Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 37

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

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Gavin Menzies

There's a talk page discussion on alleged NPOV issues here. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientology

Since L. Ron Hubbard promoted Scientology as both a science and a religion, I would like to initiate a dialogue on how best to address this issue within the scope of NPOV, and without triggering a new round of edit wars. As anyone who is familiar with the Scientology and Dianetics articles on Wikipedia, there is not much inclusion of critical analysis of Scientology/Dianetics from the viewpoint of scientific consesnsus, and there do appear to be a fair number of articles and abstracts regarding the issue. At this point in time, all Scientology-related articles focus specifically on the religious, supernatural aspects of Scientology, with very little addressing the scientific claims made by Hubbard regarding Scientology, or addressing even the contradiction between Scientology as a religion and Scientology as a science. We do have an article regarding Scientology as a business, but none regarding Scientology as a science, which I have just started as a stub that will need to be significantly expanded and hopefully address these issues . Laval (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

May need to clarify the title of that page as Scientific and medical claims of Scientology or something like that if the current title is problematic. Laval (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there sources that discuss 'Scientology as science' in any depth though? I'm sure that it will be possible to find discussions regarding the scientific merit of some of Scientology's claims (Dianetics in particular springs to mind), but without a more general discussion, there might be grounds for arguing that the topic was synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've proposed a merge into Scientology - it's possible that Hubbard's claims about the scientific content of Scientology are relevant to that article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Back when I was a regular on alt.religion.scientology, I found some citations that led me to two papers published in the early 1950s on the possible effectiveness of Dianetics, specifically the e-meter & auditing. If you don't want to comb the pre-2000 archives of a.r.s or Xenu.net, a JSTOR search ought to find them. IIRC, their published findings were that Dianetic techniques had no benefits greater than observer's error. As a result, there has been no further scientific study: psychological & social research is chronically underfunded, & there is no shortage of fringe theories to investigate. (And Hubbard has been routinely reluctant to share his theories or ideas with others for free.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

New talk page banner for fringe topics

(Apologies if this is not an appropriate place to mention this.)

The talk fringe template is now available for use at the top of fringe article talk pages.

{{talk fringe|the feasibility of the Infinite Improbability Drive}} produces:

Please read before starting

Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents the feasibility of the Infinite Improbability Drive in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:

Also of particular relevance are:

In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.

This is based partly upon the Talk:Intelligent design source. Improvements/fixes/discussion welcome, of course: Template:Talk_fringe. Vzaak (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

Could use some eyes on this please. Several "fans" of Sheldrake are trying to hide the fact that his work isn't very highly thought of by real scientists. Community consensus on pseudoscience is being ignored. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. This is one of those articles that has been forced to cite 17 references in order to have Sheldrake's work accurately described as pseudoscience in the lead. And yet, not even a fraction of the criticism contained in those 17 references can be found in the article itself... - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could list them under one ref? It looks very silly. I'll do it if you don't revert it :-) User:Carolmooredc 22:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've combined those refs into a note. I've also removed a primary sourced paragraph talking about articles he wrote. This should not be mentioned here, there is no weight given to primary sourced material. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This article links to psychic staring effect which may have some fringe issues. Related to Sheldrake there is also Telephone Telepathy which is stuffed with primary sources. Vzaak (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Editors might also want to note the ongoing discussion as to deal with Gh26 (talk · contribs)'s apparent conflict of interest at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Gh26_.2F_Jill_Purce_.2F_Rupert_Sheldrake - in fact I'm surprised it hasn't kicked off here as well... Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up on an unwatched article

NaturalNews currently doesn't have enough watchers to register a number so I figured I'd post it here. There's no fringe advocacy there at the moment but I don't doubt it'll start attracting it as their fanbase grows (though the article could probably use some cleanup). For those unfamiliar, it's basically a melting pot of the worst of the worst pseduomedicine and conspiracy theories but published under the guise of real journalism and it occasionally gets traffic from legit sites like Reddit. N^oformation ^Talk 23:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Added. I've heard of it before when another established wikipedia editor cited it for his edit. It's so crazy, that the other pseudoscience advocates distance themselves from it, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Philippa Gregory

As anticipated, the late Plantagenet/early Tudor history articles are now being visited by fans of Gregory's novels and the recent TV series. Unfortunately some of these contributors cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction. What I'd like to question here is the validity of Gregory's documentary series The Real White Queen and Her Rivals as a reference. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says that "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources". However, my experience of historical "documentaries", even if they originate from the BBC, is that they tend to contain inaccuracies and are full of on-screen mini-interviews with people who, in many cases, appear to know nothing about the subject in hand. Their opinions come across as facts, often because huge chunks of what they actually said are cut out for the purposes of the documentary. How can we ensure that such sources are treated appropriately? Deb (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the Fringe theories board, not the reliable sources board. I think you need to explain what theories presented by Gregory you are referring to and in which articles they are appearing. I saw the documentaries, so I suspect you are referring to her claim that Richard Duke of York was replaced by a servant and spirited away (this event is shown as "fact" in the TV series). In the documentary this is presented as her personal speculation, and she is not an expert. The views of actual experts were included in the documentary. I see no reason why they should not be quoted for their contributions, but frankly it would be a great deal better to use their actual published work. I don't think any of them supported the "escape" theory. Paul B (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There are all kinds of Ricardian theories floating around (as you know) - some fringe (Perkin Warbeck really was Richard IV), others mainstream ("Richard III had no physical deformities"). Not many can be proved or disproved. The reason I posted here was that I wondered how TV "documentaries" have been used/misused elsewhere and how you have dealt with this problem. Deb (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's really an issue for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Usually it depends on the documentary, who made it and how it is presented. It's similar to newspapers reporting on history and science. Though they are basically reliable for facts, interpretations are often deeply confused or over-dramatised. This documentary was clearly presented as a personal view, and despite Gregory's insistence on being called "Dr Philippa Gregory" all the time, she's not an expert, as you know. Paul B (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've made that point at Talk:Margaret_Beaufort,_Countess_of_Richmond_and_Derby. Deb (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Chemophobia

Needs eyes on; a new account trying for some POV edits. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Pam Reynolds case

I began the process of trying to sanitize this article and noticed that there were no sources in the sections describing her claims of a near death experience. I was trying to comb through some of the extant sources, but finding reliable secondary and tertiary sources for this thing seems difficult. Help would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

persistent, tendentious editing at Orthomolecular medicine

A user, Nitrobutane, keeps insisting that their particular interpretation of an NIH consensus document says what they want it to say. They are persistent, and appear to be ignoring consensus. Or at least that's my interpretation, and I am certainly involved there. There is lots of talk page discussion that goes absolutely nowhere.

Additional eyes would be welcome. I will cross post this at WT:MED if it hasnt been mentioned there already. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Reincarnation research

I have renominated the article for deletion as it has not improved in a number of years and seems to be just as problematic as the last time I nominated it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reincarnation research (2nd nomination).

Your input would be most welcome.

jps (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Leonora Piper 3

It is very boring when you go forum shopping instead of using the talk page. I'm trying to summarize what reliable sources say, not have Wikipedia be a mouthpiece for spiritualism. Shii (tock) 11:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You used a huge piece of text from a psychical paper, it was undue weight and isn't a reliable source. If you want to cite reliable sources then you would need to cite someone like Edward Clodd, but all those references are already in the article. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I used a huge quote from William James. Your call. Shii (tock) 02:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Using a noticeboard is not forum shopping, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Shii is now using edit summaries that are at least outrageously understated and at worst duplicitous: [1] jps (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed the subject (Piper) has a small but highly devoted cult following, and every few months there's someone insisting we give the fringe view more credibility. It'd help if a few more people could add it to their watchlists, since I'd prefer not to own it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a lifelong skeptic, I don't believe in spiritualism (this is the second time I've had to point this out on this stupid noticeboard) and I am not part of the "Piper fan club". I want the article improved and brought up to good article quality. That requires a better lede and a better description of Piper's influence on period intellectuals. It is impossible to get work done in the article if people come crying here every time a change is made that they don't like. Talk to ME instead of asking someone else to revert my edits. Shii (tock) 02:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having more opinions at the article. And no one's called you a spiritualist. - LuckyLouie (talk)

I wonder who you are referring to in the comment I am replying to, then. Shii (tock) 02:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

LuckyLouie made a general statement about people coming to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's accurate, Shii. As you can see, I have been quite active on that Talk page, going back years. In fact, I recently explained to Eric Kvaalen why the huge primary-sourced quote by James was inappropriate. Kvaalen's reasoning was that it contains "more information in favor of Mrs. Piper" and he placed it in the context of a "rebuttal" to unbelievers. Now you wish to include the same quote, or at least half of it. I still don't agree it's appropriate, but rather than go over the same reasons again and again and risk appearing to dominate the article Talk page, I'm hoping to find other opinions, and WP:FTN is the most fitting noticeboard for the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately all you succeeded in doing is bringing people to the talk page who think I am a POV-pushing Spiritualist, even though I do not believe in "spirits". I wish you had just talked to me, because I was not attempting to add "more information in favor of Mrs. Piper". Shii (tock) 13:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please stop focussing the discussion to be about yourself and instead make policy and guideline based arguments, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm questioning the way a discussion was carried out. It's something people do quite a lot on Wikipedia and is not outside scope. If you want a guideline to read, here's one: WP:MOOT Shii (tock) 19:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Photon belt

This article was a mess. It may still be. Some help figuring out what to do with it would be appreciated. jps (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's rare to find an article with more than 40 sources cited and virtually all of them unreliable. The only thing to do is WP:BLOWITUP and stub it down to only what truly independent sources say about the subject - if any can be found. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gut the article as being inherently unreliable and poorly written. It can now be improved from a more solid foundation. Has anyone uncovered reliable secondary sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Tough to find sources discussing this concept from an uninvolved perspective. This one discusses the concept as an aspect of millenialism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

History of Astrology

An astrologer, Other Choices (talk · contribs), is attempting to edit war favourable text from a non-academic source into an article to give the impression that astrology has academic respectability: [2]. More input welcome here: Talk:History_of_astrology#Edit_by_Other_Choices, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think that's an accurate summary of my edit. Regarding "non-academic," the author in question has a Ph.D from Columbia University. And "give the impression that astrology has academic respectability" is twisting my edit rather brutaly. And IRWolfie is the very first person who has ever called me an "astrologer." My academic training is as a historian. I have never practiced astrology as a profession or taken money for horoscope readings.--Other Choices (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Having a PhD does not make all of ones future writings automatically academic, nor does it establish the due weight of any such future publication. Other Choices, you refer to yourself as an (amateur) astrologer [3]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, your initial omission of the word "amateur" continues your habitual pattern of twisting the meaning of words and phrases. To say someone is a [insert job or profession] indicates that the person makes a living or gains remuneration from that profession. The use of the word "amateur" pointedly disavows any such occupational status or financial interest.--Other Choices (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Before this problem escalates, I would like to ask you to remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith. "To say someone is a [insert job or profession] indicates that the person makes a living or gains remuneration from that profession." has a simple counterexample: I can say that I am a chess player, but it does not mean that I am not an amateur chess player. Anyway, I don't see how that point is supposed to help you explain or support your position (whatever it is - after reading what you write here and in the cited section of the talk page I am still not completely sure). So, please, drop that point. You are not going to lose anything by doing that.

On the other hand, you should explain why you think that your edit was good. At the moment ([4], [5]) I only see that you have argued that its reversions and criticisms were not good. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@Martynas Patasius, perhaps your counter-example is the exception that proves the rule. "Astrologer," like "truck driver" or "school teacher" is a profession. "Chess player" is an avocation, with a tiny handful of professionals at the pinnacle of the game.

IRWolfie's use of the loaded word "astrologer" hearkens back to the days (before my time) when a group of practicing astrologers ruled the astrology-related articles here at wikipedia, and then there was a lot of uproar for a while until they all got banned. IRWolfie and others have repeatedly mischaracterized my editing here at wikipedia.

Why I think my edit was good: The study of astrology disappeared from western universities around 300 years ago, more or less. In the past decade, after this long period of total ostracism, the study of astrology has slowly begun creeping back into academia. That, in my opinion, is a significant event in the history of astrology. I used a mainstream reliable source to add this noteworthy fact to the History of Astrology article. And that's why I think it was a good edit.

Here is the entire paragraph from Bobrick, p. 7: "Astrology in modern times has undergone a remarkable resurgence, and is now (as Carl Jung predicted it would) knocking again at the doors of academe. Astrologers are attempting to verify traditional doctrine by scientific methods and in general to meet the demand of Johannes Kepler (one of its true believers) that they 'separate the gems from the slag.' In a number of countries, including England, France, Russia, Germany, and the United States, astrology is once again being taught at the university level, for the first time since the Renaissance. In England, courses in the subject are now offered at Brasenose College, Oxford; Bath Spa University College; the University of Southampton; and the University of Kent. It can also be studied at Cardiff University in Wales, the Bibliotheca Astrologica in France, the University of Zaragoza in Spain, Dogus University in Turkey, Benares Hindu University in northern India, and at Kepler College in the United States, among other schools. Scholarly journals such as Culture and Cosmos (A Journal of the History of Astrology and Cultural Astronomy), the Dublin Astrologer (The Journal of the Dublin Astrological Centre), and Apollon (The Journal of Psychological Astrology), have begun to establish themselves, while the prestigious Warburg Institute in London recently created a "Sophia Fellowship" for astrological research."

--Other Choices (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the history of astrology ever disappeared from being researched, and that list does not distinguish astrology groups from universities. How reliable do you really think that is? I just checked one of the fellowships in the mainstream universities, and as I thought [6], the Sophia fellowship is for looking at the history of astrology. It's this conflation in the source with studying the history of astrology == resurgence of astrology that is utterly undue and clearly unreliable from a basic fact checking point of view, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's pretty clear that Bobrick's use of the word "resurgence" had a much broader meaning than exclusively the renewed academic attention to astrology (being its history or otherwise), given the context of the following paragraphs. But I'm not going to go down that road; I'll drop this discussion here and now.--Other Choices (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

While you have dropped this discussion, I would still like to thank you for dropping the behavioural point (well, relatively...) and explaining your reasoning concerning the text itself. As you can see, the discussion did become much calmer after that. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine

There is a discussion as to TCM's relationship with evidence-based medicine and if characterizations of TCM as pseudoscience belong in the article. a13ean (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Daryl Bem

Article about a Cornell social psychologist features a section on his widely criticized parapsychology experiment, including criticism of the journal that published it. A rotating IP account is campaigning on the Talk page to have the worst criticism removed on the basis of WP:UNDUE weight. The weight seems appropriate to me given the multitude of high quality sources, but other opinions are appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory

Christ myth theory is a minority theory concerning the historical origins of Jesus. I'm concerned about some POV language in the article's lead section which gives the impression that this subject is fringe or bogus history:

"Modern scholarship has generally dismissed these analogies as without formal basis, and a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors."

The quote about "parallelomania" comes from a single specific Jesuit Priest Gerald O'Collins who seems to be quite a mainstream Catholic theologian but hardly representative of historians in general.

The article presents a comprehensive list of mainstream objections to the theory, however none of suggest that the theory is 'laden with historical error'. I think it's also odd that this is characterized as "Modern scholarship" - as these objections to Christ Myth theory have existed for as long as as the theory. I can only suspect that the editor may have been trying to suggest that this theory has been recently debunked. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would love Wikipedia to demand genuine reliable sources (not historians' interpretations) for the claims about the existence of religious figures, but it ain't gonna happen. Any argument like this is going to be coloured by the beliefs of the participants. It's a waste of time and energy. It will never be properly encyclopaedic. Just forget it, and let the believers and non-believers believe. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I share your frustration but that's really not a very constructive thought! ;-) --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess that it could be a good idea to list some related discussions from the archives:

So, let's see what do we have now... You do not like "Modern scholarship has generally dismissed these analogies as without formal basis, and a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors."? Especially "I think it's also odd that this is characterized as "Modern scholarship" - as these objections to Christ Myth theory have existed for as long as as the theory.? Well, as far as I understand, that statement means that the theory was more popular at some time, but now is fringe. By itself it does not say if this change is because of new evidence or because of change of fashion. Anyway, the statement looks true and no reason to think otherwise has been given, thus there is no need to change anything at the moment.

Also, HiLo48, "I would love Wikipedia to demand genuine reliable sources (not historians' interpretations) for the claims about the existence of religious figures, but it ain't gonna happen." corresponds to wishes of supporters of many fringe historical (and non-historical) theories. You might think that this theory is unpopular unjustly, but Wikipedia must make sure it does not correct any existing injustice (it is somewhat related to Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs)... If you don't like that, read the archives of this noticeboard and (hopefully) you will start hating the alternatives far more. If that won't help, there's also my essay Wikipedia:Wikiheresy...

Anything else..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have read far more into my comment than I said, or meant, and I meant little more than I said. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Then... Um... OK, I guess..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

So far as I know, there are no credible academic sources supporting the idea that Jesus never existed. Nor any support for the idea that he might have existed but the gospel-epistle writers made up his teachings. There's some discussion of the possibility that the gospel writers based some parts of the gospel stories on OT stories (it's mainstream that Matthew seems to have gone out of his way to paint Jesus as a second Moses and to have ransacked Isaiah in particular for "prophesies" proving that Jesus was the Messiah). At that end of the spectrum, you're moving out of "Jesus as myth" and into solid scholarship. Perhaps the article needs to be clearer about what it considers "myth". PiCo (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Morna Hooker takes the possibility seriously as does Dawkins, Ellegard believed it. Price seems like a credible source, even though he is far outside the mainstream of biblical scholarship and now mainly writes for a popular audience. But the problems with bias in the article are not so much that it misrepresents the mainstream opinion among biblical scholars, but that it tries to hide that it is mainly an issue studied by biblical scholars, not scholars of antiquity in general, and tries to persuade the reader that the consensus is much wider than it really is. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins and Ellegard were both unqualified to offer an opinion; I'd need a citation for Hooker's statement. I have to question whether we have to consider any consensus beyond biblical scholars, theologians, and historians of the period; otherwise we would also be ratifying the widely held idiocies about 9/11. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins and Ellegard are certainly credible academic sources, which is what PiCo was talking about, and much more so than most biblical scholars. Theologians are of course not credible sources on this, though their opinions should certainly be represented. Biblical scholarship should certainly be represented, though there are grave problems with both bias and methodological professionalism, as is acknowledged to varying degrees both inside and outside the field. But the thing is, very few scholars outside these disciplines have even studied the matter. The article should make that clear, rather than falsely implying that there exists a consensus of "historians" or "scholars of antiquity" who have studied the matter. There is a clear consensus among biblical scholars, their credentials as historians and their impartiality have been questioned by serious scholars inside and outside the field, biblical scholarship maintains that in general this does not invalidate the conclusions of biblical scholarship, most of the very few scholars outside biblical scholarship who have studied the matter agree with the conclusion of biblical scholars that Jesus almost certainly existed, and that's about it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.122. Classicist Michael Grant wrote in "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." The reason why scholars of antiquity do not study "Jesus never existed" is that they consider it a silly idea not worth wasting their time on, similar to why few Shakespearean scholars bother refuting "the earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works."Smeat75 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We'd need a source about most historians finding the idea silly. So far no one has presented such a source. Maybe it exists. If so, let's have it so we can add it to the article. Until then let's represent a consensus among biblical scholars as just that, a consensus among biblical scholars, and mention that of the very few scholars outside that field who have studied the matter, most do not consider the CMT tenable either. Note that Dawkins does consider the CMT a reasonable possibility, though on balance he thinks it's probably false. Price, one of the leading proponents of the CMT goes the other way, he holds that while historicity is not a ridiculous point of view, on balance the CMT seems more probable to him. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not "a consensus of Biblical scholars". You were right the first time, "most of the very few scholars outside biblical scholarship who have studied the matter agree with the conclusion of biblical scholars that Jesus almost certainly existed". The only classical historian I am aware of who has addressed the matter at all for many years was the already referred to Michael Grant, that was in 1977 and his view, quoted above, has not been challenged. Smeat75 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Good debate - from what I can tell, within bible scholarship (which is dominated by people of a religious worldview) Christ Myth Theory is fringe or bordeline fringe. Amongst secular bible historians (a very small group of scholars which includes people like Robert M. Price) Christ Myth Theory is considered (at least) to be a viable theory. My concerns were that the quote above misrepresents the erea in which objections to the theory were developed and also quotes the opinion of a jesuit priest as an example of as a mainstream historian. I'd prefer an alternative text like:

"Critics have dismissed these analogies as without formal basis: The Jesuit scholar Gerald O'Collins describes it as a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors." --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, a theory taken seriously only by "a very small group of scholars" is fringe by definition.

"Critics have dismissed these analogies" is misleading, as the whole point is that "critics" include almost everyone. It is just as bad as "Critics think that perpetuum mobile is impossible" would be in some other article.

So, let's put it this way: Salimfadhley, do you agree that Christ Myth Theory is fringe..? If you are a proponent of a fringe theory, that's OK (as far, as Wikipedia is concerned). It is OK to think that the theory is fringe undeservedly, for wrong reasons, as long as you accept that it is fringe and it is not Wikipedia's job to change that. But it is not OK to pretend that that theory is not fringe. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Martynas. There are a lot of questions regarding this particular topic. The core issue to me seems to be not whether the topic is "fringe" but "minority". It clearly is a minority claim, but there might well be religious bias responsible for it not being more broadly accepted. At the same time, it could be argued that some form of atheistic/agnostic bias might play a part in the support of the theory by at least some of the "minority" involved. How big or small that minority might be would seem to be the point, and the evidence presented seems to indicate it is a rather significantly small minority. I don't know if we have the ability to determine what if any bias any or all of the parties on either side might or might not have. I wish I knew of some Buddhist from Mongolia who was not only independent of the Judeo-Christian culture but also a universally highly regarded historian or religious academic who had spoken on this topic, but I don't know of any such out there. The broad consensus in the academic community, prejudiced or not, seems to be that someone who more or less matched the description of Jesus in the Gospels in some way, to some degree, probably existed. They might even make slightly stronger statements than that, I don't know. This seems to me to be one of the rare cases when the possible bias involved is more or less unavoidable within the part of the human community capable of submitting material to academic journals, and I can't think of any sort of way to set up guidelines for such material. Of course, if anyone knows whether the Guardian of Forever is available for consultation on this matter, if he/she/it qualifies as an RS (I don't know), that might help a lot. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the above statement. Christ Myth Theory is certainly not fringe in the same sense that Perpetual Motion is. It's definitely a minority theory, however proponents and opponents seem to be broadly driven by obvious biases and that the overwhelming majority of scholars of this era are religious people. I think I'd reiterate my original concern which was that the original text over-generalized the objections to the theory. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the current text is significantly better - The Christ myth theory (or theories, allowing for the variations in the arguments) has failed to convince the vast majority of scholars, who "regard it as effectively refuted." which I think is significantly less POV than the original text. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"I have to question whether we have to consider any consensus beyond biblical scholars, theologians, and historians of the period". Only historians of the period should be considered, which is what I assume "Modern scholarship" refers to, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Only historians of the period should be considered" - please let us know who these historians of the period are who have expressed an opinion, or offered evidence, or written a paper or a book, on the question "Was there ever such a person as Jesus?" since Michael Grant in 1977. Smeat75 (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

sMeat you and pico and Barlow have erased 63000 characters from the text saying they were fringe theories. Well, the article is about this minority theory, it is put forth by people like Price, and you go and erase Price references. What is your malfunction?Greengrounds (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Homeodynamic agriculture

You can't make this stuff up. Appears to be based entirely on a pdf on some guy's personal web site. Possible hoax article? a13ean (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, it appears not to be a hoax - or if it is, it is an elaborate one. Google throws up enough evidence to suggest that someone somewhere takes it seriously. Not that we need to - there clearly isn't anything like the level of coverage to indicate it meets Wikipedia notability criteria. I think an AfD is the simplest approach... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And would you believe it somehow survived a previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeodynamic agriculture? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

... I'm surprised at one of those !votes. a13ean (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have suggestion. Reduce the article to a few sentence description and place it in the context of pseudoscience, perhaps citing this article [7]. I am One of Many (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Does the article discuss 'homeodynamic agriculture'? If it doesn't, it would be WP:OR to cite it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy, my proposal was clearly original research. More importantly, the term homeodynamic does not have this meaning in actual science. It is instead a term that comes from cybernetics, combining the notions of homeostasis and dynamics. Since there is no article that I know of that states that the way "homeodynmics" is is used in this article is pseudoscience, it should be deleted. If there ever is a reliable source for in homeodynamic agriculture as pseudoscience, then an article on it might be ok. I also can't find any reliable sources on homeodynamic agriculture other than the fringe blogs discussing it. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a new AfD discussion for this article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have put a PROD on Homeodynamics as this also seems to be borderline scientific and almost certainly not-notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That would take care of the problem, but if it stays, the article is one big COPYVIO - the vast majority of it (85%) is a single long quote (over 300 words). Clearly exceeds fair use. Agricolae (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: the PROD was rejected - it had already been unsuccessfully prodded. It is now formally a COPYVIO case. Agricolae (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Spengler's civilisation model

Hello all,
I'm concerned about some recent additions to Spengler's civilization model (a model of historical civilisations) and to related pages such as The Decline of the West. There is a very large volume of content being added. It's not possible to post it all on this noticeboard, but here's a sample:

A financial debt is essentially a potential difference (a voltage) in a dielectric medium between the status quo and a more informed future state—the only way by which an indebted system can repay the original amount of a debt plus the interest is by becoming more informed, more synergetic. That is why the beginning of the overtly exponential period of debt accrual roughly coincides with 14 February 1946—the day of the unveiling of the first electronic general-purpose computer (ENIAC), regarded as the birth of the Information Age. In November 1990, the debt voltage reached a critically high level, which initiated the final stage of the dielectric medium's pre-breakdown electrical treeing—the emergence of the World Wide Web. The progress of the electrical treeing is indicated by the concomitant release of positive energy (synergy, binding energy, heat of crystallization), measured as the growth in the nominal GDP per dollar of new debt. In the end of 2014 AD, the synergy of new debt will decrease to zero, at which moment the world will undergo an electrical breakdown—an instantaneous tunnelling to a more negative energy state, to a qualitatively deeper level of informedness and synergy compared with the status quo.

There's a neatly organised table which explains why spring and infancy are associated with the infantile (feminine, rural, Mongoloid) redshifted brain, whilst winter and old age are associated with the adult (masculine, urban, Jewish) blueshifted brain. And so on. I tried removing a lot of this stuff, but it just got reverted back into the article. Any suggestions from the wise folk of WP:FTN? As an aside, one affected article seems to have odd patterns of multiple inexperienced editors - possibly this is some kind of school group? bobrayner (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's wacky stuff. I also tried to remove it but was reverted & warned by a Huggler :( 78.105.23.195 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And the huggler was reverted. And then more reversions, ending up in me blocking the editor adding this stuff. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw similar material by 8i347g8gl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while looking at the history of Rupert Sheldrake. Compare [8] and [9], in particular look for "matter waves' synergetic (energetically favourable) constructive interference" and "electrical treeing". Similar behavior by the user as well. I'm not able to write up a sock investigation now, but if anyone wants to do it I'd bet my lunch on a positive match. Vzaak (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You want to sniff my sock for lunch, Vzaak? Suit yourself. 97ytkljgg789 (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've submitted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/97ytkljgg789. Vzaak (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Go on, little buddy! 97ytkljgg789 (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The two users are likely related per the SPI. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to sniff my second sock, NativeForeigner. 97ytkljgg789 (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Something slightly different

With the prolegomenon (or interpretation or exegesis or whatever) removed, our page on Spengler's civilization model is really just a copy of a table in Spengler's book. We're not providing any independent encyclopædic coverage (although we attempt that over at The Decline of the West). So, should Spengler's civilization model be moved to Wikisource? bobrayner (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

agree. the page is nothing but a reprint and needs to be actually about the subject, as written about by reliable sources and presented in an NPOV manner, of course. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Kalipa

Article claims this is an "Ancient vedic term referring to a sub atomic wavelet with the characteristic of change". I'm not sure why the article is called Kalipa when I find it easier spelled "kalapa". In any case, the Vedic science bit seems related to another article Avaidika, now at AfD. Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems fringe also[10]. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Kalipa can be re-directed to Kalapas I suppose. The latter seems to be a notable enough subject, though I haven't looked at the article content itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, missed that one. Another relevant edit - he or she added Dan (ancient city) to County Laois. When I removed it he reverted me "Because even without any citations whatsoever, modern genetic andthe sheer volume of exact correlations speaks entirely in its own rite". Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mark McMenamin being slanted

See [11]. Also [12] and [13]. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted one obvious skewing of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Vaccine edits

Prokaryotes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting and removing a lot of content from vaccine related articles. I think it would be a good idea to go through the edits and see if there has been any violations of WP:FRINGE as part of the user's contributions.

I have notified the user of this discussion.

jps (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The user recently removed this legit edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Influenza_vaccine#Vaccine-induced_disease_enhancement_has_been_described_in_connection_with_several_viral_vaccines Further do i challenge him to provide proof about his allegation that i violate WP:FRINGE . I find it strange that somebody can just post here on the board without providing any evidence. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. This is a noticeboard for editors, like myself, who notice problems. I noticed a number of problems across a lot of different articles pertaining to vaccines that you are participating in. However, some of your edits are not problematic. It takes a lot of volunteer time and muscle to go through and make sure that everything is okay. It might help if you explained a bit about what your editorial philosophy is with regards to this subject. What types of coverage for vaccines do you think Wikipedia needs and why? What is your motivation for the edits you've made to articles about vaccines? jps (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to discuss my addition the right place is the related talk page. At above link i asked you for feedback, instead you link to this Fringe board. My philosophy is pretty obvious if you ask me, since everybody should be able to determine it based on the content i submitted. I ask you to respond on the related talk pages, and again to provide any kind of proof in regards to the justification of your framing of me as a Fringe. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Prokaryotes, but you've been posting some obscure stuff on several pages, including one-source questionable claims about specific vaccines on both Vaccine and Vaccination. I've removed the content from Vaccination, and commented on Talk:Vaccine, but I repeat here: giving such weight to this kind of content on the main articles is unlikely to find any support; adding it to the vaccine specific articles is still something for which you must seek consensus. The content is well within the arguable parameters of WP:FRINGE. Your arguing venue rather than discussing the content is not helpful. Killer Chihuahua 17:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, in the edit that Prokaryotes made in the Influenza Vaccine article, he/she added a source. There are three links in the citation - two are correct, but the third, the PMID, points to a different article, namely Cases in vaccine court--legal battles over vaccines and autism" from the NEJM. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The content in question = https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Influenza_vaccine&diff=570969365&oldid=570968691 - the study in question http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/5/200/200ra114 Fringe is not mainstream science which is backed by several studies which all come to the same conclusion. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Many studies replicate "vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease", see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=vaccine-associated+enhanced+respiratory+disease&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=Xy8iUoa-B-rE7Ab-3oG4CA&ved=0CCgQgQMwAA And yes there are reliable journal secondary sources too. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The user has now complained about this at Admin Noticeboard/Incidents: [14]. jps (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Prokaryotes has been given a 2 week break from editing and has been informed of an indefinite ban from vaccine related articles (see notification here). Vsmith (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry

I am not quite sure if the articles fall und WP:FRINGE, but maybe this forum is the best place to ask for other editors to have a look at Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, Davide Lazzeretti, Leonetto Amadei, Maria Luisa Figueira, Mario Di Fiorino as well as edits made by users involved in those articles in e.g. Ganser syndrome and Mind control. I reverted in Leonetto Amadei, [15] and left a note on the editor's page.[16] Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I found one copyright violation, and expect there is more. Not quite sure if it all belongs here though, try notifying wikiproject medicine as well. This appears to be some effort to promote Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, so there is a probable COI. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, IRWolfie-. How do I notify WP:Medicine? I restored an older version of Davide Lazzeretti, please have a look and see if you think any of the lost content was worth keeping. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You can notify them here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Expanding Earth theory

I would appreciate input on this article. As far as my (somewhat limited) knowledge of such matters goes, this particular theory has been firmly rejected by the scientific mainstream - but contributors on the talk page seem to be arguing otherwise, and one has taken exception to my description of the theory as 'fringe'. If I'm wrong, I will of course retract the suggestion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This piece by Donald Prothero give some background (also published as Prothero, Donald R. "Cracked earth and crackpot ideas." Skeptic 18.1 (2013)). Smells fringey. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, the caption of the picture needs to be changed. Also, I think the picture itself is original research and may need to be removed unless there is some verification that this is how an "expanding earth" would actually look. jps (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

On more careful examination, I'm not sure an article about this subject is appropriate. There seems to be an inordinate amount of WP:SYNTH going on connecting Neal Adams' amateur speculation to past work in the development of geophysical models of continental drift as well as to the ideas of J. Marvin Herndon who actually claims the Earth collapsed from a Jupiter-sized gas giant and then rebounded but is not currently expanding. I'm inclined to recommend deletion and recommend that the ideas be discussed on the proponents' pages (they actually already are) rather than collecting them in a hodgepodge and originally researched fashion. jps (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think any good coverage of the article would give only a tiny amount of weight to the modern cranks, and most to the historical treatment. From glancing through the article, I don't think it is, at present, representative of the actual history of the expanding earth claims, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:WEIGHT ideal, but even further I'm not sure "expanding earth" as a concept represented a coherent whole or single idea. Rather, I think what has happened is that the Neal Adams fan club has essentially cobbled together as many references as they could find to proposals about the radius of the Earth increasing to support their contention that this was an "also ran" theory before plate tectonics stole the show. I just don't think that's true and there doesn't seem to be any mainstream sources that support the contention. I think Wikipedia may have been duped into creating a platform for this kind of original research. The "concept" as an amalgamation of historical ideas and modern crankiness simply doesn't exist in the actual literature about the history of the development of geophysical theory. We're not talking about something like neptunism or caloric theory which represented coherent proposals backed by a community. We're talking about individuals who had similar ideas to each other but did not form any sort of collective proposal until they were cobbled together after the fact. jps (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes: the key has to be whether mainstream reliable sources discuss the various forms of 'Expanding Earth theory' as a single topic: if they don't, then yes, it looks like synthesis to me. As has been suggested on the article talk page, deletion after merging any relevant material to biographies of proponents may be the best course of action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

In related news: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ott Christoph Hilgenberg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Marvin Herndon. Looks like there is something of a walled garden that has been overlooked. jps (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory (22:45, May 31, 2008) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory. jps (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Telephone telepathy AfD

Just nominated; looks like a mouthpiece for fringe. Vzaak (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

German Acupuncture Trials

Just noticed this article, which seems to contain a lot of biomedical pronouncements sourced heavily (exclusively?) to primary medical sources. I am concerned that by creating a article specifically about a medical trial, no matter how large, it becomes a WP:COATRACK for information about the results that differ from those found in more reliable sources; in this case the article gives a strong impression of acupuncture's effectiveness which is a bit out-of-WP:SYNC with out main Acupuncture article. (Cross-posting to WT:MED.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Velikovsky-related article up for deletion

I'd like any and all input as this particular topic can tend to confuse:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (2nd nomination)

jps (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

More AfD fun

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Interdisciplinary Studies.

Input, as always, is most welcome.

jps (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake (yet again)

Anonymous editor is trying to right great wrongs with little respect for WP:FRINGE policies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm out of 3RR reverts (anon is on 4). Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I responded to your concerns regarding Sheldrake on the talkpage for him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Concerns_with_article

The article, as it stands now, is a violation of the WP:RGW policy, since support for Sheldrake is given by solid sources.

AltMed

Talk:Alternative medicine could use a few more eyes to keep the discussion moving forward and focused on our coverage of the topic rather than the topic itself. I have made a proposal to get at least the lead whipped into shape, but it could use some sprucing up. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Gary Null (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gary_Null_is_not_a_Quack_or_a_crackpot

Anonymous editor is claiming that this subject's article is somewhat biased. I haven't looked into this in depth, but I suspect that the scientific community aren't generally too kind to him. To me, the criticism in the article looks somewhat tame. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Orthomolecular medicine (again)

I removed a really extensive segment of FRINGE/NOTFORUM (mixed with a bit of content about the article itself, maybe) from Talk:Orthomolecular medicine, which was inserted by 198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an editor with FRINGE issues at this article in the past. They have just reverted my removal, and I am (voluntarily) at 1RR already. more eyes, etc. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the page back to the state you left it, but it took me 3 edits to do it. I still haven't figured out how to revert more than one edit at a time;) --Roxy the dog (bark) 20:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this person should have been blocked in response to his recent Rupert Sheldrake edits. Instead, the article was protected. But in any case, I don't really see a problem with letting people to rant on the talk page. If they are allowed to have their say, they'll be more likely to move on instead of disrupting the article. Vzaak (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not found this to be the case. Articles with a bunch of NOTFORUM, in my limited experience, tend to have more issues with content, to say nothing of spamlinks etc on talk pages. I don't know whether it's reverting of NOTFORUM or just the topics in general, but i think the two are separable. YMMV though i guess. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get the NOTAFORUM impression. By "rant" I didn't mean an irrelevant tirade, but an on-topic push for fringe with many references. Who knows, maybe there's one reference that can be fished out from the sludge. As a practical matter, once the fringe-pusher has made a case, there seems to be no harm in letting it sit. Otherwise the fringe mentality is such that the problem will escalate with claims of "oppression" and "censorship" etc. [Note I typed this paragraph before the IP's additional rant below. This case looks more severe, but I was speaking in general terms.] Vzaak (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2013

I have removed the Sheldrake commentary and placed it in the appropriate talk page. The article, as it stands currently, is a violation of the WP:RGW policy, since solid sources are in support of Sheldrake.

As for NOTAFORUM concerns, in one case it was not inappropriate, as I was responding to another user making comments violating NOTAFORUM and their edits were not removed. For instance, this was in response to a tangential comment about nutrigenomics, which addressed the point rather succinctly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=next&oldid=572669056

For the other I hatted the other comment that refuted other criticisms of misconceptions regarding orthomolecular medicine that could be seen as similar to forum posting, as I did not want it to interfere with the discussion, and for the other points relevant to the article, put forth unhatted refutations based on solid sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=572661953

Also, the word "fringe" does not necessarily mean false. What should matter is if solid sources can substantiate a statement, and when that criteria is applied, there are many "fringe" arguments that can supersede "mainstream" ones. Wikipedia purportedly has a mechanism to address this, the WP:RGW policy, which states that alternative views can be expressed if they are substantiated by solid sources. That is reasonable - it is perfectly all right to argue a view if it can be substantiated by a solid source. Unfortunately, many editors fail to adhere to that policy, and engage in censorship even when the opposing view is well substantiated. Such behavior shows a frightening use of the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, and lends itself, ultimately,to the type of authoritarian collectivist attitude displayed with Maoism and Soviet Communism.

Baraminology

Any ideas what to do with this article? I don't know if the WP:FRINGE guidelines would have it as notable enough for an article. In any case, it seems like it doesn't have very many reliable sources being mostly a little jaunt by about six creation science advocates. These kinds of creationist off-shoots seem to be a dime-a-dozen, though, and I'm not sure this particular one deserves an entire article.

jps (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this concept is notable but it is notable as evidenced by the multiple non-creationist sources writing about it. With that said, the criticism section could probably be expanded to include a more thorough explanation of its irrationality and incongruence with reality. The lead touches upon this but obviously there is much more than can be said and I'm sure more sources can be found, though I'd be surprised if the present sourcing doesn't already have more to offer. Additionally, something about calling it a "creationist taxonomic system" bothers me, even though it is a factually accurate description. Unfortunately I cannot think of a succinct way to qualify that statement in a single sentence. N^oformation ^Talk 01:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue I'm having is that it is no more notable than, for example, any one of the ICR's "research" projects: http://www.icr.org/research/ For example, their RATE project where they go and look for helium in billion-year-old rocks as evidence that radiometric dating is wrong or the proposed "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" of John Baumgardner. You can find plenty of non-creationist websites crowing about these endeavors too, but they aren't very serious rejoinders because they aren't very serious projects. While most of the creationists on Wikipedia have been driven off, I don't understand if baraminology is "notable" why every other hare-brained creationist scheme is not. After all, it's something of a cottage industry on the intertubes to make fun of creationists so the "sourcing" would be at our fingertips, even though the sourcing is not very good (and indeed suffers quite a bit at baraminology). What can be done to improve matters? jps (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with those projects but technically if they are covered by the same quality of sources currently in the bariminology article (which are rather high quality: National Academy of Sciences, National Center for Science Education, etc.) they might be notable, at least in WP's context. Let's just be glad no one has taken the time to write them.

On the other hand, it's hard to say whether it's better for an article like this to exist - so we can explain how it's factually wrong - or whether it's better to ignore it all together. I lean towards coverage myself but as it stands we don't have the ability to delete this kind of stuff anyway; the best we can do is make our articles as accurate as possible. Keep in mind that WP articles are many times the first result on search engines and I'd say better that someone come here and read our article on bariminology (or any fringe topic) than get bad information from AIG, anti-GMO environuts, etc. True Believers™ won't be swayed but those actually looking to learn may be convinced before they go off the deep end. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure we share the same distaste of giving attention to the undeserved but I think it's often outweighed by the value in offering education. With that said, while you're right that most overt creationists have left there are still plenty, they just aren't as obvious anymore since the obvious ones get topic/site banned fairly quick.

Oh, not sure if this policy was around when you were active but we have some decent protection to counter poor fringe sourcing: WP:PARITY. N^oformation ^Talk 23:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The NAS has certainly not addressed the topic of baraminology specifically, the article is referencing a more general criticism of creationism. The NCSE takes it as their duty to expose problems that may show up in educational settings and, as such, has a whole series of work about the problems with the ICR's pseudo-intellectual approaches and gets down to brass tacks. I don't, however, think that this justifies an article. Another alternative might be to merge this subject back into something like creation science. Having individual articles about each creationist project is not advisable, IMHO.

I'm glad WP:PARITY has made it into the lexicon. It was one of the parts of the Fringe guideline I wrote.

jps (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, hectic week. I did not realize that the NAS didn't specifically discuss baraminology; I assumed since it's being used as a source that it did, my mistake. If it's the case that none of the reliable (viz. non-fringe) sources specifically discuss the topic of any given article then I agree said article wouldn't meet the notability criteria and would suggest either a merge discussion or an WP:AFD, depending on whether the information is valuable enough to be contained in a parent article. I wish I could have a more in depth discussion on these articles but I barely have any free time these days and certainly not enough to go digging through sources to verify they discuss the topic at hand. But if they don't, toss em. N^oformation ^Talk 23:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Who has some extra time and feels like fixing up an article?

Free energy suppression‎ is currently in a fairly poor state. It doesn't advocate any fringe theories but it is in dire need of solid sourcing, rewriting to remove WP:OR and to conform to encyclopedic tone, and formatting (e.g. section headings). I also suggested on talk that it be moved to Free energy suppression conspiracy theory under the "Merge" section heading. Any takers? N^oformation ^Talk 01:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I did a little cleaning but it really should be merged into the list of conspiracy theories as the hatnote suggests. Bhny (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I just cleaned it up some more. Half the article was off-topic and not about the conspiracy theory. Bhny (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Michael Cremo

See [17] where an editor has removed from the lead material removing from "has attracted attention from mainstream scholars who criticized his unorthodox views on archeology^[1]^[2] and called his work pseudoscience.^[3]^[4]^[5]" the end of the sentence, "and called his work pseudoscience.^[6]^[7]^[8]"with what I think is the false argument "Except there is enough opposing view points in mainstream science to counter the argument that it is pseudoscience. Second its clear enough that some mainstream scientist think its pseudoscience when its in the main text." (from the talk page). Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to say the first revert was by another editor so he clearly doesn't have consensus. I've reverted him again. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Its definatley not neutral to call research pseudoscience without proper evidence to back it up. Just citing articles that report other scientists who feel there work is threatened by his research and decide to call it pseudoscience is not neutral. Its a scientist with a bias toward new information. quoting a review that talks about this problem. http://ncse.com/rncse/19/3/review-forbidden-archaeologys-impact Secondly, editors are not always right so it doesn't matter if there is a consensus or not. Just because you are an editor doesn't mean you have authority on any subject just a FYI. Who ever used the term on the first paragraph to describe it as pseudoscience of the bat is using loaded language to appeal to emotion or stereotypes an audience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language It does not do justice to an author of a work to simply using loaded language on the outset to describe a work when there are people who value the authenticity of the work. Trinsic1 (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

He's reverted me a 3rd time so I've given him a warning, but I'm at 2RR. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If mainstream scholars have characterized his views as PS, then WP should neutrally report that. The lead should also note if there is notable criticism. I have reverted to a version where these things happen. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

it is reported in the main text. Does it need to be reported in the very first paragraph? Trinsic1 (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for two reasons. First WP:LEAD guides us to "include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies" in the lead. Secondly, the WP:PSCI policy obliges us to identify pseudoscientific view clearly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for the clarification. To me it just seems like the word pseudoscience is often used to discredit when it doesnt line up with a scholars world view. This w ork has alot of evidance to back it up but its being outright disregarded mostly because its not support by the mainstream view of science.Trinsic1 (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia stands firmly behind "the mainstream view of science" and its articles strongly reflect that. Any more experimental/discursive/adventurous treatment of the topic really needs to take place somewhere other than here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Humans have lived on Earth for billions of years" is manifestly WP:FRINGE/PS, case closed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Mel's Hole

Resolved

Mainstream sources treat this as an urban myth, yet our article identifies it as something that actually exists (a "geographic anomaly"), as tends to happen when Coast to Coast AM and other fringy sources are misidentified as authorities on the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The first phrase in the lead says "Mel's Hole is an urban legend" - this doesn't sit with your description. --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Problems resolved, article has been since cleaned up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhavishya Purana

There have been recent edits dating this text to 3000BCE (before even the language it is written in, Sanskrit, existed), based on the following sources:

Jeya Thangakone, "Eternal Truth is One: Experiencing God as in Major Religions"
Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince, "The Masks of Christ: Behind the Lies and Cover-ups About the Life of Jesus"

In my view this is very much a WP:FRINGE claim, and a non-notable one at that. More views will be appreciated (discussion here). Abecedare (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think, that in those days, whether 5th Century BCE, or 3000 BCE, the numerical system that we use today or even since 10th century didn't really applied. So these theories can't be claimed as Fringe because they are cited by the academics, and other various source. A book from Henry A. Davidson cites both of the dates, 5th century BCE and 3000 BCE which is in fact acknowledged by Forbes as per the source.[18] Apart from the above source, this source[19] explains well in detail, regarding the 3,000 BCE. So doesn't see any problem in keeping both added, remembering both stats remained on the page for months as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Forbes was wrong. His dating of the texts was inaccurate, and subsequent researches thought that Forbes knew that and was in fact deliberately fraudulent. There's more about this at Cox-Forbes theory. Quale (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's critical to say that forbes is wrong, since it wasn't judged by anyone to be fraudulent. You have no source to prove it to be wrong either.Bladesmulti (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources are all over Cox-Forbes theory. It isn't "critical" to say that Forbes was wrong, it's simply a fact. Quale (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean false source? That has been made up by you? What about the other 5 sources. Including one of Forbes, which is still not proved to be wrong. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The source you claim to be "made up" is easily verified [20] [21]. I've no idea what "other 5 sources" you mean, but Duncan Forbes, a linguist who died in 1868, cannot possibly be considered a reliable scholarly source for the dating of the Purana, especially as it seems he never even read it. Of the two sources you link here, the first supports the mainstream view and the other is pure WP:Fringe. Paul B (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the forbes, but his role was limited with giving the date, nothing more than that. There's no 100% estimate about the dates of those books, thus i don't find the source to be WP:Fringe, but in fact it's by academics. Other 2 sources included this[22], and the book from Henry A. Davidson, although he adds both 550 BCE and 3,000 BCE. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thulasidas Raghavan's book is self-published and I really see no indication that we would accept him as an authority on anything. I also gather from the barest of skimming that it is not the sort of scholarly work that would serve in this case. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theoriests proposing to add misinformation

This thread Wikipedia:ANI#Potential_article_manipulation_by_conspiracy_theorists may be of interest to the regulars, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wavyinfinity

Wavyinfinity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is claiming to be actively disrupting Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT to his or her students. [23] See external discussion here.

I suggest reviewing all of their contributions and perhaps referring to administrators if it seems necessary.

jps (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I nominated the Userpage and sandbox at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wavyinfinity, since they, and his recent, reverted article changes, and the AFD nominated Grey dwarf, all seem part of the same disruption. Begoon ^talk 04:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine - advice sought

Doing some recent work on the Bowen technique article I added some material sourced to a systematic review published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. This is a peer-reviewd, widely-indexed journal. However, the study contains some (what seems to me) decidedly partial views. Googling around I find some grumbling about this journal in various quarters, yet in the Wikipedia source hierarchy it is the type of publication that stands at the pinnacle unless there is a very well-sourced reason to doubt it. How is this kind of situation addressed? Maybe this is one for RS/N ... ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Alt-Med brigades have started to realise that they can bring the endarkenment faster if they try to emulate the ways of science. One of those ways is to publish in peer reviewed scientific journals, except that there is a huge problem with that, for alt-med types, in that in decent journals, peer review will weed out the crap, and they cant get their papers published in respectable journals.

The answer, for them, is to create their own journals which are "peer reviewed" and here is where things fall down. In order to publish something, it has to pass peer review, and for that sort of crap to pass, the quality of review is instantly called into question. The credibility of this type of journal is low. The problem of poor journals will become larger as time goes by, and I'm sure that it is a bit more complicated than what I have already stated, but we need to find a way to deal with this issue. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 13:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a journal that published an article like this is clearly woo central. But for an article like Bowen technique, where this is practically the only journal commenting on the research, it seems Wikipedia policy would favour its use ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't speak to the broader issue of how we handle citations supported by these kinds of journals, but for handling the description of the journal itself you could do worse than to take a look at the Journal of Cosmology article. Similar fringe-y science journal with some very dubious editorial practices, but I think the article does a good job of staying impartial while still letting the reader know there are clearly a whole bunch of issues with it. Could be a nice model for expanding Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, so at least the problem is obvious. The key is reputable citations elsewhere complaining about the article's subject, and examples of controversy. DanHobley (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the article from it on Bowden technique was reasonably critical, so I don't see why there's a concern. I don't think this stands at the pinnacle of sources. It's not reflective of mainstream medicine (with "alternative" in the title) and it clearly has a bias (shown in shown by its homeopathy promotion) and should be used carefully with editorial judgment. On the other hand, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy means that these sources should receive some weight. One would think that something like Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine when it was published by Oxford would have been pretty good, but Googling around it doesn't seem so (which is maybe why it moved to Hindawi). It's tough to balance equivocating (as global warming journalists have historically) with allowing a side a little bit but it is required. II | (t - c) 18:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bowen review looks okay in part because we're quoting from it quite, er, carefully. However, although the authors found the evidence on Bowen to be so poor they couldn't use it as a basis for recomending the therapy, this doesn't stop them concluding the article thus

Bowenwork is a cost-effective, noninvasive treatment modality that can be introduced into diverse health care settings such as acute-care hospitals, outpatient settings, and rural environments. More importantly, Bowenwork may potentially contribute to the global initiatives for healthier people.

If an editor wanted to include that content, I think they could make a good case for its inclusion. However this just looks like irrational speculation to me, even in the light of the evidence the authors reviewed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This sets off my alarm bells. My initial impression is one of a walled garden, with a small publisher Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. and a small number of journals which appear dedicated to alternative medical research. I looked up this journal in Journal Citation Reports, and i'm not sure how to interpret all of this data, but the impact factor of this journal is very low. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Journal Title J ALTERN COMPLEM MED
ISSN 1075-5535
Total Cites 3168
Impact Factor 1.464
5-Year Impact 2.160
Immediacy Index 0.224
Articles 152
Cited Half-life 5.8

Issues with niche journals are discussed here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Peer-reviewed_sources. A fringe journal (and this journal certainly qualifies) can be used to verify that certain claims are being made by the adherents of the fringe idea, but these journals cannot be used for any other purpose. Treat such journals as primary source documents and make sure that the attribution is clear and in-text so that the reader is not confused (the authors of these articles are usually fairly straightforward to track down and associate with the fringe belief). Additionally, claims that are not noticed outside of the journal ought to be removed from the article as they are essentially not verified. However, claims that are mentioned by WP:FRINGE#Independent sources can be discussed with appropriate WP:WEIGHTing and using such journals can be a good way of presenting the ideas straight from the horse's mouth. jps (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so to test I'm not off-base let's take an example (related to the OMT thread happening further up this page). This article is a systematic review of the use of OMT for women with lower urinary tract symptoms. It concludes "The quantitative analysis shows a statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement when the osteopathic intervention was compared to an untreated group." (which is sort of an odd comparison, but never mind). The article is:

authored by two chiropractors/osteopaths affiliated to an Institute for Osteopathic Studies
in the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies (I can't find its impact factor)
cited exactly once elsewhere, and by another article in the same journal.

On this basis I can assume this is a fringe journal/article and should not be used (or used with caution). Right? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That article seems to fail WP:MEDRS anyway. It really ought not to be used as a source unless there is some discussion elsewhere about the use of OMT for such conditions. Then, and only then, it could be used as a source for the statement along the lines of "Osteopathic manipulative treatment has been advocated by alternative health proponents as a means of treating lower urinary tract symptoms" but only if you find independent coverage of this subject. jps (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Would it fail MEDRS? On the face of it isn't it a systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use_independent_sources. jps (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) may, according to Quackwatch, occasionally pratice fringe techniques such as cranial manipulation more often than their MD counterparts. Whether this should be mentioned in the article, is currently a topic of debate and the cause of some edits back-and-forth. More eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

off the top of my head, unless DOs are generally practicing fringe stuff, I think that random comments that some provide quackery is not appropriate for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The operating word would be occasionally (and this is true of MDs too). This article is over ten years old and some of the references used are even older than that. What evidence do we have that this is still the case today? If the discussion is about cranial, it is a real minority and my guess would be that its use has only been decreasing. I'd have to look it up to see if there data exists showing a trend about that. If we're talking about the chelation therapy part mentioned in the article, I would want to see current evidence that this is still the case.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The point of the QW article was that comparing DOs and MDs, DOs were found more likely to be engaging in dubious practices. However the mood at the article seems to be this observation should not be made and no difference stated, however mildly. The article remains, in this respect, a criticism-free zone (since nobody will engage with me on the talk page and my edits have been reverted by a newly-made account). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The direct quote from Quackwatch that was used for this topic was nonsensical. It compares DOs to "medical doctors" when in fact DOs are medical doctors in the United States. The MD degree does not stand for medical doctor. Again, the fact remains that both DOs and MDs are considered medical doctors in the US thus rendering the Quackwatch quote incorrect. -- DrBonesaw (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The QW article interchangeably uses the terms "osteopathic physician" for DOs and "medical doctor" for MDs - if you think this terminology needs to be made clearer we can easily unpack it a bit; however it seems a bit of a quibble to me ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains that this article does not utilize titles correctly when referring to the medical practitioners in question. How then can this content be legitimized if the source cannot even correctly identify who they are referring to. In my opinion this clearly demonstrates the inadequacies of the source and it's content/opinion on this subject. DrBonesaw (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

DrBonesaw, your reading comprehension and your credibility are seriously in question here. Anyone familiar with the medical field, like myself, Dr. Barrett, and others, knows that MD (doctor of medicine) and DO (doctor of osteopathy) are not identical degrees or professions, although now both are included under the umbrella of medical physicians in the USA. In practice there are very few differences anymore, but until the DO education ceases to exist, there will be some differences. You should know all this. Barrett has studied the subject quite deeply and knows the difference, and I suggest you AGF and trust he knows far more than you on the subject, because you obviously don't understand it as well, and this fact totally undermines your credibility. You may also wish to study WP:COI and edit osteopathic subjects (or NOT edit) accordingly. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, the DO degree in the US is a doctor of osteopathic medicine, not doctor of osteopathy…thank you for proving my point. Laughable that you insult me, express that you know what you are talking about and still use the wrong terminology.DrBonesaw (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I shouldn't use common parlance around you by using the historic terms, which are still in use. Sorry about that. I should have made it clear that D.O. stands for Doctor of Osteopathy, which is identical to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. This external link by a D.O. explains it for you. Take it from him:

" "What's a D.O.?" "Are you a bone doctor?"
"These are the most common responses I get when I introduce myself as a D.O.; Doctor of Osteopathy. While my profession has been providing health care to the U.S. population for over 100 years, we still are virtually invisible to the general population, the media, and some of the less educated in the healthcare industry. Therefore, in an effort to enlighten those unfamiliar with D.O.s, please allow me the opportunity to elaborate on the Osteopathic profession.
"A D.O., Doctor of Osteopathy (also known as: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, Osteopathic Physician, or Osteopath) is a physician trained and licensed to practice the full spectrum of conventional medicine and surgery; while incorporating the philosophies of Osteopathy and the practice of Osteopathic Manipulative Therapy (OMT)." by Stephen Loo, D.O., [24]

Also check out the profession's history. I hope that clears it up for you. You can criticize his choice of words if you wish, but my main points still stand. M.D. and D.O. are not identical degrees, and Barrett understands this better than you. Only a deliberate attempt to misread him would cause any difficulty. Others have no problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this tangent is getting a bit off-topic now and I'm beginning to see some comments that could be perceived as unnecessary personal attacks. I understand tensions are running high, but let's attempt to remain civil while discussing this. I think user DrBonesaw's observation that the terminology used in the article is outdated is correct, but is of secondary importance to the issue of whether the claim that DOs are more likely than MDs to engage in practices such as chelation therapy, etc. is true and is reflective of the current state of osteopathic medicine or if it is only a decade old observation by Dr. Barrett. I would be curious to see if this observation has been repeated by others in current journal articles. Also, the correct terms are indeed Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine or osteopathic physician, not Doctor of Osteopathy, but I think that's hardly the issue right now. I think taking the direct quote from that article (IMO, an article with a rather biased tone to it) is inappropriate. I have suggested, as I see ImperfectlyInformed as below, that if this information is true and reflective of the osteopathic medical field, that such information would likely be found in sources that are more recent and of higher quality than Dr. Barrett's webpage. Actually, after going over the article again, it looks like it was just updated in 2003, but was originally published in 1998 since it mentions within it that it received a letter about a previous version of the article in 1998. The ACAM list it cites regarding chelation therapy is also from 1998, so that's an even older claim than I initially realized. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rocksanddirt. I think would be inappropriate to add this (a quite speculative 2003 article by Stephen Barrett alone) to the DO article, particularly starting in the lead as it was [25]. On the talkpage there was a mention that "QW has consistenly been found to be a RS on the topic of altmed" by Alexbrn. That's not really true. The recommendation is to start by looking at more traditionally published and high-quality articles, then use QW if there's nothing there. There's plenty of articles about osteopathy on Google Books and Google Scholar. Go check those first, add something to the body, and then maybe a mention can be made in the lead. Wikipedia is not Stephen Barrett's soapbox, and there are many cases where Stephen Barrett is histrionic, misleading, or just plain wrong (feel free to ask me on my talkpage if you want examples). Not surprising since he's written hundreds of articles outside of his field (by himself) and doesn't always update them. For example, if you want to write up something about cranial osteopathy in particular you might start with Ferguson's A review of the physiology of cranial osteopathy (2003) or take a glance at the 25 articles which cite it. Took me about 5 seconds to find. You could also glance at The DOs: Osteopathic Medicine in America (2005), the 152 articles which cite it, or Diminished Use of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment and Its Impact on the Uniqueness of the Osteopathic Profession (2001). Stephen Barrett doesn't seem to publish peer-reviewed articles; not saying he can't be used to counter the peer-reviewed literature but the scholarly lit needs to at least have a some weight. Also, I'm not going to go the surgeon article and add to the lead that some surgeons get paid to do vertebroplasty despite evidence against it (or any number of dubious, expensive, and controversial surgical procedures where evidence is less conclusive for or against) because it's just undue weight without a larger discussion. II | (t - c) 21:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Using the Journal of Osteopathic Medicine as a source for anything but what osteopaths believe is problematic. The article you link tried to link certain physiological frequencies with cranial osteopathic practices without specifying any mechanism or data that the practices have any effect whatsoever on the referenced biomechanics. It's very unfortunate when people use promotional literature from niche journals to claim peer review. This isn't peer review; it's preaching to the choir. jps (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read the paper in detail, nor do I really have the expertise to do so (although apparently you do; perhaps you should publish something). It is unfortunate that Stephen Barrett and like-minded folks seem to have opted out of the traditional academic publishing system, but I didn't say that Quackwatch couldn't be cited: I said the peer-reviewed literate should receive some weight. Wikipedia is not the place to campaign to fix the problems in mainstream medicine and Wikipedia shouldn't be picking a side, defaming mainstream institutions, or taking up Quackwatch's conspiratorial view towards them (as you do in conspiratorially advocating that osteopaths are promoting their technique, which isn't how that article reads at all). Quackwatch's peer-reviewed equivalent, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, was rejected three times by the National Library of Medicine for PubMed indexing, so apparently they gave up and haven't published an article since 2007 (?). If you're unhappy about the state of affairs, contact your reps in Washington. Wikipedia's not the place for that kind of advocacy. It's unfortunate, but Wikipedia has a bias to the mainstream and traditional system of publishing. Also, if someone is basically just drive-by adding Quackwatch articles to everything, that's not the recommended approach. It's actually a pretty bad approach. I'm sorry if you don't realize that. II | (t - c) 21:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. By citing the Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, you are citing the basic means by which osteopathic medicine supporters opine on the subject of their own ideology. It's problematic, to say the least, to use this as something like WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. We cannot rely on their say-so for how something works any more than we would rely on any other fringe journal, though we can report their beliefs. Bringing up such a source is not a real rejoinder and the unrelated indexing controversy associated with another journal is irrelevant. jps (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Quackwatch in any way a compliant source for article content that falls under WP:MEDRS as for example Physician does?(olive (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC))

WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to articles in their totality, but to any biomedical information on Wikpedia, anywhere. The question at hand isn't about biomedical material but about a claim that a minority of DOs engage in dubious practices, such as cranial manipulation. QW is of course not the last word on all-things related to DOs, but it is an excellent source around fringe topics, such as the question of where cranial manipulation might be practiced. If Barrett's opinion is attributed (and, it seems, dated) I think neutrality requires that it be included, otherwise the article enshrines the position that there is zero difference between MDs and DOs, and that has nobody has ever said otherwise. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Physician happens to lack any content that is covered by MEDRS, so our ordinary RS rules apply. QW is especially relevant for coverage of any angles related to health fraud, quackery, pseudoscience, and fringe medical practices and beliefs. That is their area of expertise and relevance. As such they may be the only source which preserves NPOV by keeping an article from being a sales brochure. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking a bit more closely at this article, I'm wondering if the POV problem isn't more deeply rooted. For example, while the article is happy to use this source to mention that DOs get "additional training" in OMT, it is rather more coy about using that source's description of what OMT entails: "Osteopathic physicians hold to the principle that a patient's history of illness and physical trauma are written into the body's structure. The osteopathic physician's highly developed sense of touch allows the physician to feel (palpate) the patient's 'living anatomy' (the flow of fluids, motion and texture of tissues, and structural makeup)." Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel we've gotten a bit off topic here. The original topic was whether the Barrett article should be included. Reading the above conversations, I do not think we ever really arrived at a conclusion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My on topic response.....the use of Barrett's Quackwatch articles anywhere should be limited. He's akin to a newspaper reporter in that he tries to be accurate, but without hired fact checkers. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of off-topic... I once worked with a medical resident who was a D.O. We were riding the hospital elevator when a woman got on and looked curiously at his hospital I.D. tag. She asked: "D.O.? What's that? Is it like an M.D.?" He responded very earnestly, with a straight face: "Yes, ma'am. We're just like M.D.'s, except we believe that the liver pumps the blood."

More seriously, in my experience most D.O.'s complete similar residency training to M.D.'s and practice with a similar focus and scope. The degrees are largely viewed as interchangeable training pathways. In the U.S., a licensed D.O. can prescribe medicines, perform surgery, and do pretty much everything that a licensed M.D. can do. The D.O.'s I've encountered haven't had any odd ideas about using their "highly developed sense of touch" in lieu of standard diagnostic approaches. I've known D.O.'s who incorporate OMT into their treatment of chronic neck/back pain, for instance, but that hardly seems "fringey". There are undoubtedly D.O.'s who promote dubious claims or outright quackery, but then there are plenty of M.D.'s who do the same and I'm not sure it's degree-specific.

Regarding Quackwatch, my view of consensus here has been that it's generally acceptable as a source, provided we use in-text attribution (e.g. "According to Quackwatch...") to present its views. I don't think I'd use it in the lead here, though. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"He's akin to a newspaper reporter in that he tries to be accurate, but without hired fact checkers", Quackwatch: "In 2003, Quackwatch listed 150 scientific and technical advisors: 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 other "scientific and technical advisors" were listed." IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be perceived as entirely negative (as I may have seemed above) about Quackwatch. Barrett does a public service and has a lot of good information (although I think it would be more effective if it was presented in a somewhat more diplomatic manner; I suspect it mainly preaches to the choir and angers those which it is purportedly trying to inform). I agree that it has a fair amount of support from various scientists. However, in glancing at the page again (which I haven't perused much in the past few years), I see that the last 10 articles or so posted on its list of new articles are written by Barrett, with no indication of a review system. It leads me to think that the support is more like moral support. If these advisors were willing to review articles and add their names as reviewers to the bylines, it would seem more professional. Perhaps someone should drop that idea to Barrett. Similar websites such as Science-Based Medicine or even Respectful Insolence appear to be basically as reliable; SBM is actually written by several doctors rather than just one which probably has a bit of a moderating and fact-checking effect. II | (t - c) 20:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"... these advisors were willing to review articles and add their names as reviewers to the bylines, ..." Peer reviewed journals don't. Newspapers don't. Why would Quackwatch be different? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Because its an unconventional platform. It began as a self-published website by one guy (arguably remains that) and has a budget of around $10,000 iirc. Journals and newspapers are institutions with paid staff and a continuous history. BTW, BiomedCentral did publish its reviewers' comments last I looked, at least for some journals. II | (t - c) 00:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

So...I'm unclear if we've arrived at a conclusion here or if we're still divided on the issue of whether or not to include the Barrett article. My vote is against. I feel like I've mostly heard views that sound like they're against inclusion, but I do not wish to speak for anyone.

Here's how I see it (the discussion has unfortunately got split between here and the article's talk page):

First, nobody is setting out to "trash" DOs or include undue criticism of them. As is pointed out, even in the criticism we include, they are mostly fine folk doing good work. The subject of this discussion is specifically Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine (OMM/OMT), which is a component of DO training and something used by some DOs.
OMM is as fringey as it gets, involving the "feeling" of cranial rhythms, the concept of human energy fields and an appeal for students to "have faith" in it. Source-wise it has been called out specifically as "pseudoscience" by the science commentator Steven Salzberg [26] and by the emergency medicine professor (and DO himself) Bryan E. Bledsoe [27]. Quackwatch notes that the few DOs who engage in it are engaged in "dubious" practice.
My reading of WP:PSCI is that we are obliged to identify fringe/pseudoscience views as such, and prominently so. The article, as it was formerly, made no mention at all of any criticism, while describing the "extra" OMM training DOs got, implying perhaps that it was some kind of added DO benefit. This is why this noticeboard is a good place to discuss this issue.

Just because that's your interpretation does not mean it is everyone's. Simply saying additional training doesn't seem POV in my view. There is a small segment of the M.D. community that also learns OMM if they choose to. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am slightly uneasy that the push against any inclusion of this critical content is being led by an editor with a COI and a WP:SPA. I don't believe the plea that OMM is not pseudoscience but is merely "under-researched" holds water. This is a common refrain for a lot of bogus practices. (A recent systematic review we use shows OMT to be ineffective, as one would expect).

Our beliefs about whether or not the under-researched vs. pseudoscience argument are irrelevant. What is relevant for the article is what high-quality peer-reviewed academic journals say and we are not to guess. Bledsoe's article is such an article and in his opinion, he believes some of the practices to be pseudoscience, but other high-quality peer-reviewed journal articles would disagree and favor the under-researched paradigm. Your assertion that my account is an SPA is nonsense as I have edited on plenty of different topics. I've discussed how your accusations regarding COI (I said potential COI btw, do not interpret) are hypocritical on the talk page of the article in question and below. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is scope about how it's done, but in my view WP:FRINGE guides us both to identify the fringe view, and to contextualize it within a mainstream scientific view. If we can also source the view (which I think is held) that OMM is regarded by some DOs as an embarrassing relic that the DO profession would do well to ditch or forget, that would be very helpful in calming things down too I think!. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

All due respect Alexbrn, this is nonsense. I do not have an SPA account. That aside, I think pointing out my admitted potential (yes, potential I said, do not twist words) COI, is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Your edits have not seemed NPOV. Additionally, citing cranial as the reason for OMM being "fringey" (the word is fringy) is failing to take into account that cranial is only one part of OMM and there are many techniques to take into consideration. As an example, if 1 of 10 techniques of a broad modality is proven to not work, does that mean the broad modality itself has been invalidated? No, of course not, the other 9 in this hypothetical example could still have merit. Simply the 1 out of the 10 (an arbitrary number in my example here not intended to reflect any real world values) technique would prove to not have benefit and should be discarded. Now, I have been attempting to engage in reasonable discourse with you, but so far, you've been busy hurling accusations my way instead of addressing the pointed out flaws in the articles you've put into the Wikipedia article (I am not the only one pointing them out by the way). Are you simply going to overlook these serious issues with these articles? I have pointed those out already on the talk page more than once and other editors have agreed. Just another point btw, there are MDs that use OMM albeit not many. There are many valid questions you've yet to answer on the talk page and instead you have simply been attempting to undermine my credibility as an editor rather than engage in civil discussion and answer the questions I have posed to you. I do not see you applying "your reading" of WP:PSCI to all articles in an equitable manner indicating you have biases you are allowing into your editing. Salzberg's article is not reliable just because it comes from Salzberg. As I mentioned on the talk page, and I'll do so here as well, his first article was followed by his second article, which Salzberg wrote, and states that his first article basically jumped the gun, was potentially misleading because of how it was written, and overly harsh. If Salzberg is so reliable, why are you selectively ignoring his second article's critique on his first article? Yes, you have included both articles, but the inclusion of a bad article and the modestly better article after it by the same author saying that article wasn't so good, is not really appropriate. Both articles should not be included. You can be as uneasy as you like, any editor can go and see on the Talk:Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine page that I said numerous times that DOs are not above criticism and that our portrayal of these critiques should use high-quality articles that use the proper language and maintain a neutral view. Ideally, such articles would be newer than Barrett's article (yes, changed topic for a moment). Even if Barrett's article was correct at the time, the article was last updated 10 years ago and is based off even older references. We cannot be certain (AKA we cannot verify WP:Verifiability) that this critique is reflective of the osteopathic medical field as it stands today. Additionally, regarding Dr. Bledsoe, I ask why is his opinion more important than any other physician's opinion? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think there's some points in there. I keep addressing them but obviously am not being understood. So let me try again:

The question of whether OMM/OMT is pseudoscience seems to be a core question for you. It is obvious pseuodoscience, and we have reasonable sources characterizing it as such. You want to argue that because Ernst's systematic review found it to be "unproven" that OMM/OMT is merely "under-researched"; this is however your WP:SYNTHESIS of his results, and special pleading. If something is unproven and yet is still practiced that's pseudoscientific (and, particularly when done to children, unethical quackery to boot - but that's a separate discussion). The fact it's unproven is a consequence of its being pseudoscience, and not some different category that exempts it from being described as such.
You object to QuackWatch because it is "out-of-date". However, we carefully say what the date is ... remember the article is called "Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine" and not "Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine Today". That is one of the differences between an encyclopedia article and a brochure.
You object to Salzberg because one of his articles includes things that we don't mention and because he retracted some of that. However, this surely strengthens the case for the material he did confirm (and which we do include), stating his view that OMT is incredible pseudoscience. The fact the man can correct his mistakes (as any good scientist should) rather makes his ultimate conclusions stronger not weaker. At the very least, Salzberg is a reliable source for Salzberg's view - which is how we present it.
You are not the, that's DrBonesaw. As you say, WP:COI is this issue with you. Oh, and since you raise it, I am happy to state I have no COI whatsoever for this topic.

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(Add) In the light of the above, I have done as MastCell suggested and removed Quackwatch from the lede (while retaining it in the body). And so we have some hard empirical content on OMM - not just opinion - I have also included the 2013 Ernst systematic review with a brief mention of its finding that OMT was unproven. We now have just one sentence of criticism in the lede:

D.O. training and practice has been criticized for its incorporation of a pseudoscientific osteopathic manipulation therapy (OMT) element,^[17][18][19] the effectiveness of which has been found to be unproven.^[20]

I think this is a fair, neutral way of presenting this which satisfies WP:FRINGE yet is done with a light touch. Are we done here?

Where are you getting the idea that OMT is pseudoscience or even highly fringey? If you're really getting this from Salzberg (disregarding that it is essentially an off-the-cuff observation from someone outside the field), it is a dramatic misreading of the source [28]: "Osteopathy started out as little more than pseudoscience [when it was invented] in 1874". Stephen Barrett certainly doesn't say that in his Quackwatch article [29]. MastCell above noted that "I've known D.O.'s who incorporate OMT into their treatment of chronic neck/back pain, for instance, but that hardly seems "fringey". I know hardly anything about OMT, but as far as I can tell it is basically an umbrella term for manipulative therapy. My recollection is that preponderance of evidence shows that spinal manipulation does actually reduce back pain (see e.g. Spinal_manipulation#Back_pain). UPDATE: Wrote this prior to seeing your second post. I partially reverted your edit as it is pretty far from the sources. You need to work on carefully conveying the sources. This is ignoring the fact that using a Forbes blog (really?!) to characterize a major element of one of the largest physician groups (possibly third or fourth?) in the United States as complete pseudoscience is not really ideal. II | (t - c) 06:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The word pseudoscience comes from Bledsoe and Salzberg; Quackwatch says "dubious" but rather than pile in the pejoratives I left that out - I'll have a go at unpicking this in a footnote. This is not characterizing OMM as pseudoscience but stating this is how it has been criticized. Your edit has removed all mention of such criticism from the lede. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(Add) Okay, I've changed this to:

D.O. training and practice has been criticized for its incorporation of a "pseudoscientific" osteopathic manipulation therapy (OMT) element,^[17] the effectiveness of which has been found to be unproven.^[18]

The sourcing to Quackwatch has gone (because it is just confusing/redundant here) and pseudoscience is now in quotation marks to make it crystal clear its in the voice of the critics, not of WP. The note for reference 17 says "for "pseudoscience" see Salzberg (2007) who writes of "pseudoscientific practices", and Bledsoe (2004) who writes that OMM is "based on anecdote or, in some cases, pseudoscience"". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(Add) By the way, I wasn't "dramatically misreading" the Salzberg source. My reference was based on the passage which said "osteopathic colleges offer “extra” training in pseudoscientific practices", and not the text referring to 1874 that you mention. Incidentally, Barratt too has been quoted as mentioning pseudoscience in this article ("The pseudoscience within osteopathy can't compete with the science"). A problem here is that our article on Osteopathic manipulative medicine itself has been a bit of a mess. Once the pseudoscience question is settled there, it should be a lot less problemtaic referencing it from the DO article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

" I keep addressing them but obviously am not being understood." -- It's not that you are being misunderstood, it is that you are being disagreed with…by basically every other editor. Your accusation of WP:SPA was incorrect and uncalled for. The point is that your edits have been lacking NPOV and expose an obvious bias you have to this subject. I'd appreciate not needing to defend myself against your ridiculous claims in the future.DrBonesaw (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

DrBonesaw == contribs == WP:SPA. QED. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that didn't last long. I am a new editor. I have only contributed to this one topic so far. The purpose of my account is not solely intended to contribute to this topic alone. I'm not the only person you have accused of something in these talks, whether it be COI or SPA. Might be time to think about the possibility that people don't agree with your edits in this article. If you are done deflecting now; Any thoughts on my other statement regarding your idea that you've been misunderstood…by nearly every other editor in these talks?DrBonesaw (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I see a couple of editors who want to keep all criticism out of the article; I see other keeping an open mind and discussions proceeding nicely with some give and take of the text. As should happen. We're getting there. I do wonder if there's a bigger issue here maybe, if some doubt that OMM is actually pseudoscientific. If so, it might be worth starting a new thread. I am also becoming intrigued by what is starting to look like a semi-walled garden for a lot of the OMM-related content. But that will have to wait, I need to catch a plane .... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(Add, while waiting to board), also being a WP:SPA or having a WP:COI is not something one is "accused" of, it is just a fact arising out of an editor's circumstances. Neither is necessarily a bad thing. However, it's an aspect which should be considered when measuring consensus. The discussion about Quackwatch has led to it being removed from the lede. The other open issues seem to be to be:

Does WP:FRINGE apply? (my view: yes, but only specifically to OMM/OMT)
Is OMM/OMT pseudoscientifically-based (my view: yes, and I have re-worked the Osteopathic manipulative medicine article so this is now clear, and placed it in the Pseudoscience category and included OMM in our List of topics characterized as pseudoscience)
Should Salzberg be quoted in the D.O. article (my view: it, or something else, should indicate to the reader that the OMM/OMT stuff being taught is a gnerally ineffective/fringe dubious extra, not a "value-add")
Should Bledsoe's complaint that OMM/OMT is a pseudoscientific aspect of D.O. training be included in the D.O. article? (my view: yes - but nobody seems to be objecting to this anyway).

It is true that my view is that OMM/OMT is bollocks (apart from incidental benefits to lower back pain from spinal manipulation). Some aspects - notably Craniosacral therapy - are the most blatant quackery, and our article on that topic says so bluntly. My view however comes from researching the topic and is backed by the sources we are, and should be, using; show me the source that shows that yes, indeed we could treat pancreatitis with dextrous hands-on manipulation and I'll change my view in an instant. In my view there has also been (and is) a POV problem in the coverage of OMM on Wikipedia (including some bad medical source misrepresentation in the OMM article) and this overall problem needs to be addressed in line with our policies and guidelines. This noticeboard is exactly the right place to be discussing that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well there we have it. Your personal view is biased one against OMM/OMT yet you feel there is a "POV Problem in the coverage of OMM on Wikipedia". Have you decided to take it upon yourself to have this article reflect your own POV? It is now obvious why you are using the sources that you are. Any criticism of OMM in the lede seems inappropriate. The article's central theme is doctor of osteopathic medicine, not specifically OMM (there are many physicians with both medical doctoral degrees that are trained in and practice OMM now a days). If OMM criticism in this article is necessary, the correct placement for it would be where you currently have the Quackwatch quote from 2003. However, up-to-date/accurate sources (which you are not choosing to use) should fill this roll. Try finding sources that do not lack credibility. Instead you have chosen to use the highly controversial Salzberg article where he refers to DOs as ODs (optometrists); is titled "Osteopaths vs Doctors"--which itself demonstrates a lack of understanding of osteopathic medicine and doctors of osteopathic medicine in general; and the Quackwatch article that compares DOs to medical doctors--which you directly quoted and makes no sense. These are not good sources for an encyclopedic article. Including these is a disservice to the readers as they display incredible inaccuracies and extremely uninformed statements.DrBonesaw (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, allow me to try again since you're obviously not understanding my points. I understand yours perfectly well. You think that OMM/OMT is "obvious" pseudoscience, and that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion like anyone else is entitled to that. I am questioning the validity of your "reliable" resources regarding the Salzberg article and Barrett article. That is my main point. I do not care to discuss whether OMM/OMT is under-researched vs. pseudoscience now as that is not the issue at hand, the issue at hand is if the articles you have put into the article should be there or not. Please stick to that and only that. The credibility of the articles you are proposing for inclusion is undermined by their age, bias, and use of inappropriate nomenclature (as in Barrett's article); Salzberg's article, though recent, was wrong and/or misleading (by his own admission) on several counts and also used inappropriate nomenclature (this is one aspect he failed to correct or admit to in his second piece). I also hope that sweeping generalization of seeing a few editors attempting to keep any criticism out of the article was not aimed in my direction since I've repeatedly stated that criticism from high-quality, recent sources that use proper nomenclature is certainly acceptable for inclusion in the article. As for saying that I'm synthesizing, I think you're doing a bit of synthesizing of your own. I think Bonesaw has a point that most editors have disagreed, at least in part, with your edits on this matter and that you have been ignoring that (and failing to acknowledge when editors, including myself, actually find some common ground with you and try to collaborate with you). As I've stated before, your opinion about OMM/OMT is not what is important here (though thank you for openly admitting to your obvious bias), the opinions that matter are the opinions of experts in the medical field-best obtained from recent, peer-reviewed academic journal articles, thoroughly reviewed science textbooks, etc. Additionally, the way you've worded the lede is unsupported by your reference-Ernst's review is about the use of OMT for pediatric conditions, not all conditions, so making a general statement that OMT is unproven and using that as a reference is inappropriate. You can say that a 2013 review by Ernst concluded the efficacy of OMT for pediatric conditions is unproven, but that's really all. The same goes for the statement made in the body of the article-using Ernst's review to make a broad sweeping statement that OMT is unproven is not supported by the reference you gave-only that it is unproven currently for pediatric conditions. The fact that Salzberg only partially retracted his first article is not evidence that what he did not retract is correct. He still used inappropriate nomenclature in that article just as an example. If I didn't address some of your above points, I'll come back to them as I feel this is a long enough post and my internet connection is poor. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right that the Ernst reference on its own does not show OMM to be generally ineffective, but we wikilink also to the Osteopathic manipulative medicine article which shows it to ineffective for everything it's been independently investigated for (except the incidental benefits for back pain arising from spinal manipulation). That OMM article is also used as a "main" article in one of the sections, so its content is assumed to be implicit here. We could of course, copy all the references across, but that seems a bit clumsy. Maybe it's best not to mention Ernst and let the wikilink do the work of validating the statement about ineffectiveness?
TBH, I think the fussing about nomenclature to be all a bit precious. People outside the osteopathy-universe misuse these terms all them time. It's no big deal (except, evidently, to some osteopaths). It's not a reason to dismiss an article.
I've addressed the question about "out-of-date" references above, and won't repeat myself.
I think we are bound by WP:PSCI policy here. If (as the Osteopathic manipulative medicine article strongly states) OMM is pseuodoscience, then we can't mention that it is a distinctive feature of D.O. training without calling out that pseuoscience. There are a number of sources calling OMM pseudoscience in the OMM article. Do you like them better than Salzberg and Quackwatch? This is however the crux. If there are good counter-sources showing that OMM is not generally ineffective pseuodoscience, then produce them! At the moment it looks to me that we should be treating OMM the same as we treat homeopathy, chiropractic, and magnetic healing (which coincidentally, is what Still called his method before inventing the osteopathy name). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"TBH, I think the fussing about nomenclature to be all a bit precious. People outside the osteopathy-universe misuse these terms all them time. It's no big deal (except, evidently, to some osteopaths). It's not a reason to dismiss an article"--You are seriously losing credibility here. First of all, this isn't about osteopaths (or optometrists as the Salzberg article you cited terms them); this article is about doctors of osteopathic medicine/osteopathic physicians--medical doctors. Secondly, you obviously have no intention of making this encyclopedic article the best and most up to date article that it can be with your edits. Nomenclature is immensely important in educating readers on the topics here. If you are correct and people outside the osteopathy-universe misuse these terms all the time, you must be interested in perpetuating that problem. Since you've recognized this, it should be your editorial duty to take action to correct it with your edits…not merely dismiss it as a bit precious and no big deal. It is becoming blatantly obvious that you have poor intentions when it comes to making this article an unbiased, factual resource for others.DrBonesaw (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This was explained to you at the top of the thread, with a supporting quotation from a D.O. (who should know!) -- the historic terms are still in use. Yet again, lots of sand being kicked up but no attempt to address the "crux" I mentioned above. Show me the independent sources evaluating OMM if you think the choices I've made need to supplemented or replaced. 05:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This was incorrectly explained to me at the top of the thread. Either way, the most modern terms are what should be used as we have the ability to update these articles with the most current information. Dismissing the importance of nomenclature in an encyclopedic article as "no big deal" as you have done, shows a serious lack of interest in constructively contributing to this article. The point of my argument regarding nomenclature isn't as petty as you make it seem--the sources you have used refer to osteopathic physicians as ODs (optometrists) and also as non medical doctors. Both of these errors are far beyond the issue of the use of historical nomenclature. On that note, these talks began questioning the validity/quality of your sources/edits. The consensus of most editors in these talks has been, for the most part, that they are poor contributions or that they shouldn't be included. With the feedback you have garnered in these talks; if you feel as though a criticism of OMM needs to be mentioned in this article, you should research other, quality replacement sources. In the mean time there should be reverts of your current edits, otherwise the voice of your fellow editors was in vain and this was a fruitless discussion.DrBonesaw (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I detect no such consensus; Wikipedia is not a vote and voices arguing without substance or out-of-line with Wikipedia policy and guidance can be discounted. Arguments at the tip of this triangle will impress me more. There was a mood that mentioning Quackwatch in the lede might be undue - so it's been removed. Some editors stated their views earlier in the thread and have not re-commented to alter them, others are probably still watching and deciding (with no doubt increasing levels of exasperation at the lack of WP:FOC). What I have argued, repeatedly, is that WP:POLICY gives us no choice but to (at least) mention the pseudoscience aspect of OMM when OMM is raised. We can't opt of of policy, even by super-strong consensus, so the crux (to say YET again) is whether anybody can produce sources to contradict those we're referencing that say OMM is pseudoscientific. From my searching it seems the material in praise of OMM is pretty much confined to the Osteo. community. Classic WP:FRINGE stuff in other words. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course you do not detect such consensus. Recall that this discussion is split between here and the main article's talk page. Anyhow, I would love to focus on what you believe to be the central topical point (the pseudoscientific aspect of OMM) when you actually provide quality sources that present it. Until this happens, I feel obligated to make it clear that the sources you have currently inserted into this article only detract from it's quality. I actually have no issue with mentioning that certain aspects of OMM are "pseudoscientific" as long as quality sources are used in the process and it's presentation is in an appropriate section of the article. Hence my call to revert until more reasonable sources can be furnished. DrBonesaw (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous that you do not "sense" most editors disagreeing at least in part with your edits. You do not get to select which voices are "without substance" or "out of line". Wikipedia is a community and there is something to be said of the input of multiple voices for a given issue. Multiple comments repeating their disagreement with your edits is not necessary, it needs to be said only once. If you're arguing about a lack of focus, look at yourself. I've been constantly trying to keep you on point as you insist on discussing other aspects than the central question (as you just did in your above post). Just because "praise" of OMM is limited to the osteopathic community (just for the sake of argument) does not mean it is invalid. If any practice has proponents and those proponents have rigorous, peer-reviewed academic papers to substantiate their claims, just because the claims or papers come from them does not make it invalid. I'm not stating that's the case here, but your discussion of it being from the "osteo" community is not really important. I also think it's a bit ridiculous that you're still maintaining that you have no COI. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That is an interesting allegation of COI. Do you have any evidence to back it up with? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 07:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

break

You need to study WP:FRINGE. If (as you now acknowledge?) OMM is pseudoscientific, and (as I say) promoted as valuable only in fringe journals and other poor sources then WP:PARITY needs to be taken into account. We only need a comparably weighty source for the non-fringe view. As the guidance says: "the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals". The same principle applies for claims of the general effectivenes of OMM as a system of medicine. Salzberg's Forbes piece, since he is notable commentator on science and medicine, is a good counterweight to the only poorly-sourcable claims for OMM. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The Salzberg article in question is NOT a good counterweight to anything. This specific article is garbage. Just because he has a reputation doesn't mean that everything he says is correct…and in this case it most certainly is not. As previously mentioned, this article received immense negative feedback…so much so that he released a follow up article/apology. He refers to the wrong profession (optometrists) and the article has many other problems with it's content that I've already noted making it unsuitable for this purpose. No mention of the Quackwatch quote that compares DOs to medical doctors implying DOs aren't medical doctors? It appears that you may be adding a bit of your personal bias (which you already admitted to in these talks) into this article. Also, what are you using your edits to comparably counterbalance in this article? I saw nothing in this article that even discussed the general effectiveness of OMM…until you started in on it with your one sided edits! Earlier in these talks it seemed as if you wanted to include these edits about the effectiveness of OMM because you felt that the article made OMM seem like a useful modality (added benefit) of osteopathic training for physicians? I do not see where you got this from--the original article simply made mention that it was extra training and a minority of DOs actually use it in practice. However you keep adding edits (what are we up to now, 3 or 4?) that downplay its effectiveness and label it pseudoscience. Where is the counterbalance that you are talking about? You are taking away from what looked like a NPOV article before you touched it. I understand that you feel that wikipedia obligates us to mention the pseudoscientific aspects of OMM. I never argued against this. My problem is with the way in which you are going about it. "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is"--When I studied WP:FRINGE as you suggested; this was the first thing I read. IMO you seem to be the one who needs to take another look at it and revert your posts until you can follow suit. Your constant addition of edits claiming OMM is pseudoscience seems to be exactly what WP:FRINGE advises against. Again, my position on this talk is that your edits should not be included until you can find sources of acceptable quality for this purpose and/or provide these "poorly-sourcable claims for OMM" as a counter weight thus preserving NPOV. DrBonesaw (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Fringe journals according to whom Alexbrn? You? Provide some high-quality, reliable sources calling these journals "fringe journals" if you please.

See the discussion further down this page to see how fringe journals are sniffed-out in practice. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 01:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that OMM is mentioned as part of the professional training in a higher degree gives it credence enough to need its fringey nature to be mentioned. We're obviously not going to include any of the material making false specific medical claims about OMM because that material would fail MEDRS, we can however give a good general description of what OMM is and what its claims are (and, in its articles here, it is described in detail). If Wikipedia is going to have an article about what a D.O. is, it needs to mention a chief distinguishing characteristic of that qualification (OMM), and it needs to mention that this is problematic thing which has drawn criticism. What might be useful is to add something saying that the D.O.s themselves see OMM as junk and discard it as they progress (Barrett and others say this); however, the material I've read on that seems unclear, with some saying the younger generation are keen on it again (?). So I'm not sure about sourcing/describing this apsect yet.

Anyway, since at last we're making progress and have agreed in principle that the pseudoscientific aspects of OMM need to be mentioned, what would be your preferred way of doing that? There are more sources on the OMM article that might apply; however I do think Salzberg is pertinent because (1) it's recent and (2) it is specifically about the training. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Too broad a statement to say DOs "see OMM as junk". Bledsoe believes so and only a minority of DOs practice it, but you cannot say that without adequate sourcing. That just sounds like your own opinion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion no longer belongs here, but should be continued on the article talk page. Of course, this is just my opinion, but all this to and fro will eventually be lost to the article archives. Good idea or not? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think so, if there's agreement WP:FRINGE applies then applying it is a detail that can be thrashed out on the article Talk page. There were some voices earlier suggesting FRINGE didn't apply - can we take their recent silence as consent with the direction of the discussion. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's our place to assume silence means agreement. Wikipedia editors are often busy with real life or other things. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

See WP:BLP/N#Deepak Chopra. Complaints about conflict of WP:BLP with WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not again. There seems a concerted effort to erase criticism from this article. Strangely, since the article is actually quite "soft" in its reporting of negative views. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that such articles require a lot of research and watching. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a lot on my plate but if I get the chance I will expand the criticism parts of that biography. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Order of St. Eugene

I'm querying here as a sanity check before I start removing some questionable external links.

I've been cleaning up & updating articles related to the Empire of Trebizond, & came across a couple of external links to the web page of this group. (Can be found here, for the curious.) It started setting off warning noises the first page I read: "All Dynastic Orders awarded today are as a result of some type of service to the Royal Family or as a gift by the Royal Prince Grand Master. A number of months ago, the Royal Prince Grand Master of the Order of Saint Eugene of Trebizond indicated that he would open our Order to select Americans whom he felt would qualify for Knighthood. He is willing to accept individuals on their own merit. This Order includes both men and women." Then I looked at the history page, where the individuals claim to be descendants of the last Emperor of Trebizond, & thus descendants of one of the major Byzantine dynasties (viz. the Comnenos).

The problem with this is that after he conquered the Empire of Trebizond, Mehmet II executed almost of the male members of the Comneni (one boy, aged 3 was spared, converted to Islam, no known children), & the distaff branches were married into various royal families with little interest in living in Europe with one or two exceptions (are there any living representative of the medieval royal houses of Serbia or Georgia?). Okay, every royal house has dubious ties to famous ancestors, why should this group be any different? And maybe, despite everything, this family has an old claim that has been politely tolerated by the Powers That Be & which is known to everyone but me.

Then I encountered this spit-take: this family's claim to Imperial Purple blood "was claimed by and was confirmed upon the person of Porfyrogennitos Prince Jean Theodore IV Lascaris-Comnenos-Palaeologos by the Roman Senate; Act 16-V-1525, Lib. Decr., 1515/1526, folio 142."

I am no expert of Roman Law, but I know enough to know that acts of the Roman Senate (assuming we're talking about the original one, founded around 753 BC) did not tag their acta by ordinal & page/folio numbers. I'm willing to bet that the Order of St. Eugene of Trbizond didn't exist 20 years ago, let alone before 1900.

To repeat myself, is this a fair conclusion to draw? Or is this actually some minor honorary order that has been around for a while, & is recognized by experts in European Heraldry & Nobility? Or should I take my question to another forum? -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard of this particular group, and you are right that it doesn't pass the smell test. The whole thing about "indicated that he would open our Order to select Americans" is classic 'make the Yanks feel self-important so they will give you their dollars'. This is not the language of legitimate orders, and this one was apparently made up by the self-styled Lascarid claimant as an auxiliary to his claim (and a source of cash). It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between the various obscure scions of minor houses who trump up claims to elevated titles and court royalty-worshipers for the sake of their egos and bank accounts, and the outright fraudsters who invent for themselves connections to minor houses and trump up claims to elevated titles in order to court royalty-worshipers for the sake of their egos and bank accounts. In this case the pedigree in question was savaged more than 50 years ago, but the legend goes on. See [30]. Agricolae (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for the response. And chivalriorders.org is a fascinating website, although their navigation is broken. I also see that Cplakidas was WP:BOLD & deleted one of the external links with a reference to Eugenio Lascorz. Based on everything, I'll assume the Order is fringe & non-notable, & delete with prejudice all such external links I encounter. -- llywrch (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This all seems sensible, but I think the "Roman Senate" was still going in 1525, as the city council under heavy Papal direction. Michelangelo built them a nice Palazzo Senatorio some 20 years later, now part of the Capitoline Museums. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Maury Island incident

Arguably one of our worst UFO articles. Tells a convoluted UFOlogy POV tale of man reporting a UFO sighting forced to recant his claims under threat of retaliation by men in black with ties to a military-Industrial conspiracy and JFK assassination cover-up. I think it should be pared down to only what reliable sources say. Or am I merely overreacting? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

pare away! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The closest I can find to a reliable source [31] dismisses it as a hoax. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I've since stubified it. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Amen Clinic and Daniel Amen

More eyes needed -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Conveying the acceptance level of a fringe idea in the scientific community

The Astrology article says, "Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no validity or explanatory power for describing the universe." The reference cited does not mention "scientific community" or "rejected", but says (I presume this is this is what's being cited), "But most scientists as well as researchers in humanities (sociologists) are strongly opposed to all forms of astrology." Despite this imprecision, the wording seems to have gone unchallenged for some time.

On the other hand, the framing of the acceptance level of "morphic resonance" has been under frequent challenge. There were objections to using "rejected" because there were no sources saying "reject". Then there was a challenge to using "scientific community" because sources did not say "scientific community". And numerous other challenges. Not long ago the "widely" in "widely rejected" was challenged, though not at the Sheldrake article or talk page. There seemed to be agreement that "widely" was a WP:WEASEL word or WP:OR.

I recently set out to construct an unassailable sentence by using the exact terms of a given source: "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash." I translate this to: "Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis has been dismissed by almost all scientists who have examined it". Of all the versions so far, that seems the least controversial. Not so fast. The very same person who raised the complaint about "widely" completely removes the whole paragraph of criticism in the lead containing this new sentence.

One reason for posting to FTN is that I'm trying to figure out if there is something about the clientele that Sheldrake attracts. For example another challenge to "scientific community" was made on the grounds that "there is no comprehensive list of scientists who reject Sheldrake's work." Yet homeopathy says "the scientific community regards homeopathy as nonsense" without any mention of "scientific community" in the source. That this has been an ongoing problem suggests that we may have a clientele that cannot be satisfied, and I'd like to get feedback on that idea. Maybe there is a fringe FAQ which addresses this, but I couldn't find it. vzaak (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The closest we have to what you are proposing is found at WP:ITA. I spent a number of months haggling over the wording of that section which used to be called "particular attribution". There is a tendency for Fringe Pushers (for lack of a better term) to want to cite broadly applicable criticism to individual critics and then describe the fringe theories using the opposite framing so that the idea is described without attribution to the person who made the claim. In reality, the framing needs to be flipped so that mainstream evaluation is described without attribution to one particular source while the fringe ideas are tied directly to who is making the peculiar claim. In particular, fringe theories need to be framed in relation to their WP:PROMINENCE. In other words, if only a handful of people say, "electricity doesn't exist and Faraday was a fraud", such an idea would necessarily need to be attributed to the specific person or persons making the claim. To say, "the scientific community accepts electricity as an extant phenomenon" and then citing a basic physics text is appropriate framing since the source reliably presents ideas which are generally accepted and mainstream. I would be happy to workshop a section on "framing" at WT:FRINGE, if you think it would be a good idea. It would stand well with other principles like WP:PARITY and WP:ONEWAY. jps (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a good observation about flipped framing. Perhaps it would be politically incorrect, but I think the most helpful thing would be a "guide to fringers" that would for example include the scenario you described. "When fringers do A, you should point out B; when they do C, mention D" etc, because the patterns are there. It would also mention this noticeboard, which I didn't know about when I first started. At one point I had gathered together 17 references in order to show fringers that, indeed, Sheldrake is not accepted by the scientific community (still unsuccessful, of course).

Another politically tenuous issue is dealing with scientific illiteracy/incompetence. WP:INCOMPETENCE is fine as a general policy, but fringers have a peculiar mix of being both educated and ignorant; technically competent but otherwise out of their element. This is very hard to address. There is one person on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake who is the epitome of this, a Dunning-Kruger effect cranked to 11. Perhaps fringers should go through a checklist of basic scientific ideas and how they relate to WP policy, and if they disagree then they should be informed that they have a problem with WP policies themselves, which obviously can't be addressed on a fringe article talk page. vzaak (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:FLAT? LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that increases my faith in humanity a little bit. While in retrospect I should have found it on my own, the essay is listed last in WP:FRINGE and the title doesn't reflect the content very well. I've created a redirect WP:dealing with fringe advocates. Maybe another abbreviation would be suitable as well, like FRINGEPUSH or something. vzaak (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:CHEESE too. Alas, only essays. jps (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Dunning and Kruger and or illiteracy/incompetence are actually in play, but more likely, mischief. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think a combination of both, since he advocates for Sheldrake outside of WP and is negative toward "skeptics". (There's no outing here since his WP username matches the name he uses elsewhere.) vzaak (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that someone who has expressed an intention to conduct a social experiment on the Talk pages of controversial Wikipedia articles might be best ignored rather than fed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, anyone considered going to AE about the admission by the tumbleman about being a troll? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Their current activity at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake appears to be a continuation of their mission which entails provoking conflict on various internet fora while outwardly not violating any TOS policies in order to observe and record consequent results. I think WP:NOTTHERAPY and perhaps WP:ROPE applies here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Somatics: a zombie article?

I nominated this article for deletion earlier this year, and the result was that is was deleted by default[32]. Then, by a process I don't really understand, it sprang back into life. Here it stands today, largely consisting of meandering unsourced content, treating a non-notable topic, and garnering an increasing list of dubious-looking material for "Further reading". What to do? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd contact Mark Arsten, who closed it as delete, to see if it was ever actually deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The AfD was closed as a WP:SOFTDELETE. Ronhjones then contested the deletion, and Somatics came back from the dead. I think it's a bad idea to have articles full of content like this:

Most working methods in somatics identify new capacities for movement potential and offer bio-creative resolutions to functional and developmental issues. Many approaches utilize neuro-muscular repatterning and tissue re-organization, as well as directed intention and touch, to facilitate changes at the deepest levels of experience, even utilizing cellular and embryological information to achieve change in the "mind of the tissue" – another concept central to somatics work

...but I'm sure we can work something out. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, basically since no one other than the nominator supported deletion I closed it as I would have closed a PROD, i.e. can be recreated at any time. It can be re-nominated for deletion at any time. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem was the nobody voted, even after 3 weeks. I think a general problem here is that sometimes off-the-wall fringe-y articles don't fit well into the AfD categories. I wish there was something like a "fringe articles" category ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a different problem, which systematically affects low-notability Fringe articles; that the sources, although probably independent, are themselves somewhat fringey and do not take a "mainstream" view of the topic. So, we have a topic with apparent notability, but it's impossible to build neutral content.

I think the GNG is a great benchmark - one of the consequences is that its requirements (substantial coverage by independent sources) ensure you have a really strong basis for your content. However, that can fail with fringey topics, so we're left with many topics where you can make a good case that the subject passes the GNG but you can't actually make it into a decent article. bobrayner (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I undeleted it as a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_100#Somatics - thus it was a contested soft delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have found that the best way to deal with articles on topics that are "notable within a fringe community" (but not really notable outside of that community) is to merge them, rather than to try outright deletion. Such topics can often be considered "note-worthy" if placed in the proper context... ie they should be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but may not rate a stand alone article. I am not sure what article Somatics would be merged into (not my area of expertise)... but I suggest it as an alternative. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Anton Parks

I get the feeling this is acting a bit like a coatrack, but I'm not sure what to do about it. Needs some context, at least. Help? jps (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Is he actually notable? A quick search turned up lots of fringe websites, but only a couple of brief passing mentions in legit sources that were compiling a list of beliefs related to Zecharia Sitchin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hard to say. He might be the Giorgio A. Tsoukalos of France. Can't tell. jps (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Coverage of his ideas are cited to Nexus (magazine) and two French mags roughly equivalent to "Secret Conspiracies" and "History's Mysteries", they hardly seem like objective sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Parks. jps (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Conversations with God

These articles could use some serious editorial work. Most of the content is sourced to fringe material and credulous commentators.

jps (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia proudly lists the "modern" texts that were channeled.

Lovingly curated, it seems. How should this be described properly? How is it verified that these texts are channeled?

jps (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I look at this every now and again, and despair. If it were a list of texts that claimed to be channeled that would be a bit better; but even then there'd be a lot of work to tidy this list up. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have never seen it before, and wish to never see it again. it's ... awful. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a List article that houses a number of other List articles: Timeline of Channeling, List of entities and mediums, List of works Inspired by channeling, plus 25 mini-bios that are either non-notable individuals or POV forks of existing bios. Needs to be broken up and cleaned up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added a notability template to the article, and have suggested on the talk page that if the required separate notability isn't established soon, that maybe it be broken up into pages whose notability can be established. Considering that a lot of these channeled texts seem to be rather seriously disagreeing among themselves regarding a lot of things, I think it would probably be more reasonable to have the lists as specific sections of works on individuals, or perhaps as separate lists of channeled texts by channeller, or channelling group, or whatever. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fringe squared: fringe theories about Wikipedia's treatment of fringe theories

Last week someone wrote up a conspiracy theory about the Rupert Sheldrake article. Sheldrake himself has now bought into it, and has expanded upon it. I've written a response. I don't know to what extent we should bother with this craziness. Had I noticed it sooner I might have tried to mitigate confusion. But perhaps there would be no stopping the crazy train in any case. Would it be appropriate to post my response near the top of the Sheldrake talk page? Or just ignore? The concern is that a response may just lead to more conspiracy, etc etc. vzaak (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would suggest ignoring it. I would see little benefit in trying to reason with conspiracy theorists, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, is there any chance you can email or inform Susan Gerbic about this? Her Wikipedia account is Sgerbic (talk · contribs). Like you have written in your response these woo believers have got confused and now they have mislead Sheldrake himself who has brought into the conspiracy theory and published a nutty article about it on his blog. As far as I know Gerbic and The Guerrilla Skepticism team have not been anywhere near the Sheldrake article and are nothing to do with it, they have never edited that article. The conspiracy theory started with Craig Weiler (a self-proclaimed psychic) and has no basis in fact. Dan skeptic (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I've not seen any of the guerilla sceptics editing that article (their edits generally tend to be uncontroversial for the most part). One can't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory :) IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way I notified sgerbic, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason I was concerned enough to reply is that Sheldrake may possibly not be making an empty statement about financial backers, in which case this crazy train could potentially arrive in consequences-ville. I'm also astounded that Weiler (1) thanked me and knows I meant well; (2) turns around and says I'm part of a "mafia" on his blog; (3) insults his readers by assuming nobody will look at the talk page which exonerates me -- and apparently nobody has. vzaak (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It really is just an empty statement. I agree with IRWolfie; ignore. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy-mongers love it when those they accuse of conspiracy respond to their charges. It allows them to keep the "story" alive with a series of counter accusations and rebuttals. Agree with IRWolfie, best to ignore it. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What is going on at the moment is just an extension of a well known troll's bizarre social media / conflict resolution experimentation, as I have noted on the Sheldrake Talk page. He isn't after resolution of any issues, as the conflict he creates is the effect he requires - he will be pleased to see this section of this page for example. The disturbance and disquiet he foments is his goal. He has been trolling the whole world for some years. Ignore is the best way. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 16:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course we can't reach the hard-core conspiracy-minded, but for the rest there is essential information that they're missing. I wish there were some way to reach out to regular-minded people who may read Sheldrake's blog and think there is at least a hint of truth, when there isn't. Maybe I'm too involved because my WP name is being slandered in a truly bizarre fashion. vzaak (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Everyone is right, I was wrong. There's no sense addressing the crazy train. I've flagged my response for deletion. No more crazy train on Wikipedia. vzaak (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Unflag your response vzaak (talk) as it is a worthwhile read for those who don't know the background, and explains events quite well, just don't worry about the whole affair. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As could have been predicted, it was vandalized by ever greater crazy. The crazy was removed, but now that the crazy is in the history, it will add to even more crazy. I don't think WP should get involved with the crazy. vzaak (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it with a protection request. I'm not going to interact with the crazy, so I'll just hope it gets protected before the crazy tries again. vzaak (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not much of a conspiracy theory - it's actually based on the editors behaviors and agenda on the page. I think the reason editors are assuming that vzaak and others are apart of the GSM is because they appear to be editing with the exact same agenda as the GSM. which appears to many to be that the skeptical POV is more important than the NPOV, and that's a reasonable concern. Plus, clearly you all co-ordinate together like can be evidenced here. That the fact that the GSM is on wikipedia is of course not a conspiracy, they are quite open about it. So it's a reasonable association.

The GSM is not the problem, what is the problem is when editors appear to edit a page, wiki lawyer WP policy to support a Skeptical POV above all else, avoid reaching consensus, avoid direct questions, bully and intimidate editors, and most importantly, absolutely fail to deliver verifiable sources based on facts and use personal opinions as reasoned arguments on a BLP. As for conspiracy theories, I would check this talk discussion and references to a 'troll with a social media experiment who fosters global disturbance as his goal' as a good candidate for a proper debunking. Always a good policy to be skeptical about our own ridiculous ideas just as much as we are skeptical about anyone else's. Work reasonably here guys, we just want facts and reasoned arguments - if your not GSM, none of you seem to be contributing to the spirit of WP on that page regardless and if you are GSM, you're really making them look bad. The Tumbleman (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman you keep talking about policies of Wikipedia but I believe you have misunderstood some of them. You have repeatedly claimed that Sheldrake's ideas are not fringe. I haven't been on Wikipedia very long and I don't claim to be an expert but I think I understand it better than yourself. You seem to be wanting every article to be entirely "neutral" on paranormal topics, for example if it was up to you, you would have creationism without any critical coverage. Let's say there was 200 scientific references describing creationism as pseudoscience and only 4 fringe references claiming it was science... your kind of reasoning seems to be saying present a "neutral" point of view by giving both sides equal weight but that doesn't work because the over-all majority of the sources label it as pseudoscience. This is the same for the Sheldrake article. Do you not see this? There is over-whelming references which describe Sheldrake's views as pseudoscience but you claim everyone of these is biased from a skeptical agenda. You may think you are improving the article, but I really don't see how you can. Dan skeptic (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan skeptic I am working on the page to keep a NPOV. If I misunderstand something, I am open to be corrected. PLEASE correct me on the talk page, I keep asking for it. However if I misunderstand something, why do none of the editors on this list, who are clearly co-ordinating with each other with an agenda that is virtually identical to GSM, simply respond to my questions, explain your sources, etc? That would seem like the reasonable thing to do. Instead, when editors here are faced with a question, or a reasoned argument in relationship to WP, they don't provide reasoned arguments, they put scrutiny on me as an individual and try to get me blocked or banned? I have stated over and over that I am agnostic towards sheldrake's theories. I am fascinated by the debate Sheldrake causes, and have been following the debate since TEDX controversy. I am familiar with the philosophical arguments and wanted to help make his page better. I have repeatedly requested to make a consensus. I have not even edited on the page yet, I have been making all of my arguments in the TALK section seeking to find consensus on the points I raise. Focusing on an editor, revealing an identity, talking about an editor on a talk page about a past history, etc etc all of these are against wiki guidelines. If your arguments are so solid, then you should be able to be consistent with them on the talk page. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

My ears pricked-up at "clearly co-ordinating with each other". If that's going on it needs to be surfaced and the miscreants dealt with. Please provide the evidence. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Men in Black

The above is a "conspiracy theory article" and so attracts its fair share of bizarre and fringe stuff at the best of times. But today an IP has decided to add information cited directly to www.lawofone.info which is covered here as The Law of One (Ra material). I reverted the initial unexplained addition which was then reverted by the IP.

My questions are: Are we now considereing this "source" reliable enough to support the inclusion of material here? Does this conspiracy theory within a conspiracy theory deserve inclusion at all? Shouldn't we have secondary sources to verify that this is a significant enough a part of this "material" for inclusion in the article? Would be good to have extra eyes in the short term, more contributions in the longer term. Stalwart111 13:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, the "source" in question is just an e-commerce site designed to sell books. It's also a WP:PRIMARY source, even if we decide it is reliable. Stalwart111 13:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As used... I think it qualifies as a "reliable". The source is Primary... being used to support a statement about what a particular group of fringe proponents believe. When it comes to supporting statements about what a group of people believe, the most reliable sources are primary sources written by the believers themselves. Of course, how we phrase this is important... the reader needs something to tell them: We are now telling you what fringe proponents believe... Wikipedia is not saying the beliefs are true. We do this by directly attributing the belief (saying, for example: "According to the fringe conspiracy website Lawofone.info, the Men in Black are blah blah blah. <cite website saying this>")

That said... reliability is not the be-all-and-end-all of inclusion. There is a more important question that needs to be asked: should this specific article mention what this specific group of fringe proponents believe? We need to examine how common the viewpoint expressed on the Lawofone website is within the context of other MIB fringe proponents. If their take on the Men in Black represents beliefs that many fringe proponents share, then it is worth noting in the article. If, on the other hand, that website represents a "fringe of the fringe" outlier... views that are not shared by the majority of MIB fringe proponents... then (per WP:UNDUE) it is not worth noting in the article. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with Blueboar above. The questions which come to mind here to me are basically about, as he indicated, WEIGHT concerns in this article. To the best of my knowledge, at this point, one of the few ways I can think of to maybe try to resolve that is to see what amount of attention it is given in reliable secondary sources, and generally the most reliable on subjects like these are those which are in some way "encyclopedic," because their content can in most really "encyclopedic" sources be among the best indicators of weight to give such subtopics. I think I have access to a few, and will try to get ahold of them over the next week, but it probably won't be until Thursday at the earliest that I will be able to report back with anything. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Just looked at the source in question and I get the distinct impression that "www.lawofone" is an amateur enthusiast site and not an authoritative or notable resource that represents collective beliefs about the topic. A widely cited and objective academic source like this one would be preferable to help fill out the article, I imagine. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Blueboar, John Carter and LuckyLouie for your thoughts (and for your action on the article itself Louie). I find myself generally in agreement with all of you and you have each expanded on concerns I had myself. I suppose, from the outset, my concern was that there is a distinct lack of secondary sources that provide coverage of the subjects that the The Law of One covers. Probably enough to make the subject itself notable, but possibly not enough to justify inclusion of Law of One-related material in other articles. Even in the context of the Law Of One material, Men in Black seems to have only been mentioned (channelled) in passing. If it were a substantial part of that material it might be a different story. But surely we shouldn't be expected to provide the Law of One's take on every subject mentioned in passing during the channelling sessions? The material discusses the Pyramids of Giza, The Ten Commandments and the Belt of Orion extensively - surely we aren't expected to provide the Law Of One's "unique" (fringe) take on each of those subjects? Stalwart111 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Might want to fix the "Explanations" section, told from the perspective of John Keel, with a Military-CIA conspiracy listed as plausible. (I think this article is a holdover from the bad old days of WikiProject Paranormal when articles were set up to give equal validity to supernatural and mundane explanations.) LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Richard M. Dolan

Can anybody find some WP:FRINGE#Independent sources about this fellow?

jps (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Independent? Questionable, but I found a few books that either reference his book like this, this and this. Whether any of that is sufficient is a matter of debate. Each author is clearly a believer in the Dolan philosophy and the publishers aren't exactly the Cambridge University Press. Stalwart111 03:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The internet is for fringe...

Both of these articles could use some clean-up, at the very least. Some sources that firmly establish their notability would be even better.

jps (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Fringe theorists on the Rupert Sheldrake

I am real sorry to have to raise this again but some parapsychologists and fringe proponents have turned up on the talkpage on the Rupert Sheldrake article. As we have discussed previously a self described psychic Craig Weiler (talk · contribs) on a blog has promoted a crazy conspiracy theory that an "atheist skeptic" group called GSM has highjacked the article to oppress Sheldrake. [33], unfortunately Sheldrake himself has fallen for this lie and has posted a huge rant on his blog about it which has attracted a lot of attention. This has then been spammed around the internet on various new age and paranormal forums as seen here [34] [35] which has attracted various paranormal believers.

I personally don't think Craig Weiler should be editing Wikipedia, for example on his post here he claims he is setting up some sort of online petition to damage Wikipedia [36] on that same page users from this board have been mentioned and various "psychic" editors are saying they are going to revert stuff, he has also been attacking Wikipedia editors here and asking other psychic believers to come over to Wikipedia and revert people on the Sheldrake article. [37].

The user Tumbleman (talk · contribs) (also a psychic believer and has close connections to Sheldrake) continues to troll the talk page of the Sheldrake article claiming that Sheldrake is a biologist and not a parapsychologist etc. He's still promoting the conspiracy theory that GSM have highjacked the article. Tumbleman also deleted some of my comments on his IP address, he then denied that it was him and says he may of been hacked by someone (I can't make sense of that). There's also another user Annalisa Ventola (talk · contribs) a parapsychologist who has done personal interviews with Sheldrake and has supported his theories all over the internet.

If you check the edit history of this user, it seems she got into trouble back in 2007 for promoting parapsychology and removing skeptical sources. There's also another user Iantresman (talk · contribs) who was topic-banned for defending Immanuel Velikovsky's pseudoscience and deleting skeptical references a few years ago. So what has happened is all these paranormal believers have teamed up are supporting each other and then claiming their POV has consensus. I am not sure what can be done about this. It may be best to ignore it, it's clear that one of these users is a definite troll looking for a reaction. I will stay away from the article talk-page for a while. Dan skeptic (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a topic ban for Tumbleman (talk · contribs) would be beneficial to constructing the article as then we might be able to talk rationally on the talk page without getting into the same arguments about his bizarre idea that Sheldrake's work does not fall under criteria WP:FRINGE#1 and WP:FRINGE#2. He has failed to edit the article at all, and doesn't edit any other articles. However, if we do this I'm sure that we'll get more accusations of running a conspiracy and "censoring" the article.

The consensus is that WP:FRINGE applies across the Wiki and this is backed up by the Arbcom. The fact that this is unpopular with a small group of highly motivated individuals is irrelevant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, if any of those users are topic banned then they will just post on more blogs and forums about conspiracy theories and censorship and it will only make things worse and attract more attention. I apologize for some of my angry edits on the talkpage of the Sheldrake article. I am no longer editing that article, the whole thing has annoyed me, it's absolute madness how users are claiming Sheldrake is not a parapsychologist and that his theories are not fringe. I highly recommend that Sgerbic (talk · contribs) should help out on the article. Hopefully she will log in today and look at it. Dan skeptic (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I never spoken with Rupert Sheldrake nor have I ever publicly stated support for or against his theories. Please try to get your facts straight. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? Which is why you have asked people in the past on your parapsychology blog to join you and your fellow parapsychologists "in our efforts to replicate" the psychic pet studies of Rupert Sheldrake. You even set up a website supporting Sheldrake's theories called opensourcescience [38]. You have also been advertising and asking people to attend Sheldrake's lectures on your blog [39]. In a personal interview in a section on TED talks you have supported Sheldrake. [40]. You have also stated "Fifty years from now, we can look forward to parapsychology developing into a multi-cultural science". Interesting prediction, I don't quite think it's going to happen though :) Dan skeptic (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that these topic areas are under discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. The correct venue to discuss the imposition of sanctions is at WP:AE, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have started a related ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Conspiracy_theories_-_Rupert_Sheldrake, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan skeptic, you write, "I am real sorry to have to raise this again..." but your account is only 10 days old. When did you raise your concerns previously? Under what account name? Since this topic is under discretionary sanctions, it would be useful to know if you have participated in discussion of these subjects in the past. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No I have not been on Wikipedia before, I have family and friends who have used Wikipedia and have said positive things about it but I have never been on here before on any account... when I said the above comment about raising the issue, I meant on this website as I have raised it already on the Sheldrake article and directly above in another section. As I wrote on my talk-page to another user (Tumbleman) I did sign up to Wikipedia after reading Craig Weiler's conspiracy theory on his blog found here [41], he mentioned a group called Guerilla skeptics and he said that they have been attacking Sheldrake's article. I then went to YouTube and watched a video of the owner of that group [42] and checked out the Sheldrake article and noticed no Guerilla skeptic's have not been editing it and that the conspiracy theory has no basis in fact. I decided to join Wikipedia to clear that up. I originally left a message on Barney's talk page about it. As written on the admin board, I have left the Sheldrake talk page and article and no longer want to be involved in it. Both Weiler and Tumbleman have trolled the page and nothing is getting through to them. I don't believe Tumbleman is a sockpuppet but as discussed on this page he did deliberately use his IP address to delete one of my comments which I'm not too bothered about but on the talk page of the Sheldrake article he then claimed someone may of hacked his IP address which is beyond ridiculous and has accused me of stalking him (I haven't!). If it was up to me I would topic ban both Tumbleman and Weiler and there would be no more problems but if that is done then it will feed their conspiracy theory of "censorship". Sorry I have no further input on this issue, I wrote my last message on the admin board. I'd rather put my time into editing other articles and stay away from the Sheldrake issue. Sorry if some of my comments above were not clear. Dan skeptic (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if you say so, Dan skeptic. You just picked up Wikiways quite fast, from knowing how to cite references with external links to knowing about noticeboards like this one...I mean, you went into the ARBCOM archives to uncover Iantresman's topic ban from a few years ago. Usually, after their first 10 days, Editors are still learning how to respond to a comment on their Talk Page, they don't know about ARBCOM or explore the posting history of other Editors. I guess you're a quick learner. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dan skeptic (1) It is inappropriate to bring up my bans here, per WP:WIAPA. If you have a problem with my behavior, leave a message on my talk page, or go to WP:DR. (2) The reasons you suggested for my topic bans are incorrect, and come across as discrediting per WP:CIVIL. If you have criticisms, you must provided diffs, otherwise they come across as accusations. (3) Congratulations on learning some of the nuances of Wikipedia in just 10 day. --Iantresman (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz (talk · contribs), the article attracts fans of Sheldrake who come up with the same objections over and over again and refuse to listen to explanations of Wikipedia policies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Barney the barney barney, I think there might be some socks involved here, but the debate is so involved I can't tell whose they are. Maybe someone else who knows the sides of this debate would have better luck sorting this out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Having been involved, Liz (talk · contribs), I think there's (m)any socks involved, it's mostly that the article attracts certain type of editors who are fans of Sheldrake and therefore either don't understand WP:FRINGE or don't think that that should apply to the article. As fans, they have a natural tendency to massively overestimate the importance of accuracy of Sheldrake's work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So, does that mean you don't think there is any? Or you think there are many? The thing that is really odd about this is if you look into the participants, into views they've espoused over time, I'm beginning to think there are socks on both sides of the debate, just keeping the discussion going. It's not trolling in a destructive way, just in a way that consumes a lot of time and energy from other Editors. It's kind of a game in conflict resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a really interesting point. Call me paranoic, but it might not be the first time that people have faked a controversy here for the purposes of somehow using the increased activity to increase attention to it, but, having said that, I don't know enough about the internet to say how such might be done, if it is even possible. There have been previous incidents involving mailing lists and urges to come to wikipedia on various noticeboards, and it certainly might be possible that one or more noticeboards or other sites are actively on site or through e-mail encouraging some appearance of controversy on this topic, although I can't see what good that might do in this case. If, as you say, there is reasonable evidence for multiple sockmasters involved in this discussion, some form of article protection might not be unreasonable, at least for a while. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not too hard, John, to see the SPA accounts that just appeared and dove into the discussion on this Talk Page. If they seem to know a lot about how Wikipedia operates, they are likely socks. If they seem unfamiliar with Wikiways, they are probably inadvertent meat puppets who followed a link on a blog over to WP. I don't think the meat puppets are usually a problem, the whole scale of disputed and large walls of text on Talk Pages is long, divisive and would cause only the most persistent newbie to leave.

The socks are a different issue because while they are fairly simple to identify, they need to be matched up with present or past (blocked) Editors and that means you have to look at nuances in how they post, when they post, words they use, stylistic similarities, etc. You can often tell because they take identical ideological positions but there are times when a sock takes the opposite POV either to misrepresent that side by being unreasonable or because they are trolling and they just want to keep the debate going and going and going. Unless one is skilled in sorting these things out, it can be difficult to distinguish between these kinds of socks or guess who they belong to. I know it's above my skill level. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Liz, User:John Carter fwiw, as somebody involved, I don't believe that there are socks about on that page, only interested parties. I doubt that what I understand to be meatpuppets are having any serious input, if they exist. I suspect that oversight have deleted some of my posts discussing an editor, and having learned some more about wiki behaviour in this regard following that, have concluded that it is impossible for me to even attempt to explain what is going on. I am trying to follow advice found surrounding WP:SHUN but it isn't easy !! --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 03:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been following the Sheldrake debacle for a few days and recently started weighing in. I'm far from a fringe believer and consider myself a serious skeptic, but that's irrelevant when it comes to editing a quality, NPOV Wikipedia page. The Sheldrake article, especially the lead, seems to have been written with the idea that it is the last, best hope for preventing the teaching of Sheldrake in schools. Tumbleman (talk · contribs) has brought this issue up, has not succeeded, brought it up again, and so on. That's not a banning offense, that's just persistence. He hasn't tried to vandalize the page, get users banned spuriously or otherwise behaved unethically. Unpopularity shouldn't get you banned from Wikipedia. I don't understand why this is even a discussion. The Cap'n (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that there are some very good people on the article now. There is no longer any danger of it coat-racking Sheldrake's views, and the skeptic side needs to stand back and remember BLP. WP:FRINGE does apply and it's good that this board was alerted, but there's not much more we can do. You might want to consider dispute resolution. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@The Cap'n I concur. --Iantresman (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman here, I just want to clear up any speculation about myself and my motivations for working on the sheldrake page. An editor here on this thread claims that I am a *believer* and have close personal relationship with Sheldrake. I'm not sure where editors are getting these ideas, it kind of creeps me out that editors have gone through archive posts, somehow figure out who I am, and then do personal research on me to somehow make a point about why I should not be trying to make the page better. I personally am not interested in promoting sheldrakes theories - I am agnostic on his ideas. I am fascinated by the philosophical debate however his work raises and the controversy since TED, but that is because I love philosophy, not psychic pets. But more importantly than Sheldrake, I believe in establishing a rational consensus without bias - my work here is more motivated by helping Wikipedia than anything else. Also, I am not a sock puppet or a troll, I think the evidence in TALK of my participation clearly shows that. The Tumbleman (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies

Take a look at Talk:Gavin Menzies - we now have his genre as 'history' with the source being the Daily Mail. It used to be Alternative history (which should never have been on his page) and Pseudohistory, which is backed by academic sources, some of which I've placed on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We'll need more eyes on this article as he's published a new book on who discovered America. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Just in time for Christmas. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Tea tree oil

Some to-and-fro here about whether tea tree oil is effective or not for a range of human health problems, and what constitutes a reliable source. More eyes would be useful. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am still not convinced by the direction this article is taking: the science seems to be downplayed by some editors because it portrays tea tree oil as something other that a generally effective medication (it may in fact be sometimes hazardous); and - the article is sprouting tags. More eyes could help ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Quantum healing

I weary of scientific illiterates slapping "quantum" onto something and claiming it's a new thing (see quantum fiction for a particular steaming heap of meaninglessness). This is funny when done by the boffins at Unseen University; but it's not at all amusing when it is pushed by a self-admitted practicioner as a form of alternative medicine. Sadly, we've got one of those (may have been editing previously as an IP) who feels we're blocking him from advocating his version of The Truth™. See the talk page of the article and of User:AlexanderDunlop, who claims to be a Harvard-trained scholar. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The article seems clean and just a straightfoward description of the fringe concept currently. Not sure why you are digging on quantum fiction as crap though, lots of the books in that genre go into a good bit of detail on real quantum theory (although obviously taking it into the realms of science fiction) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no such genre as "quantum fiction"; it is an obscure term made up by a particular self-published author who considered herself superior to mere science-fictionists, and who has pursued a relentless campaign for well over a decade to pretend otherwise by claiming as spiritual allies a mass of fiction which does not resemble her hackwork, but which mentions real quantum theory; and any works, a review of which puts the words "quantum" and "fiction" in the same sentence. (Full disclosure: I am a science fiction fan and book reviewer, and have been dealing with this particular publicity drive since the days when all the discussion took place on Usenet, and we would disemvowel her name to make it harder for her to jump in and promote herself.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I was cited as the primary source of the article. I thought it fair that I might actually have a share in the discussion. So, I posted an edit. But, it was immediately taken down. And, I was warned never to do that again. Funny, I thought wikipedia was meant to be an open forum. The second point is who decides what is "mainstream." That's a highly arbitrary and fickle thing anyway. We have leading-edge scholars and scientists who are advocating a Quantum approach to medicine, following upon scientific discoveries of Quantum physics. These are hardly "fringe" theories. These are leading-edge theories put forward by leading scholars and scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.163.224 (talk • contribs)

There has not been an iota of evidence submitted to show anything of the sort. Particularly with regard to medical issues, we insist on reliable sources with solid reputations. This is not optional. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

...And Wikipedia is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My third point is to ask a question: orangemike, who are you? What are your credentials? On what basis to you claim your superior perspective? Please advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.163.224 (talk • contribs)

Me? I'm just a guy with a mop and bucket, trying to keep our articles up to standards and clear out the junk and garbage that tends to accumulate. By training, I'm a historian specializing in U.S. 19th- and 20th-century history, especially labor history; but I'm not a scientific illiterate, and I do have a grasp of actual physics, including what the word "quantum" does and does not mean. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Orange Mike Apologies, I should have read the article more clearly. Agreed that the coiner appears to be off the deep end, but it does seem that the term has gained traction (although I would argue that the way the term is discussed in the reliable sources is much more narrowly defined than the coiner's term, and we could perhaps reduce their promenance in the article to more match the updated meaning). To the anon : Mike's authority comes from the wiki-wide consensus which developed the policies he is quite accurately and appropriately enforcing. We do not repeat pseudoscientific claims as fact. If those claims turn out to be "the truth (tm)" then ample evidence will be available from scholarly, scientific, or at least news sources, and we will not have to rely on the unsubstantiated claims of those hawking their snake oil. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"On what basis to you claim your superior perspective?" Presumably on the basis that it's obvious nonsense designed to attract only the scientifically illiterate since it has no grounding in actual quantum mechanics and seems to come from a somewhat embarrassing misunderstanding of the terms molecular vibration and many others. If you wish to discuss it further I suggest my talk page since this noticeboard isn't a forum. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Content shunted off to Deepak Chopra where it belongs until reliable sources identify an actual industry independent of Chopra's prominent service to alternative health ideas. jps (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Pushing antiquity on Jainism articles

Could someone take a look at some Jainism-related articles, in which a clique of WP editors have for some time now been promoting antiquity (for their religion). Karma in Jainism and Indus Valley Civilization are two examples. I have created a subpage User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism, which has solid scholarly sources (please disregard the lede there: it was written for an RfC). Contrast my page with the dubious sources these editors are using. Please advise. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted some stuff on the IVC page a few days back, but it looks like there's far more that's been added slowly over the years in multiple locations dating the origins to Mature Harappan! Some sort of concerted look in is required to figure out where all this has crept in. —SpacemanSpiff 09:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The unknowable claim that Jainism (and Buddhism) took or grew out of non-Vedic beliefs that might conceivably go back as far as the IVC is not unreasonable but needs to be very tentatively phrased if it is made at all. That many Jains now believe this is clear, but the better sort of Jain sources on Jainism don't push it too hard. Equally the later "foundation" of Jainism should not be overstressed and made to sound as though it was all new ideas, which much or most of it probably wasn't. But clear evidence is lacking. Some standard sentences dealing with this need to to be compiled using your sources, and used where appropriate, which will be in some articles on Jainism, and none on the IVC. An improved History of Jainism, currently very skimpy on the early period, might help here. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A search for possible problems is here]. This user[43] added the material recently removed at IVC, note they have another account. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, Thanks everyone for your suggestions. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I will try to keep an eye on this when I find some time. The IVC article needs constant watching, but it depresses me almost too much to keep going back to it and find my earlier work replaced by new layers of bs, this is the sort of thing that tends me to drive off WP, so I try not to visit these vandal-magnet pages too often any more. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Syrian chemical attack denialists

The mainstream consensus (which, as always, could be wrong) is that the Syrian government launched the Ghouta chemical attack; for example, the Economist, Human Rights Watch, and every government except for Syria and its two allies (Iran and Russia) all believe the Syrian government was responsible. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is overrun by conspiracy theories that rebels have secretly obtained massive amounts of firepower and chemical weapons and then, I guess, snuck into a Syrian military base to launch a massive false-flag attack. Intelligence interceptions from Syria, and initial Syrian reluctance to allow inspectors in, are all explained away by fringe blogs containing dubious assertions that editors want to add "as fact".

As an example, the Responses section here [[44]] was wholly critical of the report, and hasn't gotten much better since.

As time permits, I'm doing what I can across several of the pages that I'm active in, but could use some advice. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say its very much WP:UNDUE but not a fringe theory, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

List of modern channelled texts

A mess, probably being used to promote individuals and texts. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. as per comments in another discussion, I think it has a really good chance of being deleted or merged into other articles in a few months, if the sources to establish its individual notability aren't produced, and I kinda doubt they will be. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Salvestrol

Salvestrol is the basis of a dietary supplement marketed for its anti-cancer benefits. The article is being heavily edited by a new account; more eyes needed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It is promoted by Patrick Holford. The article is claptrap and shouldn't be here in it's current form, even basic spelling errors are present. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Searching around there is a veritable tsunami of promotional material and alternative commentary out there, with (it seems) only a statement from Cancer Research UK and a couple of blogs from The Quackometer with which the neutrality line can be held. It's kind of depressing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, one statement from Cancer Research UK is worth more than a hundred promotional websites. That's the beauty of WP:RS. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

John Lorber

Contains what appears to be an extraordinary medical claim of a patient with high IQ and low brain matter. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the topic would look it over. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the Admin board but no admin has looked into it. Craig Weiler on this paranormal forum [45] has been encouraging and inviting his "psychic" friends to join Wikipedia and delete skeptical sources, from that link is a user who says he is going to delete any skeptical references on the Lorber Wikipedia article. It's no surprise that ECCarb (talk · contribs) has then turned up and has started editing that article and the Sheldrake one. Dan skeptic (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Prime Symmetry Theory

Prime Symmetry Theory is a stub created by Georgefbrewer (talk · contribs), whose other edit to date was to add a mention of the theory in the article Physical constant. The website given as source, www.primesymmetry.com, redirects to a site which includes a page http://rationallycompletelydetermined.com/w1/books/ which mentions a forthcoming book "by George Brewer, the originator of Prime Symmetry Theory". Should this theory be in the encyclopedia? PamD 14:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A single web site and an unpublished book - this simply doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Plus the editor's user name suggests a probable conflict of interest. I think this should go straight to AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Anomalous operation

Classic example of an article that contains no qualification of the mainstream scientific view of parapsychology. There's nothing in there per se which is wrong, it sources statements to "parapsychologists" without attributing specifically to who or to what. I realise this might be WP:OBVIOUS but for WP:FRINGE requires WP:BALANCE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD'd a while back but kept with a suggestion that can be merged to parapsychology or psi with other fringy terms like anomalous cognition, anomalous perturbation, etc. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... I would agree with that suggestion. A merger seems to be the best way to deal with this. I think there is a good case for preserving the information, but the term is too fringe to have its own stand-alone article. It probably is worth mentioning and defining in a related article, such as the parapsychology or psi articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Theories of Muhammad in the Bible

User:Paul Barlow doesn't let me categorise this as pseudoarchaeology when it clearly is. He says it is Muslim theology, but clearly just a fringe. Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The article says nothing whatsoever about archaeology, pseudo or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I cannot see where the article mentions archaeology. On the face of it, it is describing an aspect of mainstream (or, at least, traditional) Muslim theology. Do we have any evidence that this is a fringe concept at all ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a fringe theory. The relevant field, biblical studies is well-developed with many academic journals dedicated to it and for which academic presses regularly put out monographs and other volumes. I can't find a single reliable source in the field which holds that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, however. Which of course makes sense: Even the newest Biblical texts were written 450–500 years before Muhammad's birth, which strongly suggests it would be impossible, barring time travel or clairvoyance. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the Islamic tradition has a deterministic universe and I think the idea is that it's meant to be religious prophecy. Most religions seem to try to shoe-horn some prophecies into the picture for any of their messiahs etc. If it is viewed as a fringe theory, it is in exactly the same way that Matthew's claims about prophecies are fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea that the Book of Isaiah was referring to Jesus (as the Gospel of Matthew claims) is absolutely a fringe theory: I don't think there is a single reliable source for the topic which holds that view. I don't think it is really a question of "if" it is viewed as fringe—these theories that old books refer to people born hundreds of years later I believe are all rejected by completely or nearly completely all reliable sources. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Atethnekos - following your logic, since knowledge of future events is "impossible, barring time travel or clairvoyance", it would seem that any article on any religious prophecy must be fringe, no matter how mainstream the prophecy is within the relevant theological context. Is that your position ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm? I never meant to say that. For example I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but I don't have time travel or clairvoyance, I just have decent enough models of the solar system. I never meant to say any article was fringe, either. I said the topic of the article, that is, the theory that Muhammad was mentioned in the Bible, is fringe, and I said why: No reliable sources (or virtually none, at least) hold that view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a viewpoint like this can be characterised as fringe if either 1. it is a minority position within a specific tradition or some academic discourse 2. it directly impinges on what is under the purview of science with falsifiable claims. If the claim is that the bible anticipated Mohamed without directly mentioning him then that is probably largely unfalsifiable (namely because one can try and shoe-horn a fit). I am not convinced either of these are true. Now clearly we don't say it's true in the wikipedia tone, but WP:FRINGE guidelines probably aren't so relevant here, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not the topic of the article. The topic of the article is the Muhammad's future advent is predicted in the Bible. There are plenty of reliable sources which discuss that view. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That is what I meant by "mentioned" in the Bible, a prediction being a type of mention. Again, I would say the view that Muhammad was predicted in the Bible is not held by any reliable sources, or very few at any rate. I agree that reliable sources discuss the view. The fact that reliable sources discuss a view is not sufficient for rendering a view non-fringe, there also has to be a significant number of reliable sources which actually support the view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What you meant by "mentioned" is irrelevant except in so far as it indicates your failure to understand the issue, as we are supposed to be discussing the topic of the article, which you labelled fringe. The article never says that the historical Muhammad was "mentioned" in the Bible, so your judgement about an article besed on what's not in the article is about as useful as the assertion that the article on the moon is fringe because it shouldn't say it's made of cheese. What you say about reliable sources is also false. We do not need reliable sources that "support" the view that 'Jesus is the Messiah' in order to have an article explaining and describing the Christian position that Jesus is the Messiah. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said the article says that. I think what I say about reliable sources is absolutely true and the standard position among Wikipedians: In order for a theory to be non-fringe, that theory needs reliable sources which hold that viewpoint. Of course we don 't need reliable sources that support the view that Jesus is the Messiah in order to have an article about theories that Jesus is the Messiah. That's a question of whether the theory is notable, not whether the theory is fringe. I never said we cannot have an article on theories of Muhammad in the Bible. I said that the theories of Muhammad in the Bible are fringe theories. And the theories of Muhammad in the Bible are the topic of the article. If it's wrong to say that the theories say that Muhammad is "mentioned" in the Bible, then so be it: Whatever wording you want to use is fine by me— predicted, prophesied, foretold, referred to, etc. —my point is that the theories that Muhammad is as such in the Bible, are fringe theories. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Take the article Intelligent design. The topic of this article is, intelligent design. There are many reliable sources which discuss this topic (that's why it's notable enough to have an article on it). However, intelligent design is still a fringe theory. This is because, of those same reliable sources which discuss it, none, or very few, of them actually support the view. Intelligent design really is the archetype of the sort of viewpoints to which WP:Fringe theories is supposed apply. Theories of Muhammad in the Bible fits the form of that model well: There are reliable sources which discuss the view (making it notable), but none of them actually support the view that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible (making it fringe). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, no no. There is simply no analogy with the article on Intelligent Design, because that is an article about scientific claims. Intelligent Design is a theory that claims to be scientific (or at minimum a theoretical commentary on the limits of science). It is assessed as fringe insofar as it is a theory about science. The claim that the Bible contains predictions concerning future prophets is a standard one within both the Christian and Islamic religions. We simply do not label the Christian view that "Jesus is the predicted Messiah" a Fringe Theory in Wikipedia's sense, because we cannot apply historical method to such claims. The view that Muhammad was predicted as the Paraclete is exactly the same. It is no more of a fringe theory than the view that the 'Virgin Mary was impregnated by God', or that she was 'Conceived Immaculate'. Applying the concept of Fringe Theories to such theological views leads into absurdities, as we would be constrained to "point out" the "mainstream" view that Original Sin cannot be transferred in the act of conception. That's not a 'Mainstream View' at all, because science cannot determine whether or not an abstract concept such as Original Sin can be transferred in the act of conception, or what it would even mean to say so. Likewise, it cannot determine whether or not Muhammad is the Paraclete, which is unfalsifiable (and frankly, no more or less plausible than the Christian claim that it is something called the 'Holy Ghost'). It is also a mainstream Islamic view. So it is no more "fringe" than the view that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't weigh in on whether everything is fringe or not (so you could be right about most of those statements, I'm not sure): I wouldn't say that the mainstream view is that original sin cannot be transferred in the act of conception. I would guess that the mainstream view is that original sin is not a term that is defined with a decent level of intellectual rigour. Those experts in biblical studies really do try to reach conclusions about to what the biblical writers were referring. Just because biblical criticism is a soft science (as compared to the hard sciences of biology is the case of intelligent design), does not mean that it is not a well-established and intellectually responsible field which accepts and rejects theories. In the case of theories of Muhammad in the bible, I do say that biblical studies does not in any significant way accept these theories.

I would indeed say that most theological theories are fringe, and I don't think it is absurd to do so (maybe a bit cold to some adherents, but it is an honest disagreement with them, and not meant to be an insult). I would say that theology is the study of the divine. I think the mainstream view now in this field (ever since, say Kant, or at least since logical positivism) is that very little can be said about the divine. I indeed would say that the theories that Jesus was divine is a fringe view, because very few reliable sources for theology affirm that view.

Depending on a Popperian falsification criterion to distinguish the non-scientific from the scientific (the demarcation problem) is I think a common and largely reasonable view, however it is not the only view, and falsificationism as such is indeed largely rejected by philosophers of science. The fact that I disagree shouldn't be taken as strange or myopic, it really is just a different (and common) philosophy of science. I say this, because I think that is the root of our disagreement: You take a narrower view as to what scientific study can apply, whereas as I take a wider view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, no archaeology there. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Atethnekos's comments are impressively myopic. No-one is suggesting that any part of the Bible was written after Muhammad's lifetime (unless we are discussing Gospel of Barnabus, which, of course, is not in the Bible). What Muslims believe is that God included prophesies of the coming of Muhammad in the text of the Bible. It's exactly the same as the Christian belief that God included prophesies of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah in the "Old Testament". It's not fringe, it's mainstream Islamic theology. Paul B (talk)

But can show up in fringe forms, as old versions of the article show? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Myopic? Jeez. I never meant to say that anyone is suggesting that. As I said above, the theory that the Book of Isaiah (and other such views) ever refers to Jesus is absolutely a fringe theory. And I say the same thing about the theory that the Bible ever refers to Muhammad. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

First: I said "jeez", because I'm embarrassed to be called impressively myopic. Anyway, I do doubt that it is mainstream Islamic theology, but even if it is, that does not make the theories non-fringe. Biblical studies is the field for the study of the contents of the Bible. There really are experts in this field; and they are respected by experts in other related fields, like classical studies, ancient history generally, etc. If one wants to know about the contents of the Bible, then these are the people who are worth consulting; that is, they are the reliable sources for claims concerning the contents of the Bible. I claim: None—or very few at any rate—of these sources claim that the Bible predicts Muhammad or in any way supports the distinctive claims of those who hold to "theories of Muhammad in the Bible", such as that the "Paraclete" in John 14:16 refers to Muhammad.

WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." The mainstream view in this particular field is that "Paraclete" in John 14:16 does not refer to Muhammad, and similarly for all of the distinctive aspects of the theories of Muhammad in the Bible. Since all of the distinctive aspects of the theories of Muhammad are rejected by everyone in the mainstream, these theories are fringe.

Maybe people are thinking something like: "Yes, obviously no reliable sources actually seek to establish the truth of prophecies. That is so basic that we don't even have to address it." I would encourage anyone thinking this to go through the history pages of the relevant articles and talk pages and you will see that many editors have indeed tried promote such views in this encyclopedia. Such issues are in part what WP:FRINGE is supposed to address. This is particularly true for the view that the Book of Isaiah refers to Jesus. Many editors have tried to write in the authorial voice of this encyclopedia that the Book of Isaiah refers to Jesus. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a good argument to be made, but not one that needs to be addressed at this time. I think its fine to have disagreements of this sort, but I think in this specific case the overarching issue has been resolved since the poster has been indeffed. Further discussion is not going to be productive since it's not centred on any specific article content. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting that OP, Indiasummer95, has been indeffed following various personal attacks and a general WP:NOTHERE attitude. — Richard BB 10:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is helpful to include religious belief systems as "fringe theories". That would mean that every article about religion would be included. The other issue is that they may not be "theories" at all. They are based on faith rather than evidence and reasoning. It is only when religious people start to assemble evidence to attempt to prove for example that humans co-existed with dinosaurs that it becomes a fringe theory. TFD (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup. 'Theories of Muhammad in the Bible' are no more a topic for this noticeboard than 'Theories of God in the Bible' are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

OK... let's separate the wheat from the chaff here.

Question one: Does the Bible directly mention Muhammad by name? No.
Question two: Do some people interpret certain passages of the Bible as referring to Muhammad? Yes.
Question three (the question that is directly related to this noticeboard): WHO makes these interpretations, and are their interpretations accepted by mainstream theologians (of any religion) or not? Or to put this another way... if we accept that these are religious beliefs, are they fringe religious beliefs or not? The answer to this will tell us how much weight to give the idea... whether it deserves its own article... and whether it deserves to be discussed within other related articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the term "fringe" can be used for both, but it has different meanings. Only a small minority of Christians believe that Jesus was not the Son of God. That does not make such a belief a fringe theory in the terms of this board (indeed it would be a mainstream one for non-Christians). There is no way to determine whether it is or is not more reasonable within a religious context to believe that Jesus was or was not the Son of God, nor to refer to the consensus of theologians (in the same way we would refer to the consensus of scientists) since a theologian from one religion or sect does not form part of a common community with others in the way that scientists and historians do. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT clearly applies - but that has nothing to do with the remit of this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure it does... the remit of this noticeboard is to discuss articles that mention potentially fringe concepts (including potentially fringe religious views). That includes discussion of whether the concept is notable enough to merit its own article, and how much weight to give the concept in other articles. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE walk hand in hand. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully with this statement. Some people are of the opinion that religiously inspired fringe theories and theological fringe theories are outside the remit of this board. It is not the case, WP:FRINGE applies to all fringe views in all discourses where they may be given undue weight, IRWolfie- (talk)

Just asserting that "it is not the case" does not make it true, since the word fringe is being used in a completely different sense (as though it meant the same as "small minority"). Also, "undue weight" is a separate concept from "fringe". There are only a tiny number of Samaritans, for example, so they represent a marginal position within what are called Abrahamic religions. In an article on Judaism, Samaritans may get a brief mention, since they can be construed as sort-of Jewish, but that does not mean that we treat Samaritan views as though they are "fringe theories" in the articles about them. It's completely different from Intelligent Design, in which we must point out the mainstream scientific view, making it clear that it has much more support than ID among specialists who are competent to assess it. We would not, and should not do the same thing in an article on Samaritanism, by "pointing out" that "mainstream" religious scholars in Judaism (not mention Christianity and Islam) reject it. That's for the very reason I mentioned above - there is no mainstream community of theological scholarship that exists outside the position of a religion. The fact that Samaritans are tiny in number and Muslims (for example) are not, does not mean that the article on Samaritans should give most of its space to Muslim criticisms of Samaritanism. That's to totally misapply the concept of a fringe theory. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The statement that there is no mainstream community of theological scholarship outside the position of a religion is clearly false. If that's your reason for not accepting this as fringe, then you need a new reason. When Plato taught theology at the academy, he was not writing within the position of a religion. When Hume wrote "Of Miracles", he was not writing within the position of a religion. When Kant wrote the "Critique of all theology from principles of reason", he was not writing within the position of a religion (the main points in this are still largely accepted by experts in these matters of theology). When Graham Oppy wrote the most comprehensive current book on ontological arguments, we was not writing within the position of a religion. Oppy is an expert on that aspect of theology; Oppy's work is perfectly mainstream. There are hundreds of experts like Oppy that cover the various aspects of theology. Among this body of experts, there are theories that are entirely accepted, theories that are partially accepted, and theories that are entirely rejected. If some theories which are espoused by non-experts among religious groups are entirely rejected by these experts, that is their problem. We should not make it our problem by trying to treat those theories as having equal validity to the theories which are accepted by experts. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible ot discuss wth you because your ability to miss the point is so utterly epic that it boggles the mind. Try re-reading what I wrote. I was talking about the claim that we can describe certain theological views as "fringe" in relation to other theological views. What you are talking about are philosophers who are debating the grounds for such theological positions that can be addressed by philosophy. It's a completely different question altogether. There is no community of scholars that can adjudicate on whether the Lutheran or the Catholic view of transubstantiation is more "mainstream". Paul B (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I could give a theory that "King Hamlet" in Shakespeare's Hamlet actually refers to Muhammad. Why is this theory of Muhammad in Hamlet a fringe theory? It's not because few people of the general public believe it. It's not because it's a claim about science which is falsified or something like that. It's because Hamlet is a text written by a person who had intentions and used words with meanings, these intentions and meanings are studied, there are experts in this study (English literature scholars), and among these experts the theory has no acceptance. Replace Shakespeare's Hamlet with the Book of John, and replace "King Hamlet" with "Paraclete". The author of the Book of John had intentions and used words with meanings, these intentions and meanings are studied, there are experts in this study (Biblical studies scholars), and among these experts the theory has no acceptance. To undermine the conclusion that this latter theory is fringe while accepting that the former theory is fringe, is to allow those people who puff themselves up with religious airs to be accepted as experts for no other reason than that they appear important. (P.S., if this discussion is heated, I want to say that I enjoy these discussions and I never mean for anything to be personal, and I only ever honestly disagree, either due my stupidity or some insight that I accidentally stumbled upon) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No, this is completely the wrong way to approach this issue. If a major religion believed that Hamlet was a sacred text written by God containing prophesies that will be fulfilled in the future we would have to present that viewpoint, properly laying out the belief, its history and the arguments that have been put forward to sustain it. Obviously we would also point to "secular" interpretations if they could be sourced. Your problem, as it seems to me, is that the notion that Muhammad is somehow "in the Bible" seems to you, on the face of it, to be absurd. But that's because it is not culturally normative for you. It's not more or less absurd than any other claim that a sacred text contains coded prophesies. While I guess you don't believe Jesus was the Messiah either, that probably seems less "absurd" because as a Westerner you are simply used to it. We do not include as Fringe theories the view that Jesus is the Messiah, that Isaiah predicted him, or Muhammad was spoken to by God, or travelled to heaven on a magic horse. We do not do this because, frankly, it would be silly and pointless - like arguing in the article on Europa that Zeus probably did not have sex with Europa in the form of a bull, as this is a "fringe theory". That's not a fringe theory, it's a myth or it's theology. What troubles me most here is the potential for double standards. Muslim theories of Biblical meaning are labelled "fringe" but Christian ones are not. And by the way, even secular scholars really have no clear idea what was meant by the "Paraclete" that would be sent. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar's question three is very well put, so what is the answer anyway? (Obviously, one person's theology will always be someone else's "fringe") Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it, it does not seem absurd at all to me. If I knew nothing about the scholarship of the Bible and someone told me that Muhammad is in the Bible, I would think that that is an interesting factoid. The statements about what I think are absurd because of my cultural biases are at best irrelevant, at worst an ad hominem fallacy.

If someone tried to present the theory that, in the real world, there was in the past an entity called Zeus and that it changed into a bull and had sex with an entity called Europa, I would of course call that theory a fringe theory, because no experts in history, archaeology, or palaeontology hold that view. If the theory is just that in the myth the character Zeus does such, well that's a different claim.

You have created a nominal division in the sources of views, between religious views and secular views. I think this has no place in this encyclopedia in determining what is fringe and what is not. The only such division that matters is the division between expert views and non-expert views. The fact that a misapplication of this method can lead to a double standard is unfortunate, but not peculiar to it. A double standard can occur whenever editors misapply a method. The problem with your method is that not only will it not solve the problem of misapplication but will also fail to properly categorize theories as fringe when it is applied properly.

For example, a closely related theory to the theory that "Paraclete" refers to Muhammad is the theory that this material in the Gospel of John was not authored by an early Christian. I feel confident in saying that all of the scholars who study this material, all of the reliable sources for the authorship of the Johannine literature agree that the author of this material was an early Christian. If we can't label the theory that it was non-Christian who wrote it as fringe, there will be no way to counter the undermining of the scholarly consensus by the promotion of the fringe view, because we will not be able to label the competing theory as fringe such that WP:FRINGE applies; the worst we will be able to say about it, is that it's a significant minority view.

And these sorts of issue are not theoretical. Our sections on authorship of the New Testament books greatly suffer from such promotion. For example, Epistle to the Ephesians, even right now suffers from promotion of the theory that the epistle was actually written by Paul of Tarsus. Promoters of fringe theories try to undermine the consensus among experts that Paul was not the author, and make the theory that he was out to be a real alternative that is accepted by a significant group of experts. But because this theory is a religious view (and a common one), under your method we will not be able to categorize this theory of authorship as fringe (even if every scholar on the issue rejected it!) and therefore counter its promotion.

The books of the New Testament actually had authors whose identities are studied by experts. If a theory is soundly rejected by these experts, it is a fringe theory. The fact that the theory is promoted by a religious group does nothing to change this, no more than the fringe conspiracy theory that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was actually authored by elders of Zion would become non-fringe if a religious group started promoting it (which actually is the case if the Grand Mufti of Egypt is representative of a religious group: [46], Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy). Under your method we would have to change the first claim in the Protocols article ("The Protocols...is an antisemitic hoax"), because this neglects the (supposedly) non-fringe, religious point of view of Imam Tantawi and his followers. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether a theory is promorted by a "religious group" is quite separate from whether it is a part of a religion. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy is no different from many antisemitic Christians who have believed the Protocols to be true, but belief in the truth of the Protocols is not a religious belief. Your example from Paul does not contradict me at all. I said we do not treat theological positions as fringe theories (as it happens, there is no theological requirement to believe that Paul wrote Ephesians). I also said very clearly that if Hamlet were a sacred text (in the religion of "bardolatry" perhaps), we would have to explain their views in the relevant article, but also include secular interpretations. BTW, the fact that John was "an early Christian" is not disputed by anyone, least of all Muslims. You are merely revealing that you don't actually understand what the debate is. Muslims say that early Christians held views consistent with their own. Paul B (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What I said is that some people say that the material about the Paraclete is not derived from an early Christian, for example: Keldani who is cited in the Muhammad in the Bible article right now ([47]). His theory is that the material about the Paraclete in John represents authentic sayings of Jesus originally in Aramaic with an Aramic word "Mḥamda" or "Hamīda" representing an Arabic "Muḥammad", translated to a Greek "periklytos" and then corrupted to "paraclete". The consensus view among experts is that there is no good reason for believing this material to be authentic (completely fails the criterion of multiple attestation, and they certainly reject the view that Greek "paracleitos" was the exemplar and that Aramaic "Mḥamda" or "Hamīda" were the originals; Keldani's conjecture does not even occur within the critical apparatus of NA27, there really is no debate on the point). Even if we're supposed to count Jesus among the "early Christians" (really?), it doesn't matter, because Keldani doesn't [48]). That's not me misunderstanding the debate, that's right there for anyone to see. If the consensus is we should give text-critical theories like Keldani's which are rejected by all experts in textual criticism equal validity to the theories which are accepted by a significant minority of these experts, then I would accept this consensus, but I think it would be a mistake. That material really was composed by someone at some point in some language, whether it was originally in Greek or Aramaic, and how the words were corrupted over time, is a question of history, textual criticism in particular; and just anyone with a theory shouldn't (just because they believe their theories religiously) be given equal standing to the experts. That, and mutatis mutandis for other such claims is all I'm saying. I'm sorry if I'm repeating; I guess I'll stop since I'm becoming annoying; thanks for reading anyway. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Coming late to this but I'm with Paul B. This article relates to Muslim theology and needs to be treated as such. It may be mainstream theology or may be off-the-wall but we can't judge. It needs an expert to comment, one who can evaluate the sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a fringe theory myself, but rather a religious belief, and on that basis I have to think that it is probably more appropriately categorized as Muslim theology than pseudoarchaeology. How prominent the belief is within the Muslim community, which I guess is how we would determine its "fringieness" in that topic, would probably best be determined by consultation with the better reference sources on Islam and its various traditions. By saying this, I am not saying that some other articles might not also suffer similar problems, as Atethnekos indicates above. Actually, I would probably agree with him on most of his points. The big difficulty here is that at least IMHO that we have never really written out any sort of guidelines for how to deal with such content here, and I think we would really benefit from development of such. But none of those concerns are particularly relevant to this topic. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It still comes down to answering the question: "Who exactly says this, and does anyone accept what they say?" Let's stop debating the nature of angels and the meaning of the word "pin"... and actually examine that basic question. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand what "this" is to which you refer. Muslims are required to believe that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible because the Quran says he is: in both the Torah and the Gospels. So there have to be at least two such passages. Various Muslims have cited different verses and made arguments that this or that verse is the prediction. The article cites the most common ones and refers also to some of the less common arguments. I don't think it is really possible to call the less common arguments "fringe" in this case, since all the arguments start from the same premiss (they don't contradict "mainstream" views within a theological context), which is that such predictions are present. This discussion is not about debating angels on pins, but determining the scope and logic of WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure who the above comment is directed at, of course. I suppose it might, maybe, be possible to argue that FRINGE applies to, for instance, Muslim groups which have become inactive in recent years, or disappeared, or been absorbed into other groups. Actually, I'm guessing, maybe, that the Baha'i and any other offshoots of Islam might more or less hold similar beliefs, although I don't know, and inclusion of material on them, if it is sufficiently different, might be worth consideration for inclusion as well. For my own opinion, and that is, at this point, all it is, if there is sufficient difference between the opinions on individual verses or choice of verses between groups of a broaldy "Muslim" nature for there to reasonable cause for the inclusion of separate material on that group's opinions, if that group is notable enough to have a separate article here, it should probably be included to some degree. The question as to whether religious beliefs meet FRINGE, and how they meet it if they do, is actually probably beyond the ability of a noticeboard discussion like this one to determine. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If the "above comment" is my comment, it's a reply to Blueboar's question "Who exactly says this, and does anyone accept what they say?" Paul B (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely a fringe theory.--Tritomex (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely a pointless comment. So it's presumably a fringe theory that Jesus is the Messiah too then? Paul B (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Any attempt to expand the scope of this noticeboard to include religious beliefs would require wider community input - and I for one would utterly oppose it. It seems self-evident to me that policies and guidelines regarding the 'fringe' were never intended to cover such topics, and that attempts to expand their scope are unjustified. It would be a ridiculous exercise anyway. What would constitute the 'mainstream', to which the 'fringe' could be compared? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Really good point. It more or less is beyond the range of expertise of this page to determine whether religious beliefs unique to the American World Patriarchs, for instance, fall within the range of "Fringe", or how, or on which articles. That would be more a matter of WP:WEIGHT, which is a closely related, but still distinct, matter. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Then the religious view that the world is 7000 years old is not a fringe theory, just because it is a religious view. The religious view that life was created with intelligent design is not a fringe view, just because it is a religious view. My view: The mainstream would be the experts for the topic. For the age of the earth, we have experts in geology departments etc. For the origin of life, we have experts in biology departments etc. And for the meaning of the words in the Gospel of John, we have experts in religious studies departments etc. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to agree with you here in what I believe you are saying, that the best sources for matters relating to religious material, or philosophical material, or any material which relates to any area where there does not exist the "proof" we find in hard science will be from those works written by individuals who are counted as experts in their field. This would include those works by single experts which have received significant support in the academic community, academic textbooks relating to the topic, and material in reference books, with maybe individual entries in encyclopedic type content being the most useful, because they are the most clear equivalents to our own articles. There can still, unfortunately, be problems regarding "my expert says..." type arguments, and they can be really problematic, because it is possible for, for instance, the billion-member Catholic Church to hold some really goofy theories about something which even other religions laugh at, but are still held as points of belief within that huge group, which might potentially make it among the most commonly known view of that topic in the world today, even if it is also one which has little if any independent academic support. The best way to resolve this, so far as I can see, would be to consult the most recent highly regarded reference sources, including college-level and higher academic textbooks, and see what they have to say. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We all accept that the most highly regarded text books should be used. But such books do not generally argue for the the truth or falsity of theological claims on scientific grounds. Unless it's written by a believer, a scholarly discussion of transubstantiation, for example, will not argue whether or not the substance of Jesus' body is actually present in the bread of the Host. Nor will it say "it can't be true because bread isn't flesh". Likewise, it will not judge the question of whether or not Muhammad really is the Paraclete. That's not what historians of religion do. Paul B (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, given my own admittedly limited research into Islam related reference books (encyclopedia, etc.) specifically, most of the encyclopedias actually do have substantial content directly relating to the beliefs of groups, their reasons for believing, etc. Unfortunately, I don't know of as many reference books on Islam which cover it to the same depth as some reference works on Judaism and Christianity, but I would think that if this is an important subject in that field, which it probably is, it should be covered to a reasonable extent in at least some of them. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Atethnekos, you keep repeating the same mantra, which has already beeen replied to over and over. No-one is saying that views from within a religion that make truth-claims regarding matters of history and science should be uncontradicted in relevant articles about the age of the earth, or whatever the topic is. However, it's pointless and silly to contradict assertions that are made as part of the description of a belief-system when the context is not about truth-claims of that sort. The claim that the world is 7000 years old is a claim that directly contradicts scientific views. The claim that Muhammad is the Paraclete is a completely different sort of claim, since it is a reading of a text based on the premiss / assumption that such a prediction exists. And it is unfalsifiable. The claim that, say, Jesus was born of a Virgin, is about a miracle that by definition is supposed to have suspended normal scientific laws, so to say that it is not possible according to those laws would be irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

break

I'm not seeing why this is so complicated. It seems there are some reasonably mainstream religious interpretations that Muhammad was prefigured in the Bible: in the article - e.g. - we mention one relating to the Song of Songs, and the belief promulgated around the time of the Crusades that Muhammad was the antichrist as foretold in Revelation. Since those are sourced and apparently non-contentious we can mention them. They're not fringe beliefs but within the universe of religion they're just how the stories were interpreted at some point. The problem the article has had is some editors attempting to shoehorn poorly-sourced masses of text into it, arguing all sorts of edge-case ways in which various bits of text prefigure Muhammad. Since, in the universe of religious discourse, these appear to be completely outside the mainstream, they get the fringe treatment. What we should avoid doing is applying rational skeptical notions of fringe here: that would be as inappropriate as applying fringe guidance to the Interpretations sections of the Little Red Riding Hood article, on the basis that wolves don't really talk. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the actual question anyway - whether or not this belongs in Category:Pseudoarchaeology? The consensus seems to be that this category is uncalled for. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The article in question cannot possibly belong in any category referring to archaeology, pseudo or otherwise. It makes no mention of archaeology whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That where we started, and yes - the article has nothing to do with archaeology, pseudo- or otherwise. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, and no one but the OP seemed to think otherwise on that point. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (...Who I just now noticed was indefblocked 2 days ago, apparently for their behavior on some other page.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Above, Paul states: "Muslims are required to believe that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible because the Quran says he is: in both the Torah and the Gospels."... Thank you... now we are getting somewhere... this is what I was asking!

Who says that certain Biblical passages should be interpreted as referring to Muhammad? The Quran does.

Who agrees with it? Every Muslim.

Assuming Paul's answer is accurate (and I don't know enough about the Quran to say it isn't) then we can say that the idea that certain Biblical passages refer to Muhammad is NOT fringe (there are millions who believe it). We can also say that it is not UNDUE for Wikipedia to have an article about this wide spread belief... or to mention it in other articles.

The next step is to discuss specific passages... by asking whether specific "Bibilical passage X" is seen by the Muslim mainstream as being one of those predictions that the Quran talks about? Again... I don't know enough to answer this question... I just know that it is the question that needs to be asked. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The information is extremely useful. If they all tend to agree about certain individual quotes from the Bible, those would be among the most important available. If there are some quotations which, for instance, Shiites think refer to Muhammad, but which Sunnis don't, that material might be relevant for a subsection of "Specifically Shiite views" (God, I hope I got both "i"'s in there), and similar sections for other groups of Muslims. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right... but there does come a point when we shouldn't mention a specific interpretation ... if some obscure Imam has written that "specific Bible passage X" refers to Mohamed, but no other Islamic scholars agree, then that specific interpretation can (and should) be disregarded as being Fringe. To mention it would give UNDUE weight to an extreme minority (ie fringe) view. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion is actually occurring. Is there any actual issue? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, there isn't. This thread was started by an Islamophobic member of the neo-Nazi EDL, who wanted to argue than an article on Muhammad in the Bible was "pseudoarchaeology", even though there was no mention of archaeology in it. That was always a non-starter, but for some reason this topic seems to have "hit a nerve" with some editors. The fact that the Quran says that Muhammad's prophetic mission is predicted in the Bible is undisputed. Any editor only has to read the LEAD of the linked article to learn that, so there is no debate of the kind that Blueboar refers to. The debate has actually been about something quite different, Atethnekos' claim that the belief is necessarily fringe because it's just rubbish to say that a book written hundreds of years before he was born predicted Muhammad. If we took the view that that's fringe, we'sd have to take the view that any number of religious views are fringe. Added to that is another, quite different, question that's got mixed up with this: whether we can claim that arguments made by only one or two writers are "fringe". I think that's missing the point of WP:FRINGE altogether. Lots of articles contain opinions expressed by one or two writers (Frank Harris argues that Mary Fitton was the Dark Lady of Shakespeare's sonnets). I would say that the fact that only a few writers have expressed a particular view does not make them fringe, unless they are fundamentally inconsistent with a consensus position. Of course we should not give Undue Weight to views that are not widely expressed, but that's a quite different issue. Finally, there is the question of whether we can apply WP:FRINGE at all to differing theological views, Some editors seem to think that a a small minorioty view = "fringe". I don't think that's the case when it comes to religion. The fact that Roman Catholics are a far greater in numeber that Seventh Day Adventists dos not mean that their theology somehow counts as more "mainstream", at least not in the same sense as scientific mainstream views. The fact that there are overwhelmingly more Catholics does not mean, IMO, that we can call SDA views fringe. That's becase there is no community of "theologians" independent of the belief-system of which they are a part. The problem(s) being debated is (are) the interaction of these different usages of "fringe". Paul B (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I know I suggested I wouldn't continue, but you are now saying that my claim is that the belief is necessarily fringe because it's just rubbish. I did not say that, and that is not my claim. I say it's fringe for the same reason that I think any theory is fringe: because all or virtually all of the reliable sources for the topic reject the view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please try to read more carefully. I didn't say that you just announced "it's just rubbish" (which wouldn't even be an argument). I wrote you said "it's just rubbish to say that a book written hundreds of years before he was born predicted Muhammad." In other words what's "rubbish", according to you, is the idea that the authors of the Bible could see into the future. Your words were "Even the newest Biblical texts were written 450–500 years before Muhammad's birth, which strongly suggests it would be impossible, barring time travel or clairvoyance". So unless you are saying you believe they actually did use 'time travel' or 'clairvoyance', you are saying just what I said you said. So once again you fail to read what's being written and fail to accurately describe your own words. Paul B (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul, even that extended description is not my reason for saying it is fringe. That is the reason that it would be impossible, on my view. That's not my reason for saying it is fringe. I don't say it's fringe because it's impossible. I say it is fringe because all or virtually all of the reliable source for the topic reject the view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of the article is based on religious texts and religiously motivated authors without proper scientific secondary sources about each question raised. This is not how an article regarding this question should look like--Tritomex (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, it's exactly how almost all articles on such subjects look. You don't find "scientific sources" in the articles Transubstantiation, Holy Trinity, Incarnation (Christianity), Antichrist etc, (though I see that Virgin birth of Jesus has one sentence from Dawkins someone has stuck rather absurdly in the middle of it, saying that virgin birth is impossible). The articles are not about science. They are about interpretations of texts from a theological perspective, ones which take as given the view that the Bible contains prophecies. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a science topic. People who look to science for answers on this topic are fools who will believe anything, because science has no answers on this topic, nor will it ever. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Amusing. Fools who believes anything, and the topic of religion. Eh? :) I would have thought textual analysis would be covered under the soft sciences, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Conduct an experiment and analyse the results before you go trying to convince people it's the scientific method. Oh, there is no experiment that can shed any light on whose interpretation of this is correct? This science sounds just like Soviet science and Nazi science if it has an agenda to push, it calls itself "science" only to convince people of their BS but in reality there is no actual scientific method or experiment behind it, it's all a lot of empty crowing about "science" on a distinctly non-science topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Here would be an example of an experiment: Search all of the oldest manuscripts of John 14:16, and see if any have the variant "perikluton" as per Keldani's theory. Another experiment: Survey examples of texts that use similar scripts to the probable exemplars or relevant archetype for the "parakleton" manuscripts and see if "perikluton" looks similar enough to "parakleton" such that copyists would reliably mistake one for the other. Or, see if other texts on the same topic from around the same time use "perikluton" in the same way as Keldani's supposes it is used in John, and similarly for "parakleton". These are the sorts of experiments that textual critics and paleographers do; it's a type of historical method. If what you say is right: That textual criticism is some farce, then what you are saying is that randomly selecting variants is as reliable a method for reconstruction as the method that the experts use. I could intentionally make a terrible copy of Hamlet where he lives at the end, tell you I copied it from a manuscript I found in a library which was afterwards destroyed, and you would say that that has equal validity, because you accept no method which can decide between my variants and others'. You can't even reject my testimony on the basis of my being an obvious forger, because that is a method (one used by the experts). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Textual criticism of some form has been around so long, it's not always thought of as science, though I suppose one could technically include it in an extended definition of "soft science". If those are 'experiments' I don't see how any of them can get you past the hypothesis stage, though. If you find a positive sometimes it can get something past the hypothesis stage, not so much with failure to find a negative. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

So then on your view it is just as likely that the earliest reconstructable text of Exodus had the vorlage for "Thou shalt commit adultery" rather than for "Thou shalt not commit adultery", because that is a variant: Wicked Bible. I think almost everyone calls this a printing mistake, and maybe you do too, but either you think it is not a mistake or you think mistakes are just another valid way of being authentic to the text, or not? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You are not making any sense at all. It's very common for mistakes to occur in the transmission of texts, through mishearing, misreading and other accidents. Look at any edition of Hamlet, to refer to your favourite example, for the multiple readings of his "too, too solid (or sullied, or sallied) flesh." [49] Trying to reconstruct the original version is common too. Whether one finds Keldani's theory plausible or not is quite separate from the undeniable fact that such slippages occur all the time, as your own example demonstrates. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm just asking Til what he thinks, because he seems to think that textual criticism cannot rule out such variants. I know all of what you just said. I think the ordering of the comments became jumbled?--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The article simply presents Keldani's argument. It does not endorse it. Yes, it's a wildly contorted example of 'reasoning' which presupposes that a Semitic text preceded the Greek one, which is not a very widespread view to say the least. But as it happens, it's quite mainstream to take the view that Gospel originated from a record of orally transmitted stories and memories, which would presumably have originally been in Aramaic (Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Modern_criticism), so the suggestion that a concept could have become garbled in transition to Greek is not far-fetched. But of course it's pure speculation. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Morphic resonance. That's the cause of all this. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Keldani's theory is that Greek "parakleton" was corrupted from Greek "periklyton", that's his whole basis for saying that Muhammad is mentioned in John 14:16. There's no manuscript which has this variant (I don't think?), and I haven't seen any text critic actually present this conjecture. I'm waiting to hear back from Bart Ehrman (he may not respond) as to whether any reliable source has ever presented this theory. I don't think the article endorses the theory, but I do think Keldani's theory that John 14:16 originally had "periklyton" is a fringe theory; if it wasn't a fringe theory I would think that at least one textual critic would...well, I'm repeating my mantra.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Keldani's theory is that the original word was Ahmad (ie Muhammad). Presumably John was divinely informed that Prophet "Ahmad" would come, and told his followers. They recorded his Divinely Inspired Utterance, transcribed the name into Greek and then at some later copying stage, mistranscribed the transcription to end up with Paraclete. I'm 99% certain that no non-Muslim scholar has ever taken such an argument seriously. It would certainly be a fringe theory in the article on Johannine literature. Indeed Keldani would not even count as a reliable source, but in the article on Muhammad in the Bible it is simply a well-known example of Muslim apologetics on this issue. Paul B (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well then I think we have a serious agreement then: Sometimes these theories (or Keldani's at least) are fringe theories. I've always taken the fringe classification to apply regardless of what article in which the theory is included, but I could be mistaken. Do you think intelligent design could be a non-fringe theory when included in certain articles? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

^ Bradley T. Lepper, Hidden History, Hidden Agenda, Talk Origins
^ Creationism: The Hindu View, Colin Groves
^ Wade Tarzia, Forbidden Archaeology : Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena "Creation/Evolution" Issue XXXIV Summer 1994
^ Noretta Koertge, Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, Oxford University Press. Quote: "This remarkable compendium of pseudoscience [Forbidden Archeology] is premised on the assumption that modern science is a prisoner of Western cultural and religious biases..."
^ Wodak, J. and Oldroyd, D. (1996) ‘Vedic creationism’: a further twist to the evolution debate. Social Studies of Science, 26: 192–213
^ Wade Tarzia, Forbidden Archaeology : Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena "Creation/Evolution" Issue XXXIV Summer 1994
^ Noretta Koertge, Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, Oxford University Press. Quote: "This remarkable compendium of pseudoscience [Forbidden Archeology] is premised on the assumption that modern science is a prisoner of Western cultural and religious biases..."
^ Wodak, J. and Oldroyd, D. (1996) ‘Vedic creationism’: a further twist to the evolution debate. Social Studies of Science, 26: 192–213

[1] Bradley T. Lepper, Hidden History, Hidden Agenda, Talk Origins

[2] Creationism: The Hindu View, Colin Groves

[3] Wade Tarzia, Forbidden Archaeology : Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena "Creation/Evolution" Issue XXXIV Summer 1994

[4] Noretta Koertge, Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, Oxford University Press. Quote: "This remarkable compendium of pseudoscience [Forbidden Archeology] is premised on the assumption that modern science is a prisoner of Western cultural and religious biases..."

[5] Wodak, J. and Oldroyd, D. (1996) ‘Vedic creationism’: a further twist to the evolution debate. Social Studies of Science, 26: 192–213

[6] Wade Tarzia, Forbidden Archaeology : Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena "Creation/Evolution" Issue XXXIV Summer 1994

[7] Noretta Koertge, Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, Oxford University Press. Quote: "This remarkable compendium of pseudoscience [Forbidden Archeology] is premised on the assumption that modern science is a prisoner of Western cultural and religious biases..."

[8] Wodak, J. and Oldroyd, D. (1996) ‘Vedic creationism’: a further twist to the evolution debate. Social Studies of Science, 26: 192–213

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]