Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Andrew McIntosh (professor)

Andrew McIntosh (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please note that there is very little in the way of explanation of fringe nature of this person's YEC beliefs.

jps (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD'd per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Likely not to be nuked (for reasons that are only explicable with extreme cynicism). Guy (Help!) 00:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine

An editor is trying to force a fringe journal into the lede along with other controversial text. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine for previous WP:CON on the source written by the trade. The other text is from a personal website that may not be RS. I think none of the changes improved the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Some déjà vu there. One would have thought these POV-pushers would have been around long enough to grasp some basics of writing Wikipedia articles - like that it's a bad idea to load content into the lede that doesn't reflect what's in the body. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn, take a look at this. After being warned he is contuning to violate the 3RR rule. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The text "Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[8]" was deleted from the lede again. The text is obviously sourced and is part of the summary of Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You try to include the statement "TCM is largely pseudoscience" to the lede of this article. I actually agree that TCM probably is just pseudoscience, but your and my opinion doesn't matter here. We're here to write a good article for the general reader. Throwing around derogatory judgements like this when we don't have a good source for it is definitely not going to help our cause. We're not here to deliver judgements. We're here to deliver facts.

As a source, you want to use this: "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." This source doesn't even really make it a fact that TCM is pseudoscience; it only theorizes that it is the most obvious answer. For sure, this source is far from asserting that TCM is widely considered a pseudoscience in the scientific community.

When I tried to compromise and change the statement in the lede to: "TCM has been labeled as pseudoscience" you opposed me. You don't really participate at the talk page discussion either. Once again, I don't see you being willing to work cooperatively on this encyclopaedia at all. I opened WP:DR about this. C u there. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews: Where woo is fine.

n:Glasgow cannabis enthusiasts celebrate 'green' on city green

"One speaker, who produced a bottle of cannabis oil he had received through the post, explained this cured his prostate cancer. Others highlighted the current use of Sativex by the National Health Service, with a cost in-excess of £150 for a single bottle of GW Pharmaceuticals patented spray — as-compared to the oil shown to the crowd, with a manufacturing cost of approximately £10."

Can we shut down this embarrassment to Wikimedia yet? Or do we have to let it zombie on to eternity?

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews notified of this discussion. μc8 (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You found a less-than-perfect word choice in an article, and that's the best excuse you can come up with to continue your vendetta against Wikinews? I suppose it's less fundamentally incoherent than that Frankfurtian so-called "op-ed". Still Frankfurtian, though. --Pi zero (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're actively encouraging people to use something to treat their cancer, and attacking existing medical drugs, then that's more than an imperfect word choice. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Adam, don't worry; given the inherent dishonesty of Wikinews, we can assume that the alleged "speaker" never said that about prostate cancer in the first place. Remember to always read Wikinews as you would read The Onion and there's no problem. Treat it as satire, everyone else does. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You've put your opinion as a fact. Shows how easy it is to produce groundless biased output.

A cry for attention is incompatible with neutral intercourse. —Gryllida (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another happy Wikinews user! Thanks, but I like salad on my plate, not in my words. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we should care? To be blunt, Wikinews is not a reliable source and so is of no real relevance to us other than as a venue to which we send people who are trying to write personal opinions about current events. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never looked at Wikinews before. I shall never bother again if that's the sort of stuff they do. Like the Daily Mail with a wiki gloss, but without any standards. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, the attacks on Wikinews being blithely bandied about here have nothing to do with reality. --Pi zero (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Wikinews has consistently failed to report relevant and accurate news stories for ten years.[1] The reality is that Wikinews is your personal dictatorship, where all critics are purged, blocked, and ignored. The reality is Wikinews doesn't work and should not be associated with Wikimedia because it is a total embarrassment to the concept of journalism. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Errm, forgive me, but shouldn't a reaction to having published a claim that cannabis cures cancer ("highly misleading" according to Cancer Research UK) a cause for embarrassment and retraction, not bullishness? I hadn't heard of WikiNews before but this exchange seems informative. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Alexbrn. There was no publication of a claim that cannabis cures cancer. There was a publication of a factual report that some nutjob claimed such. The wording was imperfect, especially in that it wasn't proof against willful misreading (so, we've been considering how to address that). For perspective on the willful misreading, you do have to understand that certain parties at Wikipedia have a genunine non-rational vendetta against Wikinews (though there are, just to state the obvious, lots of really great folks here, who keep the place going despite the bad apples). --Pi zero (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots of really great folks keep the place going? In what reality? The site is run by you, and maybe one or two other people, depending on who shows up to patrol the dead site. It's as if a funeral home published a gazette about the dearly departed. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

[Since you've canvassed around your opinion I'll canvas around my response]

The utter baseness of the efforts to suppress the medical use of marijuana cannot be exaggerated. Spiritually rooted in the witch hunts of the Middle Ages and the open racism of the 1920s, they cast aside the work of three millennia of physicians to put forward a faith-based theory that "herbs cannot work", which can be enforced only by open violence against millions of people. Based on an outright lie (not out of character) by Nixon, they 'temporarily' permanently banned medical use of marijuana, then doggedly ensured that NIDA refused to study the mechanism for two decades, insisting that a drug with specific and reproducible effects on the brain literally had no receptor, then used bureaucracy to hold back all practical research for another decade. We don't have any idea of all we have suffered because of this - we don't know what drugs against pain, obesity, inflammatory diseases, sea-sickness or any other nausea, and other common maladies have been lost. There definitely is reason to consider use of cannabis against prostate cancer, though it isn't the first herb I would have thought of for the purpose. While I would not accept an anecdotal account as scientific evidence, I cannot blame a patient who tries using cannabis and sees remission from drawing the personal conclusion that it worked. To assert that Sativex, based on the two most prevalent active chemicals in cannabis, should have effects that cannabis does not, when it was created solely as a method to placate the bureaucracy while extorting a patent toll from ancient medicine... contemptible! But to insist, like a Putin or an Erdogan, that an entire method of distributing news be abolished because they allegedly made a single word error, already corrected (though perhaps not visible via the magic of "Pending Changes") that is worse. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this a joke, because it certainly reads like one? Paul B (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, I doubt it is. Wikinews collects fringe pretty readily, and will aggressively defend even their worst mistakes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to respond to that, since there isn't any actual argument there, but I should clarify that I haven't been meaningfully involved in Wikinews. Wnt (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Just as well you're not trying to add that to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here's a real zinger from 2011.[2] The same Wikinews author gave precedence to a minority fringe opinion which claimed that it was "fairly standard police procedure" to use pepper spray on nonviolent protesters. The only problem was, virtually every mainstream reliable source said the complete opposite ("Our policy is that we do not use pepper spray or Tasers or batons against passively resisting people")[3] and the man who invented the pepper spray product in question even came out and said his product was never designed for that purpose. When the same Wikinews author was confronted, he denied writing it, said he only copyedited, and refused to fix the problem. Please, shut this absurd excuse for journalism down. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The same "minority fringe" opinion appears in a New York Times editorial about the event, which cites quite a few other incidents. [4] Also the title of an article in The Atlantic. [5] Many other hits come up on a search. Even if the editor were wrong to include this statement the way he does, to be taken seriously you would need to (a) cite the actual article [6] and whatever diffs, (b) discuss it at Wikinews, (c) try to show that Wikinews had bad policy or governance and systematically failed to fix it. You can't even get off the starting block here. It's like saying Wikipedia should be abandoned because there's a vandal on it, when it isn't even a vandal. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Double huh? The NYT editorial you cite treats the opinion as a minority one, just as I did. Did you even read it? Wikinews repeated what an AP story about an alleged ex-lieutenant for the Baltimore Police Department named Charles J. Kelly said. I say alleged because back in 2011 I tried to track him down because I couldn't believe what I was reading. As it turns out, there is no mention of a Charles J. Kelly anywhere except for that AP article which hit the wire services. And yet, news story after news story said it was not standard procedure, and this was eventually confirmed as true in the aftermath, so Kelly's statement was not only blatantly false, it was spread around the country by the Associated Press and repeated by Wikinews without any critical judgment or comparison and contrast with other sources. I had no idea Wikinews was an excellent source for propaganda, I thought it was actually trying to write news stories. Anyway, please try to track down this "Charles J. Kelly". I don't even think he exists. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. if you want to see what police do when they're being unusual, look up the video of the events behind Lundberg v. County of Humboldt. Concentrated liquid pepper spray, straight into the protesters' eyes. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with that case, and it's relevant not for the reason you seem to think. First of all, in that case, the police did not spray anything, they applied pepper spray with Q-tip's to the eyes of the protesters. This was recorded on video and is online for anyone to watch. Second of all, this case was cited as the rationale for why it was not standard procedure, since the courts declared it to be excessive force (hence not standard procedure) all the way back in 2005, six years before the incident at UC Davis occurred. Therefore, there was a legal precedent for the police to avoid using excessive force on peaceful protesters. This imaginary "Charles J. Kelly" who claims to have once worked for the police department in Baltimore, doesn't seem the least bit familiar with the law. Finally, these two examples prove what Will Potter has been saying for years about the Green Scare and directly links to what other authors and journalists have alleged about how the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI worked with local law enforcement to use violent methods to crackdown on peaceful Occupy protests. And where the Occupy protests were not peaceful, other journalists claim to have uncovered evidence of agent provocateurs from law enforcement who deliberately incited violent acts to justify a brutal crackdown in the first place. At the end of the day, Wikinews is nothing but an organ of the establishment. It needs to stop pretending to be open to citizen participation, because it most assuredly is not. It has a proven track record of selectively citing sources that make extreme, unverifiable claims while ignoring easy to verify claims that are widely published. In this latest incident report, we have a "reporter" claiming that a protester said cannabis cured his cancer, but did the protester really say that? It's hard to believe because Wikinews cannot be trusted to report news in an accurate manner. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with this. First, the Lundberg v. article says pepper spray was sprayed as well as applied by swab, but I'm not quite sure the point - I gave it as an example of what is unusual and I don't see you disagreeing with that. The point is, if the outlier is there, simply using pepper spray doesn't seem like such an extraordinary claim. Then as for Green Scare, are you saying Wikinews is suppressing mention of that? Or what? Also you sound as if you can't participate there - if there are arbitrary ways in which you're excluded from doing so, that would be a criticism I would be moved by. Wnt (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't go by or depend on what Wikipedia articles say, I go by the actual sources. In this particular case, Lundberg v. County of Humboldt completely refutes the nonsense spread by "Charles J. Kelly" in the Associated Press. It was not standard procedure to spray peaceful protesters, as that case had been declared an example of excessive force six years before the UC Davis incident occurred. I suggest you perform actual research on the UC Davis incident. The majority of reliable law enforcement sources cited on the case explicitly refute and contradict "Charles J. Kelly". Wikinews should never rely on one single source to write an article, yet that's what they did because there was no critical thought put into it, just a rehash and regurgitation of what the AP said without question and without looking at what other sources said. And this is exactly what they did with the cannabis protester. A science journalist would at least illustrate the alleged quote with a brief sentence or two on the scientific consensus regarding cannabis and cancer. Again, Wikinews is Wiki-worthless. As for my participation there, that has nothing to do with this discussion, just as your tangent about the history of cannabis controversy has nothing to do with this thread. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that this section title is the article name, and linked to it as such. —Gryllida (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Anons and a couple of logged-in editors forum shopping frantically in an attempt to make the nasty reality-based community go away. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Urine therapy and Urophagia

• Urine therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Urophagia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need eyes. Yesterday I reverted an editor who added, amongst other material that "This age old natural therapy can prevent and cure cancer, AIDS, Renal failure, gall bladder stones, cerebral palsy" with some non-RS sources. He's replaced some and I've reverted again. Hopefully he will stop and I've asked people at a couple of Wikiprojects to counsel him. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Do we really need two articles on this? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, urine was a notable form of quackery back in the day - they were known as piss-prophets - but this was as a diagnostic leading to the prescription of cure-alls, not urine therapy as such. There's probably only one article's worth between them, and a reference to Burzynski may be justified as the most notable current proponent of this quackery. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-fu

Anyone with good template-fu might like to add File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg to the talk page header template for fringe topics under arbitration, or possibly to the "controversial" talk page template. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Biologically based therapy

• {{Biologically based therapy}}

The term "biologically based therapy" seems to me to be POV and lacking in any concrete definition; it was transcluded on urine therapy and Chinese food therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the last of which I have nominated for deletion as it's a single sentence that does not even try to establish its significance.

I have TfD nominated the template and moved the articles to {{Alternative medicine}}. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Blood Moon Prophecy

• Blood Moon Prophecy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although created in 2009 heavily revised in the last few weeks as it was about the April eclipse. Might be worth putting on watchlists. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Bumping thread. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I've taken on the task of pruning this down to what's actually verifiable from reliable sources and encyclopaedic; ThaddeusB, who added the content I removed, seems to believe that WP:BRD starts with my bold reversion not his bold addition, and I'd appreciate some help explaining WP:ONUS to him. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the article was not created in 2009. It was created about a month ago, by me. Second, I greatly dispute Guy's interpretation of the dispute. ONUS does not give him unlimited rights to delete whatever he wants and make me prove it is worth including. It means he can challenge specific facts that are uncited, not ignore BRD because he feels some details aren't worth covering. He has cut 2/3rds of the article, including tons of material sourced to sources normally considered reliable (Fox News, Washington Post, etc.) Additionally, his edits have introduced factual inaccuracies that I carefully avoided because he insists the details are mere "trivia", but are actually crucial to understanding certain points. We are attempting resolve the issue on talk (while he insists his version must stay in the mean time, ignoring BRD), but I certainly welcome more opinions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Does 'he supposedly had "discovered"'^[7] seem like a neutral tone to you? More generally though, an article about a pseudo-science should give all the space needed to explain its thinking to the reader. I mean, I don't believe a word about astrology, but if I had a reason to draw up someone's natal chart for fiction or comedy, I'd want to be able to find out how to do it right here. There are too many people on this board treating a 'rational' point of view as something to POV-push, rather than as a method of thinking and neutrally evaluating the available evidence, however absurd an idea may be. Wnt (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement then. My problem with Guy's edits is that he has removed all context of the Blood Moon idea, to the point where he has actually introduced factually accuracies about what its proponents believe. I fail to see how that is a "better" article, and how the ONUS is on me to prove (to him) the context is necessary. (I do agree that specific sentence was not ideal and could be better worded.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I mainly removed in-universe cruft sourced to wingnut fundamentalist websites. We must not give undue weight to the opinions of cranks, what is needed is reality-based descriptions of the concept. Through various edits this was being asserted as on a par with end times and armageddon prophecies generally, but as you yourself wrote, there is no evidence it ever gained significant traction. This is a very minor fringe cult notion. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We disagree about what you removed... In the interest of progress, I have proposed rewriting the article to exclude the 2 objectable sources. If you could reply on talk, I'd appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologise, not sure how that happened as I meant that April 2014 lunar eclipse had been created in 2009. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think anyone on Wikipedia who speaks of "cruft" is making bad decisions, no matter what the target of their disdain. Wikipedia contains a lot of data, and much if not most of it seems dull and pointless, but it should be edited with a respect for the effort that was put in to collect it, and I would even say, with respect for the idea that even when we cannot perceive it, the data wants to lead us to insight and understanding. We're here to free the data, to listen to it as we can, to try to see where it is leading. Just because the idea is "astronomically" unlikely doesn't mean that we can't understand where it came from, what it inspires people to do, its effect on the economy, the motivations of its adherents, etc. But we have to understand these concepts.

Hagee's religion may be very uncommon, and repugnant to many of us, but it is still a religion, and like any religion, we should take ample time to go through the concepts it is based on without dismissing them as beneath investigation. Wnt (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Think what you like, it's a temrm of art I learned at Wikipedia and it applies in this case: excessively detailed coverage of trivial topics drawn from sources that have strong associations with he topic, rather than from neutral and independent sources. I woudl not mind betting that more people have heard of this from Wikipedia than form its proponents.. Guy (Help!) 03:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thunderbird (cryptozoology)

Thunderbird (cryptozoology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The bird equivalent of Bigfoot. Claimed sightings and argued existence cited to fringe sources and About.com. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

FAB, Virgil. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Telepathy

User deleting mass material from the telepathy article claiming telepathy has scientific evidence and deleting references as biased "skeptical" sources. Two IPs have also joined in. They may all be the same person. They have been reverted, but it may be worth watching over this. Goblin Face (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese food therapy

This is up for deletion. I strongly doubt that there is any such thing, and that there is nothing more than the kind of folk "eat your carrots' sort of thing that is also found in the west. I personally don't have a lot of time to pursue this but I invite others (who may also be more familiar with the territory anyway) to have a look. Mangoe (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Jean-Émile Charon

A French physicist who has written some new age books. Some strange stuff on his article:

"There are microscopic individualities inside every human. They think, they know, and (they) carry Spirit in the Universe.”[2] Charon chooses to call these individual beings of intelligence, “eons.” They are otherwise known as electrons. Each electron or “eon” is an enclosed space, a thinking entity, intelligence, and even a micro-universe. But this is an inaccurate way of speaking about them, because as Michael Talbot (1991/1992) warns us in The Holographic Universe, “the only time quanta ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them.” [3] Thus, it would be more accurate to think of these beings in terms of wave interference patterns."

"The goal of the electron is developing the order of its Spirit. There are four psychic forces that organize living forms into entities of increasing energy or order: reflection, knowledge, love, and action. As the order grows, so do the psychic properties."

Finding it hard to locate any reliable references in English. Goblin Face (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy advocacy at black mamba

See talk:Black mamba#Homoepathy section. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture

I thought the debate was settling down at TCM but now it was moved to acupuncture. The text is a summary of the body. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mazzaroth

Had a reversion today back to the fringe-filled version. I can see no evidence that the people whose opinions were quoted (or, in one case, the completely uncited, probable original research reading of the Bible) are notable opinions on the subject. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yin yoga

This is a non-notable article that should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe at Subartu, Sabir people

There's been a good amount of material added to these pages recently pushing the fringe belief that the Bronze Age Subartu are the same people as the 7th century CE Sabir, and are thus an example of continuous Turkish presence in the Near East. There are a great deal of inline cites provided, but following these I find at least one blatant fabrication - the claim that H. Mark Hubey contributed to The Cambridge Ancient History series and that the book supports the Sabir/Subartu connection [8] (also added to Subartu but removed by another editor) - several fringe sources sometimes connected with the Hungarian or Turkish right-wing [9] [10] (in the last the Christian is reliable, but being misrepresented), and a number of scholarly sources that are being misrepresented, such as Dhorme, [11], the Christian linked before, and a group of sources concerning etymology that may be taken out of context, such as [12] [13]. The use of Old Turkic to provide an etymology for a people that preceded Old Turkic by over a thousand years is a sign of sloppiness at best, and illustrates what seems to be the thought process behind the sourcing: Google for anything that looks like Subartu, Sabir, Subar, etc., and assume that it must be making a Subartu-Tukish connection and present it as such. As the editor has a definite WP:IDHT problem, and I would rather not be in an edit war, some more eyes on this would be good. Ergative rlt (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The same issue is also discussed at "Multi-referenced scholarly viewpoint and persistent vandalism" section of Wikipedia: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Lamedumal (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Multi-referenced_scholarly_viewpoint_and_persistent_vandalism. This would certainly mean that user Ergative rlt seems to be the next candidate who has problems with multi-referenced scholarly viewpoints due to his own contradictory viewpoint, which became quite clear when he put his focus on the Turkic and to a lesser extend on the Hungarian theory, instead on the others, such as the Armenian, Kurdish, Slavic or Greek theory. - Hirabutor (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The "multi-referenced scholarly viewpoint" is original research with misleading or fringe cites. And now that Lamedumal has pointed out the RSN discussion, I see that the misrepresentation of Dorme was specifically pointed out there as well, but Hirabutor's added it back. Also, the Slavic and Greek theories appear to be more of Hirabutor's OR, with once again a misleading citation. Ergative rlt (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Lamedumal seems to have misinterpreted Dhorme, since Sabirois etc. lived in classical times and not in the bronze age, as mentioned by Dhorme. - Hirabutor (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jan Peczkis

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Peczkis

Comment.

jps (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ken Ham

There is currently an edit war going on over adding the category pseudoscientist to Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and John Baumgardner (and probably others) The argument has reached the level of absurdity to the point the following is posted on the talk page "Whether proof that a subject engages in pseudoscience allows us to add him to the "Pseudoscientists" category (which I dispute on the basis of WP:BLPCAT" A report has been filed at 3RRNB here and as I strongly suspect meat/sock puppetry as SPI here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This is really something for the BLP noticeboard. The question is whether a living person who promotes something characterised as "pseudoscience" should be placed in Category:Pseudoscientists, particularly when (in the cases being discussed) there is no WP:RS that explicitly uses that pejorative term for those people. In any case, in my view the "pseudoscientist" label provides no information, simply disapproval. Combating pseudoscience is best done by addressing the issues. -- 101.117.28.73 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an IP deleting the category pseudoscientist from the articles. QuackGuru (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And either the IP above is a sock or a meat puppet, we've suddenly have several arrive editing solely on this issue. Besides this one, we have 101.117.30.177, 101.117.58.97 and 71.246.158.7 - socks or meat puppets all it seems. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pseudoscientists cat is up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists. QuackGuru (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Starchild skull again

Has been progressively edited over the last few days to be extremely crazy-fringe-theory friendly. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies

This edit was a violation of summary. Articles should properly summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Cremo got added to Paleoanthropology

Someone want to take a look at this?[14] As you likely know, Cremo claims modern humans have existed on Earth for several billion years. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Thiering

Fringe religious writer but at the talk page there's an attempt to remove a sentence about not being accepted by academics, which is explained in detail in the body of the text. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oil Pulling

Oil pulling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aside from the non-WP:MEDRS compliant claims, it seems to be simply an advertisement for Ayurveda.

jps (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

UFO sightings in outer space‎

What a horrible article. Appears to be a mix of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, no? Grounds for AFD? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the mistake was not calling it what it is: a List of UFO sightings in outer space. Basically it's a list article masquerading as a subject article that compiles isolated incidents and infers, but stops just short of analyzing, what it all means. I would definitely ditch the lead section, as it's pure SYNTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Barney I actually did not have you on my watch list until now, I had forgot the Yes Sir Boss incident we had as I just don't care about those things. The only thing that matters is improving the main space which should be all of our goals. I hope the next time we meet we will be on the same side. I chose to drop the ANI incident, because ANI prevents meaningful editing I am sure you agree, and was trying to prevent any further issues. Please do not nominate my article because our past differences can cause impartial decisions, if someone else agrees with you let them do it. As of now, I think we should go our separate ways. With regards. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie, I left a message on your talk page. I know that you have been an opponent of fringe theories. Please view any citation every line is directly sourced. I appreciate if further discussion can take place on the article talk page and please let me know of any improvements that can be made. Cheers! Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. I gave clear explanations of what problems the article has at the AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's also the second or third time the article has been recreated after being deleted:

• WP:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space
• WP:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space (2nd nomination)

jps (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there was a DRV where the discussion did not address WP:FRINGE or the major reasons why this article is horrible. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space (3rd nomination). jps (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Creationist cosmologies

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies

Could use some more comments.

jps (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine again

This edit added original research to the lede and made the text unclear. I explained the problems with the edit on the talk page. Also, changing fished out of to extracted is OR. Now the text in the lede is being rearranged out of order and a source previously deleted by User:JzG was restored against WP:CON. Obviously, none of the recent changes to the lede and body were improvements. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Now mass changes to acupuncture are being made to delete text that is critical of acupuncture and to add text that is promotional acupuncture. Also a source previously deleted at TCM was added to acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We're trying to hammer out consensus at the TCM talk page with the help of uninvolved user Richard Keatinge. What you're doing here is WP:Canvassing, and the non-neutral way you present this post here constitutes campaigning. Please stop and participate in finding consensus at the appropriate talk page instead. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Things were already hammered out with the uninvolved editor User:Dominus Vobisdu but you suggested he was not uninvolved. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I think it can be safely established that Dominus Vobisdu is not an uninvolved editor. Please cf. the participants of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to use a non-standard definition of uninvolved. Merely looking at a case and venturing an opinion, is not being involved. You also appear not to understand that this is precisely the right place to ask for more eyes when fringe and pseudoscientific theories are in play, so is not canvassing. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked the fact that this "uninvolved" editor has in fact been boldly edit-warring the page since last year. -A1candidate (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

One edit at Acupuncture does not make someone involved at TCM. The recent strange edits makes you at least involved a acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See his editing history again and come back once you've educated yourself.-A1candidate (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So you did make a false accusation without evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Evidence is found in user's edit history -A1candidate (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

wp:Boomerang, anyone? It appears that A1 is referring to his exchange (bordering on ew) with DV last August at Accupuncture. It seems rather obvious which editor was attempting to remove reliable sourcing. Both could have made more constructive edit comments, but really, DV simply prevented a fringe POV push. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So how does that make DV "uninvolved"? -A1candidate (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, wp:involved is just a shortcut to Wikipedia:administrators, which also directly addresses the exception for admins dealing with edit wars. That said DV's actions were not admin, they were just what any admin should have done. Sitting back and watching your POV push go ahead unchallenged is in no way required of other editors, and stopping such should not be construed as substantial involvement in an article. To do so would rapidly deplete the pool of the uninvolved. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't make him any less uninvolved. There's a difference between reverting vandalism and reverting because of a content dispute. -A1candidate (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see wp:BRD. Note that it is not spelled BRRD. Anyhow, this was last August that he prevented your change against consensus. It's about time you dropped the stick, don't you think? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither me nor DV are pushing for any content changes right now. If you think that's my aim, please re-read the entire discussion. -A1candidate (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case what was the point of your post of 11:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) above? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some who are pushing for strange changes at acu and at TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: Purpose of my post was to point out that it's wrong for QuackGuru and Guy to label DV as an "uninvolved" editor. Such a statement is factually incorrect, as DV's edit history shows. -A1candidate (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You haven't shown DV's edit history of edit warring at acu. One or a few edits at acu does not make someone involved at TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See his editing history again and come back once you've educated yourself -A1candidate (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sending people off on fishing expeditions does not constitute the presentation of evidence. Please either provide links or drop it.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Fishing expeditions? I was requesting that he check DV's edit history before claiming uninvolvement. -A1candidate (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So where is the alleged involvement at Traditional Chinese medicine? No evidence has been provided. QuackGuru (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

How about doing a simple search of his edit history? -A1candidate (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a simple search of his alleged edit at TCM and came of with 0 edits. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See THIS for more active TCM involvement. And don't forget Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 11. -A1candidate (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You did not provide evidence of any involvement at the TCM page. But I provided evidence there was no involvement at the TCM page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture aren't TCM? -A1candidate (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think TCM equals acu that I would expect you to restore this text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Being a sub-family doesn't mean being equal. -A1candidate (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Lets's get back to the topic at hand. I see you and others have been busy deleting stuff you don't like from the article. More of the same kind of thing happened at TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont speak for other editors, but if you're wondering why I removed your speculative theory, please see WP:FRINGE -A1candidate (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It was not a speculative theory. There are lots of sources covering this. See (PMID 10501382). Now you have confirmed it should be restored because it is not a theory. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The source says: "We hypothesized that there might have been a medical system similar to acupuncture". It's not even a theory but a hypothesis. Can you show me a better, more conclusive reliable source? -A1candidate (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Were are using mainstream independent sources for the text. There is no fringe theory. It is not about fringe. You are misusing fringe. QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you failed to provide a better source to support your fringe theory. Are there any authoritative mainstream institutions giving credulence to your FRINGE theory? Apparently not. -A1candidate (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream independent sources are not good enough for you but on Wikipedia we report what the mainstream independent sources say. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can find mainstream sources providing ample hard evidence for your theory, then we may include it in an appropriate section. -A1candidate (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is another mainstream indepedent source for you to chew on. See (PMID 15103027). There is no policy on Wikipedia that says an editor must provide ample hard evidence to repeat what mainstream researchers say. We are not using fringe sources or blogs. The mainstream view is that there is evidence that suggested it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference cited by the authors is exactly the same as the one you previously showed me. And notice how they use the word "speculation" to describe this hypothesis. -A1candidate (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You deleted the images and the text only because you don't like what the reliable sources said. Whatever the mainstream view says we report them on Wikipedia. I explained this before. See WP:IDHT. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG should apply here - I removed it because it is a speculative theory that is not backed up by hard evidence. See WP:IDHT. -A1candidate (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is backed up by mainstream research. The sources cited was being done neutrally and appropriately. The author Ersnt (PMID 15103027), for example, is serious mainstream researcher. The results should not be rejected; editors were only giving the weight it is due. There is nothing extremist or flawed about the research. Ernst's work is critical of CAM, and he gets criticized back; there is nothing surprising about this. Obviously, the article represents serious research that should not be ignored by any neutral summary of acupuncture. It is irrelevant whether you personally disagree with Ernst or other mainstream researchers. Removing the images and text will not bring justice to a serious encyclopedia. What was being portrayed was in accordance with WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting Ernst's qualifications. He himself described the theory as speculation, and that's why we do not give undue weight to it. -A1candidate (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"These tattoos might indicate that a form of stimulatory treatment similar to acupuncture developed quite independently of China."[15] This is beyond speculation at this point. You seem to have a personal disagreement with Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Speculation surrounds the tattoo marks seen on the ‘Ice Man’ who died in about 3300 bce and whose body was revealed when an Alpine glacier melted." [16] This is pure speculation at this point. You seem to have a personal disagreement with Wikipedia policy. -A1candidate (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

When this is repeatedly discussed by independent reliable sources we are allowed to discuss them here on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The only source you've provided is a hypothesis in The Lancet, which Ernst correctly classifies as speculation -A1candidate (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ersnt went on to say "These tattoos might indicate that a form of stimulatory treatment similar to acupuncture developed quite independently of China."[17] That's more than a minority opinion of speculation. This is the mainstream view. I told you this before. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ernst is describing the speculative theory to the reader. This is the mainstream view. I told you this before. -A1candidate (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not about fringe. This is about you have a personal disagreement with the mainstream view. This is about due weight according to RS. So far you have not given respect to the mainstream view. User:BullRangifer said You are the real pseudoskeptic here, and one with a huge COI. As a professional acupuncturist, you should not be editing acupuncture and TCM subjects so boldly, if at all. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As stated by Ernst, the mainstream view is that your fringe theory is a speculative one. -A1candidate (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We are allowed to report on the mainstream view as long as we use independent sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The only source you've provided is a hypothesis in The Lancet, which Ernst correctly classifies as speculation. -A1candidate (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not provide only one source. According to your own comment that is more than one source. The Lancet and Ernst are not a minority opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You provided two links - the former is a speculative hypothesis and the latter correctly describes it accordingly. -A1candidate (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

But I previously told you that these statements are not a minority opinion and Ernst went on to say "These tattoos might indicate that a form of stimulatory treatment similar to acupuncture developed quite independently of China."[18] QuackGuru (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't make it any less speculative -A1candidate (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

break

Since the PS classification seems to be - for some reason - in doubt, I added a reinforcing source. But it was quickly reverted. In general, it strikes me there are too many editors at work in these subjects with one hand on the keyboard and another on their wallet. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The source you added says: "The vacuum created by China's failure to adequately support a disciplined scientific approach to traditional Chinese medicine has been filled by pseudoscience". This sentence is very confusing; I'm not sure I grasped its precise meaning. Why did the failure of China to "adequately support a disciplined scientific approach to traditional Chinese medicine" create a vacuum? Wouldn't we think that the vacuum already existed from the very start? And why should this vacuum be filled by pseudoscience only after China's failure? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that TCM was pseudoscience all along?

Anyway, to avoid further wars over this ambiguous source I reworded your statement and re-added the source to the text [19]. I'd like to point out that if TCM is as universally excepted to be pseudoscience as some editors claim, why do the only two reliable sources we have use such complicated, unusual and ambiguous sentence structures for their statements? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Confusing to you maybe (cognitive dissonance?); but plain enough I think: when evidence became recognized as important for medicine, the yawning gap in TCM became apparent and a load of codswallop was conjured up by interested parties to fill it (something we find in numerous fringe journals). Weaselly, you've attributed the source's statement making it seem like this fact is somehow seriously contested, something that should be guarded against. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"The yawning gap in TCM became apparent and a load of codswallop was conjured up by interested parties to fill it..." You seem to be smart so I'll refrain from detailedly pointing how illogical this is in regards to TCM, which has been dragging its superstitious codswallop theories along since more than 2000 years without any significant new codswallop being conjured up since the time when evidence became recognized as important for medicine... Anyway, concerning your allegations of me doing anything "weaselly", please read this dead-on reply from Dr. Richard Keatinge to a similar allegation from QuackGuru. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We should avoid WP:WEASEL wording, which your vague attribution of a claim to unknown voices ("has been described as") was, especially since the source is straight-out assertive. The point the source is making is that it is only within the context of a "a disciplined scientific approach" that pseudoscience has come to be (for example, by being given the trappings of science in fringe journals I suppose). Before that, it was drifting along as untested nonsense with no intersection with science (your "pre-scientific" maybe?). But if you have a problem with the source's view, that's not something to be resolved here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

True. How you come to the conclusion that your source is "straight-out assertive" is beyond me, but this is not the place to discuss it. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Vibroacoustic therapy, again

User:Cyrinus/sandbox
A userspace copy of the article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibroacoustic therapy. No sooner did I put it up for MfD, the originating editor submitted it to Articles for Creation. How can I advise the heavily backlogged AfC reviewers that the only changes have been the insertion of additional fringe sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Some "mind-body intervention" articles

I WP:PROD'd these four some days ago:

1. Soul retrieval (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
2. Sandra Ingerman (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
3. Kinetic Forgiveness (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
4. The Slide Effect (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The proposed deletion of the first two has been contested. Are these articles in fact salvageable? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Soul retrieval should be deleted (take it to Afd if necessary), only the fringe writer Robert Monroe is used on the article and this is unacceptable. It does not seem a notable topic. Kinetic Forgiveness and Slide Effect cannot find any reliable references for, they should also be deleted as well. There are some possible sources (magazine and newspaper articles) for Sandra Ingerman, but she doesn't appear that notable. Goblin Face (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews boxes

From time to time I do a bit of work on our UFO articles. Many are in the same credulous state they were when written years ago by UFO enthusiasts, so it's not hard to find one that needs attention. Recently, after cleaning up material cited to fringe sources (and worse, fringe interpretations of material published by reliable sources) at Stephenville, TX UFO sightings I noticed a "Wikinews box" directing readers to a related news story, ‪MUFON releases report on UFO sighting in Stephenville, Texas‬, that gives undue weight to a report by MUFON alleging government intimidation and conspiracies. Are these boxes an NPOV workaround, or what? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say yes, read the discussions of Wikinews at WP:RSN. I don't think we should have Wikinews boxes anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I was thinking of the discussion here, see above. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well coincidentally I see consensus at RSN is "wikinews is a user generated source and therefore not reliable per WP:RS and WP:V". Seems clear to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews itself is a workaround. I'd like to have the Wikinews template deleted, myself, but there are a few valid uses from back before it self-destructed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Cremo and Paleoanthropology

An editor has added a pov tag to Paleoanthropology on the basis that mainstream archaeology is biased and that Michael Cremo must be included. I've removed it as a misunderstanding of NPOV and the purpose of the article but I expect him to put it back. See Talk:Paleoanthropology#''Controversy'' section Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)