except as a quotation. A person's idiocy is not something that can ever be proven, because the term can be used in many ways. If I say "the President is an idiot", that may mean his actions in some aspect of his policies are foolish. Alternatively I may mean he is deeply unintelligent. The meaning changes according to the context. On reflection, I don't think BLP policy is this area can be applied in any meaningful way. It would be like asking for sources that someone is a "jerk". However, this is, admittedly the wrong board to be discussing this. Paul B (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final summary:
    • 1. The Malcolm Bowden and David Rosevear - Can be fully deleted, i have requested this.
    • 2. Olan Hyndman can be deleted fully, i have requested this. Maybe a mention on the neolamarckist article however? You decide.
    • 3. Soren Lovtrup can be deleted fully, i have requested this, i have merged the third party referenced section to the saltationism article.
    • 4. There are no references to be found on the Otto Schindewolf article so you may aswell delete him aswell, he is already mentioned on the saltationism article.
    • 5. I wasted 18 hours of my life writing these articles, why a certain other user (guess who) tags the page in less than one minute and as usual makes no effort into trying to find references to improve the article, he didnt even try for one second! Didn't even look, (as usual on all of the creationist, and or non-darwinian evolutionist articles hes done this for years, tag but not help out).
    • 6.I am staying away from the evolution articles so don't worry, too heated, a no go area. It reminds me of a fascist dictatorship. All sorted. The end. I will avoid the user Hrafn and any articles he has been on and sorry for any personal attacks i may have made. Peace.Liveintheforests (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All articles deleted case closed

    All 4 articles have been deleted. Party anyone? Get your Darwin banners out!! You win. Any scientist who questions natural selection is a "crackpot" and not is not reliable to be on wikipedia even if they are well sourced!!. Liveintheforests (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You asked for them to be deleted, so congratuate yourself. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have congratuated myself. Also im going to delete many other articles on wikipedia now which appently have "no or little sources", condidering that's what the latest trend is (just tagging articles instead of improving them). These creationists have little sources and need to be deleted:
    It must be pointed out all the above are creationists, and all of those articles have far less sources on them, and i mean far less than the articles i created. Only fair that they are deleted. Deletion tags will be added to them soon. I am also going through the creationist list, i believe there are another 30 articles we can delete. Cheers. Liveintheforests (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You still don't seem to understand the concept of notability. There may be lots of sources available on someone without that making a person notable. Also, read WP:POINT. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Liveintheforests: Please don't. You need to familiarize yourself with our notability policy. Tagging a bunch of articles for deletion may be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT and could lead to you getting blocked. I don't want that to happen so I recommend that you just chill out and familiarize yourself with how things work around here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, i wasn;t really going to delete any of those articles, i was making a WP:POINT, besides i do not know how to delete or tag an article. Also i am a "secret creationist" and a "crackpot" remember? so i wouldn't want to delete any of those fellow "creationist crackpot" buddie articles would i. I think all these cases are now closed. So i will not be posting here anymore. Thank you. Liveintheforests (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Energy Catalyzer

    The Energy Catalyzer ('cold fusion') article needs more eyes on it. It is attracting SPAs who seem to have some odd ideas about what constitutes mainstream science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lloyd Pye

    Lloyd Pye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The guy is fringe "science theorist" but the article currently consists of a lot of content WP:SYNthesized by wikipedia editors to disprove the claims and relying on Pyes posted criticism of his Wikipedia article in some bad WP:CIRCULAR claims - in otherwords a mess.

    Can someone come clean it up? (also cross posting on BLP notice board). Active Banana (bananaphone

    Qur'an and science

    A bad article, mainly OR, at least one dodgy source, criticism removed today. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Milton (author)

    Richard Milton (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Article on WP:FRINGE-advocating journalist, sourced almost entirely to his own work. May or may not be notable (Richard Dawkins reviews one of his books, but refers to him as an "unknown journalist"). If notable, needs a lot of work, if not, then I'll AfD it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be too little information available about him to justify and article and it should be deleted. TFD (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also delete:
    J. Francis Hitching
    Gordon Rattray Taylor
    Michael Pitman

    No sources for any of them. Liveintheforests (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is NOT the "unsourced" board, or the Requests for Deletion board. Please follow proper deletion procedure, Liveintheforests. Do not spam this board with WP:POINT violating posts. Remember that if you push this far enough, you may be blocked for disruption. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    As you can see, he's done that. After referencing at least one of those and then removing the references ending up with a reason for the AfD being lack of references. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Avro Manhattan

    Anti-Vatican polemicist whose article could use some balance: it reads "reasonable critic" where from what I can tell he maps out more to "fevered anti-Papist". Considering how difficult it is turning out to be to find third-party references outside the anti-Catholic world, there may also be notability problems here. I could use help researching this. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    New AFDs from Liveintheforests - taken to ANI as possibly pointy

    See WP:ANI#Possibly pointy AFDs. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Franz von Rintelen (in ENGLISH). The Dark Invader: Wartime Reminiscences of a German Naval Intelligence Officer (October 31, 1998 ed.). Routledge. pp. 326. ISBN 0714647926.
    2. ^ Beesly, Patrick (1982). Room 40. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd.. pp. 77–78. ISBN 0241108640
    3. ^ Franz von Rintelen (in ENGLISH). The Dark Invader: Wartime Reminiscences of a German Naval Intelligence Officer (October 31, 1998 ed.). Routledge. pp. 326. ISBN 0714647926.
    4. ^ Boghardt, T, Spies of the Kaiser, Palgrave Macmillan; illustrated edition edition (1 Oct 2004)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=430546066"