Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
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: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

Bates method sources

We have a dispute at Bates method, beginning here but summed up in a thread below, about what sources are acceptable to cite for the opinions of Bates method proponents. An editor argues that certain websites being cited are not themselves notable, thus any reference to them violates WP:UNDUE. While I don't quite see how UNDUE says that, I do see the basic point that a random personal website is normally not something that should be referenced. Now, for practical purposes, I would say that the sources in question are more than just random personal websites, but perhaps what I call "practical purposes" don't matter here. I looked at WP:FRINGE to see if it addressed what individual fringe sources can be cited in an article about the fringe theory. While WP:PARITY comes somewhat close, it doesn't seem to have an answer for this type of situation. Is this just something that has to be approached with common sense? PSWG1920 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Bates_method#Time_to_remove_poor_sources and Talk:Bates_method#List_of_poor_sources. All but one of these sources are self-published. The exception is a short promotional piece for a class. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the links posted but FRINGE should not be used as a way around WP:V and WP:RS. If the sources are personal websites, they may fail source standards (see WP:SELFPUB). Notability for a source is not a requirement for reference use so long as it follows the policy. I don't believe sources themselves fall under WP:UNDUE weight, but the content itself does. Give weight that is appropriate for the statement in relation to the topic / subtopic. Morphh ^(talk) 19:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as WP:RS is concerned, this seems like a legitimate use of fringe sources. And regarding the specific material referenced, I see no obvious violation of WP:SELFPUB (although I think that policy is a bit unclear.) We need editors to look at the references in the article to the sources in question. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To explain a bit: The sources in question are the main (sole?) sources used for verifying the opinions of current supporters of Bates. (I'm simplifying the situation, but hopefully not too much). --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is one specific example. Now, if an independent, third-party source could be found for this, I'd be perfectly okay with deleting the current self-published source. But even without an independent source, this is still a relevant point. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The Low Level Radiation Campaign entry

The article about the fringe group The Low Level Radiation Campaign was deleted about a month ago after I prod'd it for numerous reasons. Now the Company Secretary of the LLRC, Richard Bramhall, has turned up here to request restoration. It was restored and then immediately put up as an AfD. Richard Bramhall, who has extensively edited the article, has now asked for the page to be deleted to remove the criticism (on the link above) - and this makes me edgy. I'm all for the current article to be removed, as it's awful. However, should we have replace it with an article that uses the many criticisms of the LLRC, Dr Chris Busby, and their Second Event Theory as sources to accurately describe this group of fringe scientists. Maybe I'm over-reacting, as this is a very small group (and I'm not as mad as I sound), and the article will not be retained in its current state anyway. I'm just interested in what, if anything, should replace it. Thanks. Verbal chat 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could balance them with another fringe group: the good folks at the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons believe that low-level radiation is good for you. In all seriousness, the question is really how notable the LLRC is. If they've been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable third-party sources, then there should probably be an article. If the sources are iffy, then we're better off just deleting it. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If, as some are arguing, LLRC is not notable (which is not agreed for reasons already adduced, but who cares?) then an article attacking it, as proposed by Verbal Chat, wouldn't be justified. Why would Wikipedia attack a unnotable entity? Worse, if such an article set out to "use[s] the many criticisms of the LLRC, Dr Chris Busby, and the Second Event Theory", as VerbalChat suggests, it's hard to see how it would achieve any standard for balance, especially since VerbalChat thinks the sources would be "accurate". This presumably unconscious bias is representative of mistaken beliefs entertained by some of the Wikipedia editors participating in this discussion. Some of the beliefs derive from the original article, for example the apparent belief that the Second Event Theory is central to our theses; others derive from ignorance, e.g. the idea that the mainstream does not support anything we say, and the idea that lack of public awareness of our work is somehow important. On the first point, I have, on these pages, already referred to substantial and important support for the notion that there is something very badly wrong with the scientific basis of radiation protection standards. On the second, we generally speak only to informed, specialist opinion, not to the general public; ours is a highly technical subject area and addressing it to a mass market would inevitably entail the use of scare tactics. We have been accused of this, but not credibly, and many in the nuclear industry and in the radiation protection community acknowledge that we have an important message. Unfortunately the internet is populated by more rabid and more vocal opponents. A notable exception to our low profile was the 1998 – 2000 campaign against implementation of specific provisions of the 1996 Euratom Directive, which achieved considerable prominence with the public and with news media, and which fulfilled its aim in the UK if not elsewhere in the European Union.

I should like to say something about "Conflict of Interest" once again. CoI is being brandished on these pages like a banner at a demo suggesting, without elaboration or specificity, that my extensive involvement in editing the article somehow damages Wikipedia's standards. The original article was rubbish. Was anyone else coming forward to address its bias? No. I addressed it in a co-operative spirit with the clear aim of writing agnostically. It's all in the record, I believe. Can anyone identify actual material written by me which offends against balance? When I had to leave off in May 2007 the article was still not ideal but it was at least somewhat balanced, as noted by one commentator on the original deletion log in June 2008.

I asked for the article to be restored so that we could see exactly what had been deleted. Now we've seen it we think it should go. I don't see why that should make anyone "edgy". As I have already said, we want the article deleted because it will inevitably be subject to malign attention from partisans.. The evidence is there and we don't have the resources to go on (as MastCell says) " dealing with the never-ending petty shoving matches which this site generates." Richard Bramhall, LLRC— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.142.82 (talk • contribs)

Deletion doesn't mean it will be gone forever. What we're trying to ascertain here is whether your group meets notability criteria and whether something, probably a much smaller balanced article, should replace it. Also, you are free to partake in discussion, but due to your CoI you should refrain from editing the page. Instead, bring up points on the talk page. If you can provide reliable sources for your claims about the LLRC, that would be great. Note I never said 2nd event theory was central to the LLRC, and censorship should make anyone "edgy" - especially if your groups claims are true! An attack page has also not been suggested. If you are having problems logging into your account, just follow the instructions on the login page. Also, please be civil and assume good faith of others actions. You are being needlessly confrontational and combative. (PS my name here is Verbal, Chat is a link) Verbal chat 11:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the two examples of "exterior-controversial" topics (evolution and global warming) illustrate the problem you run into. Global warming is a mainstream view, but it doesn't have nearly the universality of consensus that evolution does within the scientific community, and a Wikipedia article on global warming that omitted any mention of skepticism would be severely lacking.

Less critical is a topic that would perhaps be worth adding, namely the question of what sources are usable. Scientists are taught that the best references are primary references, and tend to use them in Wikipedia whenever they can, but Wikipedia policy actually prefers secondary references (i.e., review papers). There is a good reason for this: it's generally possible to spin any story one likes by selective use of primary references. Reliance on high-quality secondary references makes it a lot harder to get OR into an article. Looie496 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanity prevails?

I am impressed with a number of notorious troublespots without any obvious connection apparently sorting themselves out. Satanic ritual abuse seems to reach a safe haven of common sense. Ancient Egyptian race controversy has been sane for two days. No vandalism to History of Armenia topics for ages. History of Hinduism solidifies into something that is actually readable and mostly accurate. No "Türkic" nationalist activity at Turkic alphabets since July. Hell, even currently hot topics like Kosovo and 2008 South Ossetia war are completely under control. Might this mean that ... sanity finally prevails? The beginning of a golden age of Wikipedia where the trolls don't even bother to try? I am particularly impressed with the impact of Moreschi (talk · contribs). He has managed something I never did, he uses the block button heavy-handedly and fixes content at the same time. This is the Wikipedia I signed up for! I know there are disturbing trends, both the admin community and the arbcom showing a capability for bad judgement unimaginable in the old days, but these successes really make things look bright. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) There are definitely signs of an upturn. SRA in particular has seen a massive turn-around, for which hats off to WLU (talk · contribs) and Cesar Tort (talk · contribs). The common connection between all of these has been to rigorously stick to good sources and to represent academic consensus faithfully. This is definitely the way to go with Afrocentrism, and it it precisely how Dieter and others have dealt with the problems caused by influxes of Hindutva ideologists (not to mention how WLU etc dealt with Abuse truth (talk · contribs) at the SRA article).

South Ossetia was interesting: we got a massive entrance of rabid patriots while the guns were still firing, but when the guns stopped, precious few of the influx actually stuck around. Word does get around in troll circles of "where not to go" and even beyond: I read an article in The Economist the other day that commended us at Wikipedia for coping much better with nationalism than the rest of the internet! Obviously, we will always have "hotspots" that are closely tied to real-world events which flare up whenever real life does, but over time, the fallout caused by such flare-ups should be less, as we grow better at dealing with them. The intensity of the flare-ups should also diminish, as the trolls learn that Wikipedia isn't quite the open target they thought it was.

Not that there still aren't problems. With the exception of the one article, most of the Afrocentrism topic is still a ghastly mess. And RFA is still broken - a broken arbcom can be mostly routed around, but a broken RFA will directly feed into declining quality of the admin corps, and that is not good. Partly why I'm experimenting with admin coaching as a vehicle for making sure the right people to pass RFA. It may not work, but something eventually will. All we need to do is persevere. Moreschi (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. Historically, I began focussing on nationalist hotspots back in 2005 not because I had had any special interest in nationalism, but because I found this to be the Achilles heel of Wikiepdia, with science topics much better defended against crackpottery, for the obvious reasons that science students tend to spend more time online than people into the humanities. I also find that there are hardly any topics dealing with actual science popping up on this board, such actual pseudo-science as we get mostly concerns alternative medicine. Topics like the Bogdanov Affair are mostly resolved by the regular community of editors of physics topics without any noise even at AN/I.

I have always reacted to nationalist pseudohistory by compiling information about nationalist pseudohistory, and once the Indigenous Aryans and Voice of India (etc.) article had become stable references, the Hindutva trolling magically went away. It's a sort of on-wiki Streisand effect. The more the trolls try to sell bullshit, the more they find Wikipedia exposes their bullshit until at some point they decide they are better off keeping away.

I also agree that RFA is the more urgent problem than the arbcom. I don't think the arbcom in its current form has any justification left, but it also does no damage as long as it doesn't succeed in becoming more powerful (I think I remember some scary suggestions by arbcom aficionado Tony S.) The admin community seems to be developing into a sort of hivemind which doesn't have any intelligence to speak of, but which is also incapable of doing really stupid things out of mere inertia. It becomes increasingly important to address individual admins who know what they are doing directly. dab (𒁳) 15:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say we've definitely had a decline in AIDS-denialist activity on Wikipedia, though some of that may be because the most active one has forked off his own denialist wiki. But while patting ourselves on the back, could I ask you fellas to watchlist Lyme disease, which sees a steady influx of meatpuppets? That seems to be the major hotspot at present, and even there it's not so bad right now, mostly due to a lot of regular editors being involved.

Re RfA, I'd have to agree - I've come to the conclusion that we don't really need more AIV patrollers. We need people who can understand and effectively intervene in thorny conflicts in a way that reflects the encyclopedia's basic principles. The problem is that we see a ton of candidates who are good people, decent editors, nice folks, but just haven't demonstrated any conflict-resolution skills. They're essentially a black box - will they avoid conflicts altogether? Will they turn out to be the next Newyorkbrad? Or, more likely, will they react unpredictably and possibly harmfully when things hit the fan? But I find it quite hard, still, to oppose a nice, well-meaning candidate solely on the grounds that they haven't been in any conflicts. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

no need for them to be involved in any conflict. My problem is that I have this reflex to fix articles, so I become "involved" immediately, if only in trying to enforce basic policy. So I become vulnerable to cries of "admin abuse" as soon as I touch any of my buttons. You could ask candidates to comment on any ongoing conflict of your choice, e.g. ask them to state how they would feel that, as an admin, they should handle individual editors currently on a pov-pushing campaign. No harm in asking current candidates to e.g. look into and comment on recent events at, say, Egyptians or John Michell (author). dab (𒁳) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This would actually be a great pre-RFA test--candidates should find a problematic article (there's no shortage of them) and fix it, whether it be through conflict resolution, finding good sources and incorporating them into the article, even basic copyediting. Whenever I take a look at RfAs (not often) it seems that several of the candidates don't have any experience writing articles--they're just vandal-fighters, which is fine, but is only a small piece of what needs to be done around here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant idea. As you say, vandal fighting should only be a fraction of an Admin's job. Doug Weller (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:71.201.241.2 User talk:71.201.241.2 Special:Contributions/71.201.241.2

This user has appeared in the last few weeks, and seems to have an agenda and style of editing (esp WP:SYNTH) similar to former user Rokus01, though I don't think they are identical. S/he has been altering the Neanderthal article and the Paleolithic Continuity Theory article, in addition to others on IE topics, generally seeming to push the view that Europeans are partly descended from Neanderthals and that IE is paleolithic. Some edits are downright bizarre, such as the addition of an image of medieval glass-blowing and a caption about Slovene words for pipes to an article about an alleged Neanderthal flute ([1]). The Neanderthal page has been semi-protected because of the frustration that his editing style and manner of discussion has produced, but is now clearly slanted in favour of the Neanderthal-HomSap interbreeding theory, which is even presented as undisputed fact at points. Other edits may be similarly slanted. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the difficulty is an unwillingness of this editor to engage in discussion and a lack of facility in English. He tends to add material that is meaningless to a general reader because of its technical nature and problematic English. I suspect one reason that his Talk page interaction is minimal is simply that his English isn't really good enough to engage in discussion. I've tried to deal with some of the Neanderthal edits, but haven't had much time this week to give it more attention. Would be great if someone could follow up. By the way, we've tried hard to avoid discouraging this editor from editing because he does seem to have substantial knowledge and familiarity with the literature. And his addition of a listing of Neanderthal specimens to the Neanderthal article is quite good, in my opinion. But I'm starting to wonder if he has the interests of the project at heart. TimidGuy (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

John Michell (writer)

Could someone take a look at the article and talk page? I got involved because the talk page was being badly messed around, with an IP editor (who was OTT I think in criticising Michell) and others were deleting each other's edits, warnings were being put on the talk page instead of user pages, etc. I've now gotten a bit more involved and have been told that my edits on the talk page indicate I don't understand OR, that I'm using it as a chat page, etc. The main problems seem to be the balance of the article a couple of editors who both don't understand referencing, OR, etc -- and it would be nice to get better balance in the article, but the problem there seems to be although Michell is very popular among New Age adherents he's largely ignored (except maybe for his book on Shakespeare) in other quarters. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Watchlisted. I'll see what I can do. What a mess. At the moment it really does read like one massive puff piece. Moreschi (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You need to read the talk page (which I'm accused, several times, of using as a chat page) to get the flavour of what's going on. And evidently I don't understand much about Wikipedia, I don't realise that Britannia.com is a famous online encyclopedia (number 3 on Google I was told and in fact if you enter Britannia.com into Google the Britannica does come up), and, if you search the history of the article, one of my edits was reverted partially for being NPOV if I understand the edit summary correctly. Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is horrible. Personally I recommend reverting to a much earlier version, such as this one, and starting from scratch again. This horrific puff piece isn't really on. Moreschi (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, SageMab (talk · contribs) is now fervently resisting any attempt to remove some of the more egregious puffery. We have a problem. Moreschi (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

this used to be a problem, back in November, but hopefully not now it has been brought up here on this noticeboard. dab (𒁳) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The same guy you clashed with back then is the problem now. He wants it to be a list of approving quotations about JM. I'm particularly amused by the last section about his "prestigious" art exhibitions. Paul B (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He/she seems to have a bit of a hangup about administrators, keeps reminding me I'm not one and has asked another editor (Sesquipedalian) if he is one. Evidently he thinks if an editor isn't an administrator there are things he shouldn't say or something. Doug Weller (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

if I was worth my salt as an admin, I'd have clamped down on him ten months ago :) dab (𒁳) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest [2] as an alternative to the old version Moreschi pointed at? It has a bit of puffery, but also a substantial amount of useful information. I think the puffery could easily be removed if SageMab was not constantly interfering. Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked DougWeller to stop following me around. What about this article is puffery? Be specific please. I do think that Looie is working to improve this article. I think a lot of the other edits are done by people who do not understand NPOV and who have no love of the author's subject matter. Paul, do not assume what I want. It shows no good faith. A lack of serious negative critics over an authors 40+ year wrting career does not make other commentary about his work "puffery", a biased term. I have seen picking at this article rather than constuctive edits that added new material. I am not a "fan" of any subject on Wikipedia. I do care about facts and how they are edited. I would like to request a stop of the "ganging up". The article, not a major piece, is being chatted to death on the discussion page. SageMab (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think editors need "love of the author's subject matter" in order to write an article, I daresay it is you who has trouble understanding our NPOV policy. --dab (𒁳) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Having love for John Michell's subject matter is probably the scariest thing I've been accused of since I started editing Wikipedia. I do have the attitude that articles about fringe topics should actually present information about them, not restrict themselves to pure criticism, but I have no sympathy for the pov-pushing that SageMab is trying to get into the article. Looie496 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And where Looie in the above quote, or any place else, have you been accused of "Having love for John Michell's subject matter..."? Read my comment carefully and do not accuse me of pov-pushing for an author. Uncivil and untrue. It's not like anyone is accusing you as being part of a cabal. SageMab (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the true spirit of Jimbo Wales behind the original WP:CIVIL policy, but I almost never see it invoked other than as a last resort of problem editors thrown into the fray after it has become clear they have no case. We need to make clear that while comments like "your mother smells of elderberry" may be incivil, dry statements to the effect of "you are wrong" are not (WP:SPADE). --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, this is excellent. It's wonderful how all this fringe stuff interlinks. Michell is apparently a member of the Lindisfarne Association, which is in turn closely tied to our old friends - wait for it - integral thought and Ken Wilber, which have been up on this noticeboard a good few times previously. The backdrop of guff is being peeled away and hopefully a proper article can now emerge. Moreschi (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

related trouble at Radical Traditionalism. Yes, this is a little walled garden. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Busy day today. Hopefully we can agree the article is now much saner. Mr SageMab has just been blocked for 3RR. It seems his inability to comprehend policy has led him him to an unfortunate end. Moreschi (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see he thinks people have been naughty and inserting NPOV into the article. Bad editors, inserting NPOV! Doug Weller (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever next, they might even abuse RSes for their own wicked ends! Yes, that was today's lighter touch :) Moreschi (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemtrails

This article uses almost exclusively self-published websites to offer a slew of conspiracy theories about chemtrails. I'm not even sure that this is an encyclopedic topic: I couldn't find a single secondary independent source that acknowledged the notability of this particular fringe theory. We need some people to look it over, cull out the stuff that is referenced solely to looney-toons webpages, and try to make an article that actually tells people about the social significance of this conspiracy theory (if there is any). Whew! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem here. The article was written in a skeptical tone even before your edits — the first cite is to an article in Skeptical Inquirer. It's extremely fringey stuff no doubt, but it's the kind of stuff that somebody might come to Wikipedia wanting to learn about, and I personally wouldn't be ashamed about what they would learn from that article. Looie496 (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Several of the sources and external links are poor quality, with some of the publications carrying "official" sounding names obvious tracts generated in some amateur's living room. I agree a scrubbing to clean up sources is in order.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

History of electromagnetism

Reddi. I just cut out a bit of unattributed quotation (referenced, but no indication it was a quote) from an 1890s book which I didn't think was helpful, and some fractured English about Thales replacing it with the original stuff, he's replaced both (I did note that the English was bad, maybe it's me that can't read?). I'm not sure about do to about some ancient speculation from the 1890s but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, but it seems like the first step should be to raise the question on the article's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct. My edit summary made it clear but I should go to the talk page also. Doug Weller (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis, part 7295

This perennially problematic article could use more attention. Let me direct your attention to a recent issue that's cropped up: recently, the article Acharya S was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination)). Acharya S is a proponent of a version of the Jesus myth, but previous consensus was that she didn't belong in the article because she was not a particularly notable advocate of the theory. After her article was deleted, a large section devoted to her popped up in Jesus myth hypothesis. The editor who inserted it acknowledges that Acharya S fails WP:BIO, but cites WP:FRINGE as a reason why she can be included in Jesus myth hypothesis despite a lack of reliable sources or any indication that she's a prominent writer on this topic. Perhaps it's just me, but this looks like a circumvention of the AfD result. More input would be appreciated at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Acharya_S. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

there could be a compromise of mentioning this author in a brief paragraph, but obviously not in a "large section". Yes WP:FRINGE says that it's ok to discuss fringy literature in an article that is dedicated to a fringy topic in the first place, but the "Jesus myth" article in this case needs to make perfectly clear that it is about a crackpot subject right from the start.

I frankly never understood this dedication to "debunking" Jesus as "a myth". There are, of course, legends about Jesus' life just as there are about Buddha's, Muhammad's, Charlemagne's, Pope Silvester's or Isaac Newton's. This doesn't make any of them unhistorical, nor does accepting that there was probably a historical Jesus make anyone a Christian any more than believing that L. Ron Hubbard lived 1911-1986 makes you a scientologist. --dab (𒁳) 07:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The scope of the article is not necessarily limited to sources that completly deny the existence of a historical Jesus. There are, in fact, highly regarded scholars, such as Hyam Maccoby, who deny that the historical Jesus had any similarity to the Jesus of the Christian Bible [3]. In any case, there are other problems of the article too, such as the inclusion of sources said to give historic evidence of Jesus, ie Josephus, that are problematic because it is disputed the references have anything to do with the historic Jesus. There is a lot that could be said about the problems of the article, but the problems are certainly not all on one side of the issue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that we already have full articles covering these aspects: historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus and mythological aspects of Jesus Christ cover all reasonable aspects of this. The "Jesus myth" article is really just limited to the fringe theory that "Jesus is just a myth". Maccoby's theses (according to our article) that Jesus was a Jewish Messianic claimant whose life and teaching were within the mainstream of first-century Judaism ... executed as a rebel against the Roman occupation of Judaea are perfectly mainstream and have nothing to do with the "Jesus myth" thing. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article does not actually define itself that way. But, if it is a content fork (or POV fork), it might be better to merge it with the other articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article does define itself that way, and this has been covered in detail before on this noticeboard and on the article's talk page. This is a good example of the kind of circular argument that constantly bedevils the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Circular argument? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Circular" in the sense that it comes up again and again, without any real change. Maybe I should have used a different word, because circular argument has a particular meaning in logic, and I wasn't referring to that meaning. I should have said "repetitive" or "recurrent", I suppose. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest "perennial" Verbal chat 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you might want to read this: Circular argument, so you will have it ready in situations when it actually applies. I will say our disagreement on the article is unresolved. But, if it is you position that my disagreeing with you proves I am am wrong (which I think you have implied a number of times), that probability really is circular reasoning. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I just linked to circular argument two posts above, and noted that I didn't intend that meaning of the phrase. Perhaps this illustrates a common problem with Wikipedia discussions: editors often don't read each other's posts very carefully. At any rate, Malcolm, I have explained in detail why I disagree with you on several points (see, e.g. Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Page_is_locked.2C_locking_horns_won.27t_help) and it would be tiresome to repeat that here. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had it written (without the mind-reading ability to know you would include the same link) and went ahead and saved it because it included a very different point than your edit. I always read your edits. It is always such a pleasure to have these little discussions with you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sheesh, Malcolm. So the argument is perennial (or "Sisyphian"), we get it. Can we now do something about the problem? As in, spelling out the scope of the article in giant letters so that even our more cranky clientele with lexical deficiencies will Get It? Or perhaps split it? I mean, just how many distinct articles dealing with Jesus' historicity do we really need? --dab (𒁳) 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sisyphean" is perfect. Although I think what needs to be done at the moment is more like cleaning out the Stables of Augeas--there's a lot of stuff in the article that's very poorly sourced. Every time I try to do something (even correcting a misuse of the word "euhemerization") it sets off a revert war, with cries of censorship, POV-pushing, and pro-Christian bias on the talk page. (Hm, this may not be the best way to ask people to come edit the page...) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the solution. It seems to me that, if the article is to exist, it needs scope to include a little wider range of sources. Or it could be merged, maybe that would be okay too. Certainly the editing situation seems to have been at an impasse for a long time. I would be happy to support any solution that would seem to have a chance to improve the situation. I do not see Akhilleus' solution as workable, and I do not think the problem is all on one side (for example, and as I pointed out above, the Josephus section that claims to support a historical Jesus, is really very problematic.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The scope of the article is just fine, and conforms to how it's treated in academic works that deal with the subject. The Josephus section that Malcolm refers to is in a section of the article that I think should be removed entirely. The article really ought to follow a chronological format, dealing with Jesus myth authors individually, rather than synthesizing them into a single position (as the article does now). So if, say, Arthur Drews said something about Josephus, his position could be detailed in his section.

Of course, as far as I can see, the mainstream position is that Josephus gives us some evidence for Jesus' historicity. Of course, we have Josephus on Jesus to report what the scholarly consensus is; Jesus myth hypothesis is a different animal. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

the mainstream position is that it is perfectly plausible that the gospels themselves refer to a historical rabbi. I mean, why make one up when Palestine was perfectly riddled with messianic teachers at the time? This would be like, to grasp for a simile at random, faking a Washington DC sex scandal when there is ample supply of real ones to choose from. There must have been dozens of "the end is nigh" preachers in Palestine at the time. So one of them was called "Yeshua" or similar. Or perhaps it was a different one of the same name. The entire point of the gospels, the resurrection is quite another matter. If you believe in the resurrection of Christ, you are a Christian. If you just surmise that some bloke that may or may not have been called "Yeshua", or similar, was annoying the Romans in the 30s AD, you are just applying Occam's razor. After all, the gap between the death of Jesus and Q is a measly 40 years (or less). Hardly comparable to Arthurian romance vs. Sub-Roman Britain (>800 years). This entire dispute is such a non-issue, it's difficult to know where to begin. Also, consider Socrates. Do we have epic disputes surrounding the historicity of Socrates because the man is only known by word of his disciples? Why not? --dab (𒁳) 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article Josephus on Jesus, which the Jesus myth article does not link to; and this does not seem to support your view on Josephus [4]. I will stand by what I said, that the POV problems are not on one side only, and that the scope of the article needs to be slightly expanded. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the introduction contains this sentence: "A related hypothesis is that the stories of Jesus found in the New Testament are transfers from and embellishments on the life of an earlier religious teacher who lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE."

That certainly allows the latitude for using sources such as Hyam Maccoby in the article, but Akhilleus' gate keeping activities have blocked it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The multiplicity of fabrications and "pious frauds" versus the dearth of credible evidence that such an individual existed is enough to demonstrate the negative. Yeshua was a very common name in Palestine at the time, and there were more than one or two would-be prophets named Yeshua/Jesus (or Yudah/Judas), including at least one of the Hellenistic Hasmonean clients of the Roman Empire (as well as a couple in the Oniad dynasty which proceeded them), but none who quite fit the bill. Too many aspects of the gospels clearly borrowed from other traditions speak to their lack of historicity, not the least of which is the fact that much of the myth is based on the idea that the so-called Israelites were slaves in Egypt who "escaped", wandered in the Negev for forty years, then invaded and conquered the land of Canaan, for none of which is there any archaeological evidence. Indeed, the complete lack thereof demonstrates that nothing of the kind happened. What the archaeological evidence does indicate is that the "Israelites" developed as a nomadic group within Canaan itself, and northern Canaan at that, the archaeological record showing the southern part, referred to by Judeo-Christians as Judaea and Muslims as Filastin, were almost entirely deserted between ~1200 BCE and ~722 BCE; you'll note the latter date as being the year in which the Assyrians conquered Canaan-Phoenicia. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In the last part of your edit I assume you are referring to the archaeological evidence discussed in The Bible Unearthed. Unfortunately, I see that article has been reduced to stub. However that is, I do not recall anything from that book which could serve as a source in the Jesus myth hypothesis article. There are, I think, some good sources, but the article is being excessively restricted by some well editors who have good intentions. I have not even looked at the article recently because it is so frustrating, and rather think nothing much will be possible now. Savlanoot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion debates

Users who watch this page may be interested in the articles that have nominated for deletion mentioned at this section of WP:ANI --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Collectivization_in_the_Ukrainian_SSR

Fringe theory what

In Soviet Ukraine this policy had a dramatic effect on the Ukrainian ethnic population and its culture as 86% of the population lived in rural settings. The forceful introduction of the policy of Collectivization was one of the main causes of the Holodomor.

Article was created as copy-paste from Holodomor and now from main article removed significant and important chapters under “brand” “Deleted duplicates from Collectivization in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic”. In fact this chapters has nothing or little relation to historical event Collectivization_in_the_Ukrainian_SSR. While in general it’s another article in fringe theory about “Ukrainian Holocaust” (see other Language link which referred to Holodomor”, List of Books and articles [5] and External links [6] – note the first ref in list.

Actually it’s thory widely popular because of “

One example on the discourse on the war and the Soviet past among the some of the children of the members of the post war Galician Ukrainian emigration; or directly participated in the destruction of the Jews during German occupation. Through a victimized national narrative as well as presentation of the Great Famine of 1932/1933, they have tried to compete in order to obscure the “dark sides” of the Ukraine’s national history and to counter accusations that their fathers collaborated with Germans.”

(From p.59 ISBN 978-966-02-4679-9 and John-Paul Himka, A Central European Diaspora under the Shadow of World War II: The Galician Ukrainians in North America, in: Austrian History Yearbook 37 (2006), 17–31, here 30. Dieter Pohl, Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien 1941–1944, Munchen 1996. See also Johan Dietsch, Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture (Lund: Media Tryck, Lund University, 2006).)

May be would be good to limit effort by group of editors to exploit WP as soapbox per

Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising.

ThanksJo0doe (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand this. What is the problem? In fewer words, and no quotes, please. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems in misusing widelly known (in relevant histrocals society) historical fact only for “Ukrainian Holocaust” proposes Jo0doe (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)-

What the editor is perhaps trying to say is that this is part of the "Holodomor" walled garden, which is a politically and historically fraught topic, apparently, and in which most of WP's articles are sourced to extremely doubtful sources and consist largely of massive SYN violations. I was unfamiliar with the question, though not with the collectivization-related Soviet famine of 1932-33, before I discovered the worst article in Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in the details of what underlies this fringe-pushing, they can email me. I don't want to start a firefight on this noticeboard. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoxsey Therapy

I'd like some outside input at Hoxsey Therapy. This is an alternative cancer treatment condemned as ineffective by major groups including the FDA (who outlawed its sale as a form of quackery), the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. There has been recent discussion of using claims which a journalist made in a polemical book on the subject as a counterpoint to argue the effectiveness of the treatment. More detail is on the article talk page; input requested. (Cross-posted to WT:MED) MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be sure, this is about the use of a book by Kenny Ausubel? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although as you can see (having stopped by) the issues do go a bit deeper and involve fundamental aspects of WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maria Kanellis

Doing some RC patrol, I came across this article on a female professional wrestler, and was bemused to see that it's written with the point of view that all those competitions are actually real. Now of course that's nonsense -- I wonder whether this happens in other wrestling-related articles, and whether anybody cares? To be honest, I'm not sure that I even care. Looie496 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I care about it, and I'm not sure it's a matter of fringe theories, exactly--but there are a lot of WP articles that are written in an in-universe perspective; wrestling is only one of the many areas in which this happens. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it is general practice on wrestling articles to link to professional wrestling (where the scripted nature of pro-wrestling is explained), and to write the "career" section as if the matches were genuine. To be fair, the article does use wrestling jargon such as "push", "jobbing", "legitimately", all of which point to the fact that pro wrestling is choreographed (if you click the links). Moreschi (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy: Quackery in the lead

I'm trying to improve the homeopathy page by looking at problems that have been raised and then finding what the consensus for dealing with it is (no change, small change, big change, etc). The first issue I've proposed is keeping quackery in the lead. Here is my summary: Several people, mostly homeopaths, have commented that they don't like the word quackery appearing in the lead. Now I agree that it should be included in the article, as it's verifiable, a common opinion, and from a reliable source. However, for the lead I feel that the term pseudoscience is enough. I would suggest keeping the sentence in the lead up to the semicolon (replaced with a full stop), and integrating the remainder into the body of the article. Perhaps into the "Research on medical effectiveness" section or the 20th century section. This is something I've suggested before but which has been overtaken (usually) by discussions as to whether homeopathy works, so please lets keep his on topic: quackery removed from the lead, put somewhere else. Note that currently quackery doesn't appear elsewhere in the article.

Please come and join the conversation or suggest other topics or fixes. All the best. Verbal chat 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to my intent with this, so can I assure people that I'm not advocating censorship, and could people please go over and leave their opinions on the talk page (try to stick to the subject, and stay civil due to sanctions and the homeopathically potent atmosphere over there) Verbal chat 10:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"quackery" is pseudoscience in medicine. "pseudoscience" usually refers to the natural sciences (cold fusion and the like). dab (𒁳) 13:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If a single source goes against a consensus, is it fringe?

That's part of the issue raised at Wikipedia:RSN#David_Cymet.2C_Pi.C5.82sudski_and_anti-semitism. In order to centralize a discussion - which is related to FRINGE - I'd like to ask for some editors to comment on it at the RSN. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This sort of problem is precisely the reason why Wikipedia favors secondary sources over primary sources (see wp:source). If you use primary sources, you can find one to support nearly anything. I think the answer must be, if you have absolutely no choice but to rely on primary sources, you need to use some judgement in handling them. But it's much better if you can rely on reputable secondary sources. Looie496 (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So what is your recommendation as to what should I do? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hunor and Magor

The fascinating published opinion that there are etymological connections between medieval Hungarian legends and ancient Sumerian myths has unfortunately run up into some opposition by a team of wikipedia editors in Europe calling themselves "The Rouge", who wish to be able to decide on the behalf of the reader which ideas the reader is or is not allowed to hear about. On the flimsiest of grounds they have decided to damn the memory of these theories to non-existence. [7]. This obviously has to be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

chuckle, you had me confused there for a minute FutPerf :) --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be on this either today or over the weekend. I've got Pál Engel's The Realm of St. Stephen, pretty much the definitive history of Medieval Hungary in English, and he has a few bits on the origins of the Hunor and Magor myth. --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced what I could reliably source with the books I have. Some of the stuff I cut was probably fine but it was unreferenced. I'll have a scout around to see if we can expand it. --Folantin (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, massive improvements :) Moreschi (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. It's been a few years since I looked at Hungarian history but I knew this was pretty important (and I forgot just how influential Werbőczy was - his interpretation of the legend was used to justify serfdom in Hungary until 1848!). There are still a few things that need sorting, namely the different versions of this myth. For instance, some accounts apparently have Hunor and Magor as the offspring of Gog and Magog. I'd also like to check whether there are any recorded versions prior to Simon Kézai (though I'm pretty sure this is a 13th century thing). But it can wait. --Folantin (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys, you're my heroes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This might need looking into. (Oh brother.) --Folantin (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian prehistory

That's quite a lot of myth and "alternate theories". Moreschi (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the article is fine, some of it is drivel, some of it has obviously been translated (badly). It's tricky to disentangle because: there is genuine scholarly controversy about some aspects of "Hungarian prehistory"; there are some notable "nationalist fringe theories" that have had historical influence, but there are also some fringe theories which are little more than the invention of "nutjobs on the Net". The basic point is that the Finno-Ugric hypothesis of Hungarian origins is almost universally accepted by scholars, but some Hungarians don't like it. As Molnar says in his history: "This [Finno-Ugric] linguistic theory has, however, been fiercely disputed. From the nineteenth century onwards, Hungarian public opinion was reluctant to accept the family connections between their language and that of poor, primitive fisherman [i.e. the Finns and others], finding the possibility somewhat humiliating. Hungarians nurtured more glorious dreams: some connection with Attila's Huns or Sumero-Babylonian culture would have been more acceptable, just like the mythical Trojan origins of the French!". --Folantin (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I need to add something here. The Finno-Ugric hypothesis is a LINGUISTIC theory. Stop presenting it as an all-encompassing theory for the origin of the Hungarians. Doing so is no better than what the "nutjobs on the Net" do.--Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You have just quoted one POV, if you really wanted to be neutral you could just as easily find quotes for the opposite POV, which is something like (if I understand it correctly) that the "Hun connection" at one time enjoyed considerably more currency throughout Europe, and in fact always did so, until the Austro-Hungarian elite in the 19th century did their best to squash all mention of it, for mostly political purposes.

BTW: Many other project pages on wikipedia actually require the editors submitting problems, to phrase the problem in the most neutral terms as possible; will this page be one of the last holdouts from npov, where we can all feel free to lampoon the other side without restraint, and sometimes even have proponents of both sides, (or points-of-view), of a given issue, attempting to paint each other as the "fringe"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Yes, the alleged connection between the Huns and the Hungarians is a notable and influential piece of Medieval pseudo-history and has been described as such in the Hunor and Magor article. But no mainstream scholar now believes any such thing - so that's what we say. --Folantin (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure that the Hungarians do not need to look far, to see that their ancestors really were the guys wearing the pointy helmets, and not the "poor primitive fishermen". But there has been a lot of revisionism in the last couple of centuries, so why only present those voices that agree with only one side of the issue? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. The Finno-Ugric theory of Hungarian origins is almost universally accepted by mainstream scholarship. --Folantin (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps those who hold this theory have proclaimed themselves the mainstream, and pretend that those who dissent, either do not exist or do not count, and therefore must be silenced. This isn't science, it's ostracism. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just like the academic conspiracy to suppress the Trojan origins of the British. *Rolls eyes*. --Folantin (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure one case is "just like" the other, the difference being, there is absolutely nobody disputing the validity of the Brutus stuff today, everyone agrees it is false. It would take a bit more "pushing" to get everyone to agree that the Hungarians who wore pointy helmets had nothing to do with the Huns who wore pointy helmets; but this should not be the stage for "pushing", it should be the stage for honestly reporting that there really are still published povs today who disagree with the "mainstream" view on that, instead of summarily writing them off simply "because we know better". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Pointy Helmet Theory" is a new one to me. I'm sure it's highly scientific. A lot of (mainly) far-right Hungarian nationalists don't like the Finno-Ugric thesis and that's about it. --Folantin (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that new or suprising. Archaeology should surely be able to determine conclusively whether Hungary was settled by invaders wearing pointy helmets, or by "poor primitive fishermen". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fascinating. Til Eulenspiegel's advocacy of a grand Finno-Ugric conspiracy to suppress the Hun truth is really just the continuation of a long-standing nationalist meme on Wikipedia: this dates all the way back to 2005 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antifinnugor and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor. I remember Til from the seemingly endless flame-wars over Aratta...having a tussle with Sumerophile (talk · contribs). And what's all this about pointy helmets? Moreschi (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know anything about that Rfa / Rfc from 2005, and am not particularly passionate about Hungarians as you might guess, but I can predict, from past experience, that if it is indeed a "longstanding meme", then it probably isn't going to go away anytime soon, and it isn't going to go away just because you tell it to, nor if we stick our heads in the sand... all evidence that there truly are a "significant" number of dissenters out there, from the "mainstream" "ignorant fishermen" opinion already quoted above. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It's a truly notable and "popular" fringe theory, no arguments - and so we write about it as notable fringe theory. Such is Wikipedia. Moreschi (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is this rubbish about "ignorant fishermen"? Is there something wrong with being a fisherman? Were "pointy helmet" wearers somehow not ignorant? This kind of language gets us nowhere. The ancient forebears of all peoples were "ignorant" by modern standards, so what's the problem? Paul B (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I think Molnar's use of "primitive fishermen" is a parody of Hungarian nationalist attitudes towards their Finno-Ugric ancestors. Such a shame, really. Moreschi (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the "primitive fishermen" refers to the Finns. Molnár is having a laugh at the expense of early 19th century nationalist snobbery in Hungary. Remember, at this point in time Finland had yet to flood the world with mobile phones and World Rally Champions, so its cachet was pretty low. So it was "uncool" to be related to the Finns, whereas the Huns and Sumerians had quite a bit of historical glamour attached to them. --Folantin (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the "primitive fishermen" refers to the Mansi. The Mansi are the closest linguistic relatives to Hungarians. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but Molnár is referring to the "Finns and others" (he doesn't mention the Voguls/Mansi by name). See Vilmos Voigt on the historical relationship between Finland and Hungary in In the World of Signs (ed. Jadacki and Strawinski) p.399: "Hungarian magnates did not like the 'fish-odoured' or 'fish-greasy' relatives, serfs in the Tzar's feared autocracy. It took a century to persuade the majority of Hungarians that Finns, Estonians, and even more surprisingly Voguls, Ostyaks etc. are the kinfolk of Hungarians, very proud of their Christian kingdom designed by King Stephen on Christmas Eve of the year 1000 AD. A dubious feeling characterizes Hungarians in the 19th century. They did not like to be alone, they much appreciated the achievements of the Finns (as, e.g., the Kalevala) , but on the other hand they never forgot to stress their superiority as against all other Finno-Ugric peoples, listing dozens of saints, kings and other medieval requisites of their own which their 'poorer' relatives lacked." --Folantin (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation and before I read any further what has been written I must give some perspective. The Hungarian prehistory article started out originally as a POV fork. All of the content originally was a translation of Istvan Kisztely's fringe theories with some stuff thrown in by "scholar" Fred Hamori. Since that time I and several other editors have attempted to bring the article back into mainstream without starting edit wars. A lot of work was done to get better material from reputable sources incorporated into the article. It is still has a long way to go though. Then you new editors to the article just come in with your own biases that the article is "fringe" and start chopping up everything without this perspective, it rankles feathers. I won't defend the article because it still needs a lot of improvement, but it does absolutely no good when I see Folantin remove the Historiography section. What are you trying to do? Make it even more fringe so you can delete it? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Other alternate theories" section should be definitely checked for notability. There are fringe theories about any topic, but not all are notable. bogdan (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page of "Hungarian prehistory". "Then you new editors to the article just come in with your own biases". Please assume good faith. Nobody here is saying that the article itself is "fringe", because Hungarian prehistory is a valid topic. However, the article does need a lot of pruning to separate the bona fide material from the dross. --Folantin (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Assume good faith from the past editors who have been trying to work to correct the problems with the article! I didn't want to start throwing around wikilawyering terms, but you've done it so I will too. Why did you remove several times the Historiography section? To me your actions look like you didn't assume good faith when you did that. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this noticeboard is about articles that give undue weight to fringe, not articles that are in need of additional "pruning" towards your POV. So please explain how Hungarian prehistory gives undue weight. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've explained at great length in the edit summaries and on the talk page why I deleted the "Historiography" section. Have you actually read the "Historiography" section? This whole article began life as a coatrack apparently promoting some cranky theories from The Hungarian Old Country by Istvan Kiszely. It should have been deleted as such. Then a fresh Hungarian prehistory article should have been started from scratch based on proper, scholarly research. Instead, some users have obviously tried to "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" and have ended up preserving large amounts of the original drivel for reasons I have yet to understand. --Folantin (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's real simple. It is called "differing wiki philosophy". Users are much more likely to fix mistakes they see or offer corrections when asked for inline than write from whole sections from scratch. Gradual changes also prevent useless edit wars, like the one you predictably got into with Til Eulenspiegel when you deleted the whole Historiography section. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, your "wiki philosophy" has helped preserve this appalling dog's dinner of an article which has been around fooling readers since 2004 (judging by the edit history). It's really that simple. --Folantin (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are quite judgmental. Who put you in charge of deciding? Why don't you delete the whole article and start from scratch yourself? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you do around here? Sit and watch a noticeboard so you can come into an article mid-sentence with your self-righteous attitude and throw some pseudo-weight around? If you were so concerned about the article where were you to begin with? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just finished taking a look through the entire article. I could only find 2 or 3 sections where some of the original POV wording from the Istvan Kisztely version of the article still appears. Everything else of what you called the "dog's dinner" is rather new and sourced. From that I have to say that my "wiki philosophy" method has worked out quite well. What have you accomplished other than ruffling feathers? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"What have you accomplished other than ruffling feathers?" Well, over the past couple of days I've expanded Wikipedia's coverage of Hungarian linguists and ethnographers (genuine ones) and I've created an article on the background to the "Turanian" nonsense which is probably the basis of the material which you are trying to "reupholster" on the Hungarian prehistory page (see initial version of the latter here [8]). All using reliable sources. I tried working on the Hungarian prehistory article (and working on an article includes removing tendentious and nonsensical material) but I was prevented from doing so by a couple of other users for reasons best known to themselves. --Folantin (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you paid attention to what those other users wrote, you'd actually know their valid reasons for disagreeing with your changes instead of claiming the reasons are known only to them. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I will reiterate what I wrote first above. It does NOT HELP improve the article when you completely remove things like the Historiography section. Removing it completely instead of improving it is lazy editing. May I redirect your attention to the words at the top of this notice board..."Note that the purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that proper balance is maintained. Indeed, Wikipedia has an entire category dedicated to pseudoscience. Wikipedia articles dealing with academic topics aim to reflect both the consensus and the diversity of mainstream academia. Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as "fact."" Now if you want to argue that the Hungarian-Sumerian thing is not notable, go ahead, but you'll be hard pressed to make a convincing argument about it considering that serious scholars have to spend time refuting it because it is so pervasive. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why I deleted the so-called "Historiography" section in a nutshell: here's a compare-and-contrast [9]. The correct thing to do with that material was to nuke it. I still haven't had any answers why some of it was retained and some deleted. The last version still preserves much of the quasi-racist conspiracism of the original along with its often mystifying English. In any case, the article needs to focus on getting the history (or pre-history) right before attempting fancy stuff like historiography. --Folantin (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sweet Jesus. Stacey, please. We all know that there are significant problems with Hungarian prehistory topics, ok? No one is blaming you for this. You are not being held responsible. for the sloppy editing of others. We're all a bit puzzled you didn't raise the red flag and say "I need help cleaning out the crap, guys" a lot earlier on, but you didn't, and I guess that's just what happened. There is no need to take the eventual inevitable cleanout personally, as you appear to be doing. An axe does need swinging here, but we're not trying to chop your neck off. Moreschi (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seemingly being accused on Talk:Sources of Hungarian Prehistory that I'm not following WP:CITE because I branched off material I didn't write from Hungarian prehistory to that article. That's called "being held responsible". "You all", meaning you, Folantin, and Dab, are only puzzled because you are stepping into the article mid-sentence. You just started discussing about it here and not on the talk page for Hungarian prehistory. If you had paid attention to the article and what users have written on its talk page earlier, you would have seen the red flags that were raised. Or do you expect everyone to interface you through a noticeboard? May I remind everyone that the only notice I got for this discussion taking place was Til Eulenspiegel's notification on Talk:Hungarian prehistory about it? Is not the standard place place for this the article Talk page? Remove all of Wikipedia's policies and channels for raising red flags and you will still have the Talk page. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're still puzzling, read this Talk:Hungarian_prehistory/Archive_2#A_New_Proposal. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Hungarian prehistory

Now this is just genius! See talk page for a few highlights. I think "the manly avoidance of slobber or of risible tints" has to be my all-time favourite line on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you happened to know the history of this article, it is crud that got split off from the original version of Hungarian prehistory to make Hungarian prehistory less "fringe". That Sources article is in even more need of clean up. But why create a new article for that information? Because the two subjects go hand in hand. Rona-Tas and others can devote whole chapters on the subject. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I need to add that not all of the info in that article was crud from Hungarian prehistory. Some of it was from a deleted page that headed in the same direction subject-wise. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess what really ticks me off are seemingly arrogant comments like "Now this is just genius!" because you're just stepping into the middle of the action and have no perspective. This ain't Eternal September. Assume good faith of past editors. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's crud then the answer is to delete it. If you know it's rubbish why have you left it in mainspace so readers can be misled by it? "Assume good faith of past editors". Wikipedia is intended for our readers. I came to that article and looked at it as a general reader. You know what assumptions I made? That large sections of it were the work of national mysticist cranks whose grasp of English often led them into the realms of surrealism. What sort of impression is that going to give people of Wikipedia? Or of Hungarians on Wikipedia? Please delete stuff you know to be dreck or - if you really must try to salvage it - move it to your own userspace where you can work on it at leisure. --Folantin (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

agree with Folantin. Except that you could only move it to WP:BJAODN. --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete the article if you want. I have no time to deal with either it or editors who believe that stuff hidden in userspace benefits from the crowdsourcing power of Wikipedia. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. You know full well that "crowdsourcing power" often doesn't apply in obscure topic areas like this one. Moreschi (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you enjoying too much the anonymity that this medium affords so you are able to avoid the consequences of your rudeness to other people? Would you like to come tell me "come off it" to my face? Take a break, have a smoke, and reflect. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The whole problem is the Hungarian prehistory and Sources for Hungarian prehistory started off as this cranky nationalist personal essay [10]. Retaining that material encouraged another crank/other cranks to add their own Erich von Daniken/David Icke-style nonsense - using sources which included a self-published historical novel - to the "Alternate theories" section of Hungarian prehistory. Leaving lunatic material around in mainspace only tends to attract the wrong type of user. --Folantin (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the fact that the retained material got YOU to work on the page or are you calling yourself the "wrong type of user"? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing logic. Let's just leave crap in the mainspace for months - years - in the hope that someday a good user will come along to clean it all up! Wow! Moreschi (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No more amazing than your ability to completely piss others off who would otherwise work with you positively in a serious way! WOW! --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, just out of interest, why do you mark all your edits as minor? --Folantin (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My user settings are configured to default to minor. I'm being too lazy or too overworked to uncheck the box. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sborsody, your editing experience would probably improve if you made a minimal effort to follow what other people are talking about. We need to harness the "crowdsourcing power of Wikipedia", indeed. This is done by pooling material on one topic in one place, not by scattering article namespace with random clutter under unlikely titles. Make sure that the people we want to edit an article will find the proper article and start working on it directly. What we want to avoid is deflating the "croudsourcing" by having everyone compile their crappy stub under a separate title and leave it to rot. --dab (𒁳) 18:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. You guys want to get together with each other you know and pass judgment on other users who would, in any other situation, happily work with you, that is your business. I certainly don't need you to lecture me on "minimal effort" that "other people" (aka your little cabal) are talking about. I have to admit it is a unique experience finding myself on "the other side". --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no one has passed judgment on you at any stage. We know you're not to blame for accumulation of nationalist crud around Hungarian prehistory: this is entirely natural. No one has said you're a bad user. Again, we're a bit puzzled that you chose to try to accommodate said crud rather than delete it, but hey, that's hardly a major issue unless you choose to make it one. Moreschi (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Moreschi. Nobody is calling you a "bad user". We are just here to clean out the trash, and nobody is blaming you for the trash. We were just briefly wondering why you wanted us to have a meeting before taking out the trash, but nobody attacked you. Again, I can only recommend that you try to pay attention to what people say and you will avoid getting worked up over nothing. The thankless task of taking out people's trash is hardly descriptive of a "cabal", unless you tend to think of "cabals" as teams of housekeepers and janitors. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

David Michael Jacobs

This fellow, who is a UFO researcher, came up on the BLP noticeboard, but in my opinion the article belongs here. The article is not only fully credulous of fringe views, it is structured as little more than a long sequence of quotes, mostly in italics. Wow. Looie496 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OH MY GOD. Wow. I love this noticeboard :)

Ok, cut down to one sentence. This will have to be completely rewritten a la John Michell. It's clear they're fairly similar figures. Here's the direct link to the earlier version for your edification. Moreschi (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This masterpiece seems to have been the work of Dark Tea (talk · contribs). Moreschi (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the history has just been nuked by Ryulong (talk · contribs) for containing BLP vios (which it certainly did). Moreschi (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Morya

While taking a look at this Theosophical Society related article, I noticed that in the last few months it has evolved from this [11] stub to a much larger article that now seems to have a major problem with WP:SYNTH. I have been considering just reverting the article back to the earlier version, but suppose that would result in an edit war. Any suggestions? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the bulk of it was created by one editor (user:asiaj), during one week at the beginning of June. It's well written, but definitely in-universe. There may be copyvio concern due to the length of some of the quotes, especially the Manly Hall quote under "Blavatsky’s First Encounter with Master Morya". Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am more concerned with things like this:

“M brings orders to form a Society—a secret Society like the Rosicrucian Lodge. He promises to help.”[3] This quote from Blavatsky’s private Scrapbook shows that Master Morya (or M) was deeply involved in the theosophical work from the very beginning. Moreover, contrary to the assertion of the French Muslim scholar, Rene Guenon,[4] there is considerable evidence to suggest that Blavatsky was in contact with the Masters for at least two decades before her public theosophical work began in America.[12]

which is clearly drawing conclusions from primary sources. It is also advocating the teaching, not just describing it. Of course, there may be copyright violations too, but that is a fairly easy problem to fix. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Doctrine of signatures

• Doctrine of signatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aidan oz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just came across this article, and it seems it could do with some help. The lead is too short, and the first two sections are titled "In Christianity" and "In homeopathy". Eventually there is a very poorly written "Skeptical point of view section (apart from one good, but unsourced, part). All of this is without references. I'm about to tag this article, but I'm busy for the next few days so might not have much chance to fix it. I know you guys love this, so I thought I should post it here. Thanks Verbal chat 18:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is trouble brewing. I made a few helpful edits, or at least good faith edits,[13] and was immediately reverted.[14] The reverting editor said "removed vandalism" in one edit summary, when clearly I had not vandalized the article. There appear to be problems of neutral point of view and article ownership going on here. Could an uninvolved editor please evaluate whether warnings or further action are needed for User:Aidan oz? Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the immediate next step is probably for you to write something on the article's talk page. The editor you're dealing with has limited experience and has created this article from scratch and put substantial effort into it, hence probably feels a sense of ownership, so one should go pretty far in the direction of not biting. Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was as friendly as possible [15] My objective here was to see whether the initial report needed further action, and that appears to be the case. The article needs cleaning and the editor may need coaching. I will help as time allows, and I invite others to help as well. Jehochman ^Talk 04:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to criticize you, only to encourage you not to move toward sanctions any faster than necessary. Looie496 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciated your comment, which did not seem critical. Sanctions are not even a remote possibility. We just need to work on the article and help the new editor. Jehochman ^Talk 06:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello yes I agree the article is in need of work. It could do with an etymology section. I have worked on the in modern times section which is based on the ideas of Don Tolman who I believe is a notable figure since he has published a major work - The Farmicist Desk Reference and from his website "Don has spoken to more than 1,000 audiences in all 50 states of America and in 7 foreign countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. His media credits include more than 50 radio and TV talk show appearances per year. " So I have started writing adding references to articles which support the affirmative. I also started the section for sceptics and have allowed sensible edits to the negative. I have made the strongest effort to be factually correct and all facts are found in the internal wikipedia links or in the references. I have not touched the sections on christianity or homeopathy, and I am not able to improve them at this stage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan oz (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry but I don't agree that Tolman's views are notable or that he is an appropriate source. This is a very important concept in the history of science. It was superseded centuries ago (as Foucault explained - glad to see this referenced), and although it was picked up again in homeopathy, again this is part of the history of science. As this is a history of science article, I would prefer to see something more nuanced than "scientists regard this as superstition". When I have a minute I'll see if the currently cited article by Bennett can be used better. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"PCT", once again

Another merry round of various eccentricities at Paleolithic Continuity Theory,one of my favourite WP:FRINGE test cases. This time, a confused anon with broken English is joined by the latest offensive by my old pal and Neanderthal aficionado Rokus01 (talk · contribs). --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He wrote that book is already referenced. But it was not referenced. This is not a honest when somebody have the courage to write something false, and jealous when - can be easily proved as false. In this case all point to intentional falsification.

I'm quite fascinating how this scribing knowledge commune will investigate such accusation. 76.16.176.177 (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

above anon now actually joins Rokus in his revert war at Kurgan hypothesis [16]. Perhaps this should just be tackled at the admin level. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan hypothesis is locked up for a couple of days. If nothing else that will give the CUs time to give me a result on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rokus01. Moreschi (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

um, I don't believe for one minute these are Rokus socks. Rokus has good English, while the IPs' broken English is genuine, comically so. You're just giving Rokus the opportunity to pose as innocence insulted with this checkuser. "PCT" seems to be a "Latin" thing, Italian in origin, and since spread to the Hispanidad. I have no doubts it is fringe even in Italian academia, and it is certainly super fringe on a worldwide scale, but the idea does have its followers (unfortunately, this isn't just random nonsense, but nonsense catering to the nationalist mysticist "antiquity frenzy" crowd). I'm not surprised to see we have editors with poor English popping up defending PCT and a "European race" of Neanderthal hybrids. The more articles Alinei throws at the world at large, the more crackpot racialists will pick up the meme. --dab (𒁳) 16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize the point about the language use, but this would not be the first time an editor has faked bad English with a sock. Moreschi (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it turns out to be Rokus, you can paint me surprised. Rokus is intelligent, no doubt, but he is probably too intelligent to pull such stunts, or if he does use socks, intelligent enough to defeat CU. It is enough to use an open proxy and fake a browser string to defeat CU, that's not rocket science, so we really only ever catch the stupid troll demographics using CU. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I also doubt that it is Rokus. Doug Weller (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I am aware that word is still out on Neanderthal admixture. But at this point we can safely say that odds are stacked highly against the possibility (The likelihood of Neandertal-human interbreeding is low to nonexistent[17]). Building a myth of European identity, or (sigh) Aryan origins on this is scientific racism and no bettern than long-obsolete Nordic theories and what not, in spite of the cool and up-to-date sounding archaeogenetics terminology. --dab (𒁳) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I've blocked said "confused anon" for a week and rolled back all his most recent semi-literate junk. Moreschi (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Funny, when I saw this heading I assumed that someone was pushing a fringe view at porphyria cutanea tarda. Stranger things have happened... MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bates method

Keep an eye out. The page right now is being overrun with some accounts which are probably associated with Bates true believers who are engaging in attempts to paint the fact that refractive errors are attributed to anatomy rather than physiology as simply a "point of view". Please help combat their tendentiousness. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do note a conglomeration of redlinked accounts sharing an agenda there. Beyond that, though, I don't know that the difference between these two versions is worth losing much sleep over. Of course, the bigger problem is that the article contains about 70 references to various parts of Bates' book (rather than concisely summarizing his claims), and seems to downplay the strong and well-sourced verdict from experts in the field that this approach is not scientifically well-founded or effective. MastCell ^Talk 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a real issue at this encyclopedia with people replacing "fact" with "mainstream view". They are not equivalent. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a rewrite per NPOV and FRINGE. As MastCell correctly summarizes, the article is written with a total disregard to the fact that we have no independent sources that support the Bates method. --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to MastCell, the reason that there are so many references to Bates' writings is that, when an independent source cites him, the article often references both the independent source and Bates. The detail, however, does not go significantly beyond what is found in the independent sources. If you read the Gardner and Marg works referenced in the article, you'll see they cite Bates extensively.

In regard to the characterization that the article "seems to downplay the strong and well-sourced verdict from experts in the field that this approach is not scientifically well-founded or effective", I've pointed out on the talk page that if you see it that way, then the solution first and foremost is to add more material from independent sources. Certainly there are criticisms which have not yet been incorporated into the article, although many have been. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is a frequent and ill-founded argument. If an article gives inappropriate prominence to a fringe view, then the solution is not to add yet more verbiage from "mainstream sources". The point is not to catalog every criticism ever made of the Bates Method, but to leave the reader with an accurate understanding of how it is perceived by experts in the field. Honestly, a simple stub stating that the Bates Method claims X, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology says Y would be an improvement over the current article. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You said above "the article contains about 70 references to various parts of Bates' book". I'd like to know where you got that figure. Did you count them at some point? And if so, when? PSWG1920 (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Phrases like "The page right now is being overrun with some accounts which are probably associated with Bates true believers" and "a conglomeration of redlinked accounts sharing an agenda" are clear and unwarranted breaches of WP:AGF, and I'd be grateful if you'd stop. I don't doubt the sincerity of those I disagree with, and I expect the same respect in return. On a more posiive note, I agree with MastCell's "a simple stub stating that the Bates Method claims X, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology says Y would be an improvement". What I'd really like to see is that same content somewhat fleshed out. Something like "Bates proposed a method (describe it) which still has supporters who write books on it (mention them). Eye-care professionals see the movement as totally mistaken (give reasons)". What I dislike are suggestions that the pro-Bates school are liars and/or crooks and/or idiots, and exaggerated claims about the anti-Bates evidence. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Polynesia, Polynesian navigation, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact

These 3 articles have had heavy chunks of Heyerdahl stuff added to them recently. We've got WP:UNDUE issues and maybe POV ones and sources. No mention for some reason of Heyerdahl's arguments for people bringing culture from the ANE to South America. :-) Doug Weller (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Old Earth creationism

Does anyone know if Old Earth creationism is a notable subject....or of it is just original research? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's quite well known. It's a form of Creationism which accepts scientific evidence that the world came into being rather longer ago than 4004BC. It originated with pre-Darwinian authors such as Adam Sedgwick who accepted the geological evidence that the world was many millions of years old and adapted their interpretation Genesis accordingly. The actual phrase "old world creationism" is recent. Paul B (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Old Earth creationism" is just "creationism" after you subtract the positively crackpot "Young Earth creationists". It doesn't necessarily need to qualify as a "fringe theory", it can also take the form of simply a bona fide religious belief. I don't know if we need an Old Earth creationism article besides the main Creationism one. It could probably just be merged. --dab (𒁳) 16:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Electro Homeopathy

This article has recently been rescued from an AfD, but is still in need of great help (balance, sourcing, and facts mainly). Has anyone heard of this thing before? Care to lend a hand? Verbal chat 07:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nation of Gods and Earths

Some super unnotable crackpot sect with its own little walled garden in Category:Nation of Gods and Earths. --dab (𒁳) 07:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. A very minor nation of Islam splinter with a category? Anyway, I've redirected most of the stuff in there back to the main article. Moreschi (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The category should be deleted. Someone please put a AfD tag on it? lk (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The sub-categories Category:Five_Percenters and Category:Former_Five_Percenters have been applied to a lot of biography articles. The few I clicked had nothing in the article except the tag to back up the affiliation. I didn't check the talk pages, but this looks like bad wp:blp territory to me. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder

I've finally taken the trouble to understand what's going on there. The upshot is, the Shah of Persia presented a copy of this thing to the UN in 1971, and unsuspecting U Thant found much diplomatic praise for it, to the effect of it being "the first charter of human rights". Now, in July, there was some newspaper coverage of Assyrologists saying that, with all due respect, it's just a regular Iron Age propaganda piece. The patriotic Iranian blogosphere, when it was just about done crying bloody murder over 300 (film), was pleased at the opportunity, and we are now seeing the repercussions at our Cyrus cylinder article. --dab (𒁳) 13:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the Spiegel and Daily Telegraph aren't exactly helping things by being rather less than scholarly. So the debate immediately derails into an apology of Cyrus the Great and nitpicking about various details of his reign rather than a discussion of the artefact. Yes, Cyrus is a special figure. No, this doesn't make him the inventor of "human rights". The cylinder is extremely notable as the first document recovered archaeologically that seemed to confirm a story in the Old Testament. So, Cyrus sent home the Jews, and may be bragging about this in his cylinder, among other points in which he beats his nemesis in terms of piety. The "human rights" discussion is still a fabrication of 1971 UN diplomacy and not a serious discussion of the historical events. dab (𒁳) 13:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

any takers? I don't have the nerve to deal with this before the Iranian patriots move on to the next hotspot in a couple of months. dab (𒁳) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. Moreschi (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look too and added material from Max Mallowan and Neil MacGregor - impeccable sources if ever there were some. Unfortunately User:CreazySuit (sic) is deleting my additions because he has POV disagreements with them. This needs to be dealt with. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization of what I did. As I already explained to ChrisO, just because something is sourced, it doesn't mean that it merits an inclusion in the lead of an article. Other editors on that page can also cheery-pick a source saying "Cyrus was awesome blah blah bah" and put it in the lead. The lead is suppose to be a summery of the article in a NPOV fashion, not a place to quote cherry-picked sources. Otherwise, Max Mallowan could be quoted under the relevant section. --CreazySuit (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that people look at [this edit in particular, where CreazySuit deletes a citation from a piece by the Director of the British Museum - the very institution which houses the Cyrus cylinder - because he has a personal POV disagreement with what Neil MacGregor says. Somehow I don't think CreazySuit is more qualified to comment than Neil MacGregor. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO and I have reached a compromise. --CreazySuit (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, folks. It looks much better now. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Hindu nationalist edits on Black Stone

I'd be grateful if editors could keep an eye on Thebuddah (talk · contribs) and his recent contributions to Black Stone. He's repeatedly pasting in an unsourced personal essay which, if I understand Dbachmann correctly, is a fringe Hindu nationalist viewpoint that asserts that the Ka'aba in Mecca was originally a Hindu temple. I've advised the editor about Wikipedia's content policies, but the message doesn't seem to have sunk in yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

this is just recurring vandalism and should be rolled back. --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight appears to have semi-protected the article, so the problem seems to be contained for now. Could you explain something for me though? - is it the case, as a bit of Googling suggests, that these people are pushing some sort of claim that just about every other religion has Hindu roots? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

see User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience and User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots (sub "Hindutva vs. science"). Western media has been so preoccupied with Islamism and Christian fundamentalism that it has gone all but unnoticed that the most far out completely irrational type of religious fundamentalism thrives within Hinduism. That's because it hardly affects anyone outside India, excepting sideshows such as the mind-boggling California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Btw., the fully developed article languishes in my userspace because of a spectacular admin misjudgement (on a bunch of pov-warriors forming "rough consensus") back in April 2007. I didn't have the heart to take this up again since. --dab (𒁳) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Rather like Afrocentrism, Hindutva ideology is just a tedious collection of rather puerile memes (Out of India theory, Indigenous Aryans, endless Vedic antiquity frenzy, "Muslims are evil" - which in turn has led to unpleasant consequences). This stuff is all rather interesting, but really, seen it once, you've seen it all. Occasionally amusing variants arise, though, often on this very noticeboard. We'll be seeing more of it, too, in the run-up to the Indian general election, 2009. Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs) is still going strong, as well as newcomer Kashmircloud (talk · contribs). Moreschi (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very bizarre stuff. I can't say I've come across it before - just on this one particular article; is it a particularly widespread problem we have on Wikipedia or is it confined to a fairly small set of articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is widespread. See User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links#India. It's been going on for a while over many different articles. You've just stumbled upon a tiny part of it. Welcome to the club :) Moreschi (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's all over the place. I found out about this after reading a blog which claimed that a massive Atlantis-style sunken Hindu civilization exists off the coast of Gujarat. The same guys apparently built a giant causeway from India to Sri Lanka and cunningly disguised it as a sandbar. Pretty much anywhere that adjoins the Indian Ocean seems to be fair game in this case. <eleland/talkedits> 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, to be fair, in terms of violence, we shouldn't judge too lightly. The Hindu nationalists are world champions in bizarre weirdness in terms of ideology, but the "communal violence" is a depressing spiral where the Muslims give as good as they get. I strongly recommend we keep the fringy "antiquity frenzy" and the actual "communal violence" cleanly separated. I also find that Tripping Nambiar has done some useful work recently, and hasn't been focussing on "fringy" topics recently (execpting the odd revert at Mitanni, a topic of which he has no clue or interest whatsoever other than that it loosely touches upon an "ancient Indo-Aryans" theme) --dab (𒁳) 05:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And all this reminds me that following a call by Dieter (dab) not that long ago I went to look at Kambojas and related articles. And how many related articles! And do any of them mean anything at all to a reader not already totally immersed in nationalist controversy? No. And where. on. earth. do. you. start.??? I'd like to help out more on it but right now it has me beat. A big problem on WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, indeed. Part of the problem, of course, is that you need to be knowledgeable enough in the first place to be able to recognise the fringey bits. Even I can spot that there's something wrong with a claim that the Ka'aba was a Hindu temple, but the more obscure ethno-religious stuff is way beyond my expertise. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

well, the patterns get repetitive and quite easy to catch after a while. The Kambojas series is suspicious by its sheer obvious obsessiveness (the group gets about two lines in all of EB). That's enough to tag the articles with warning boxes, but of course the detailed cleanup is difficult. The Sakaldwipiya article is a good showpiece of how it can be done after all. dab (𒁳) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Input requested regarding Austrian School

Please see WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Austrian School is a heterodox school of economic thought that rejects mathematical modeling, statistical evidence and the scientific method. Their methodology emphasizes argument from axioms (ie. theorizing on what the world is like based on self-introspection). Modern 'Austrian' works consist mainly of post hoc interpretations of history and long-winded verbal arguments about the evils of government. Mainstream economists long ago recognized that verbal arguments are messy, open to too many different interpretations, and are just not rigorous. Flaws can be hidden in verbal arguments that are hard to spot and root out. Since the 'Austrians' interpret history post hoc, the school fails the test of falsifiability as regards whether they are a science.

IMO, the Austrian School is fringe, they fall somewhere between Pseudoscience and Questionable Science. They are more fringe than psychoanalysis. Austrian School writers are almost never published anywhere except in their own journals. There are few (if any) self-identified 'Austrians' who are tenured faculty in the Economics dept of an accredited university. Their theories are not taught in the undergraduate economics programs of any accredited university. They are not taken seriously by any government or major political party. Their following is extremely localized to to the US, mainly among some economic Libertarians there.

lk (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Includes Hayek therefore not pseudoscience. IMHO the way to resolve this is to treat related articles as falling within the history of ideas, specifically the history of economics. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In the early 20th century, the Austrian school was part of the mainstream. Hayek was the most prominent of those, and his contributions have been incorporated into mainstream Economics. Modern day 'Austrians' are an entirely different group, they are centered around the Mises Institute which is about 25 years old. Modern 'Austrians' claim Hayek as one of their own, but reject his ideas. Hayek's ideas of what constitutes economics is compatible with mainstream economics, but are incompatible with modern Austrian economics. By their own admission, they follow the ideas of Luwig von Mises, Murry Rothbard and Carl Menger. lk (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source which says that the modern Austrians reject Hayek's ideas? -- Vision Thing -- 13:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Lawrencekhoo is saying above but I'll add a few things here. First of all, the critique of the use of mathematics is not fringe per se. I thoroughly disagree with that critique but it isn't fringe. Second, ideas such as free banking have been thoroughly debunked and abandonded so no, not all of Hayek's ideas are now mainstream. As I said on ANI, the Austrian school has not so much been absorbed as debunked as largely politically motivated ideas. The only thing left is the critique of the use of mathematics that has been absorbed into mathematical economics by acknowledging that no model is better than its assumptions (very roughly said but you get the idea). These critics are found outside the Austrian school as well. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so if I've understood it right, we accept that the Austrian School was once an important current in economics and that it has had an influence on modern economics. But that does not mean that we are going to accept POV-distortion of articles by a group of heterodox and probably fringe editors just because they claim some kind of continuity with Mises et al. Yes? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an over-simplification, but more or less correct. lk (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we concentrate this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Input_requested_regarding_Austrian_School. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mind Science entry

Resolved

 – Article has been speedied and replaced with a link to Cognitive Science. User:Looie496

I'm having a bit of difficulty discussing the Mind Science article with its author, Gary Deines (User:Garydino). I am concerned that the article subject cannot be appropriately covered in Wikipedia, but can't seem to effectively communicate my points to him. He and I are the only ones who have worked on the page, and I'd appreciate some outside perspective or input, especially from those who may have experience with these sorts of issues. Dancter (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is 100% pure OR, and simply needs to be removed. None of the listed references have any relationship to the material in the article. I'm too tired right now, but if nobody beats me to it, I'll propose it for deletion tomorrow. Looie496 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the editor's company: [18] Doug Weller (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a couple of polite messages explaining why his article should be removed. Please propose the article for deletion. I will support. lk (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a prod. Maybe this will draw some references out. Verbal chat 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The response was a strange edit that added quantum mysticism and appeals to Einstein and E=dMC^2. I think we have a problem with this article and it needs trimming back and then taking to AfD probably. Verbal chat 15:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Taken to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Science. Looie496 (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Followup: Garydino responded to the AfD by removing all content from the article and leaving a note saying that he would continue to develop it elsewhere. I have accordingly marked the article as db-author. If the speedy goes through, I guess the deletion debate should be closed. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you also take a look at his edits to the chemical synapse article? Dancter (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Would have been easier to fix without the intervening edits, but I've fixed it, and I'll keep an eye on that article. Thanks for the pointer. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian race

Is there anyone who feels up to straightening this out? A mish-mash of out-dated stuff, minor sources used to make major claims, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Any article which is more italic than it is roman is up to no good. This one starts off OK, but then goes horribly astray. Moreschi (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Any article with more Roman than italic is up to no good. I do not have faith in such an article even with good citations. I am suspicious of citations without quotations, because rewording sources is often a pretense for misconstruing and fabricating information. This has been my experience with other editors who suspiciously never use quotations.----^DarkTea© 23:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)