→Timewave zero again: notable? Possible AfD |
|||
Line 349: | Line 349: | ||
How does one treat such material, which appears to be so far out on the fringe as to have no contact with reality, whilst still retaining notability? |
How does one treat such material, which appears to be so far out on the fringe as to have no contact with reality, whilst still retaining notability? |
||
:I still question the notability of Timewave Zero to begin with.[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
:I still question the notability of Timewave Zero to begin with.[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:: If it hasn't been covered in [[WP:RS]] then it should be nominated for deletion ASAP. Otherwise, getting it into a much better state before the bock expires would be great. Does it meet [[WP:GNG]]? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:02, 18 August 2009
Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
- Please . Thank you!
A user has requested more sources and evidence of notability for this work. I'm sure people here can provide some. This seems to be related to the Jim Tucker/Ian Stevenson/Reincarnation research debates. Reviews, sources, citations all requested! Thanks, Verbal chat 13:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well... it seems to be mentioned by multiple authors in other works... see this google book search. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly a bad faith request by a very active POV-pusher. I've removed the tag. Of course sources would only be helpful, but we can't pout up with such obvious attempts at censorship. DreamGuy (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. He does seem to be raising the same issues about that article that have been repeatedly raised at Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker. However it is true that the book does not meet WP:N, and from Googling it does not seem like the sources are there to make it meet WP:N – adding quotes to the Google books search brings up no substantial mentions [1], and a general web search is just coming up with product descriptions and the like. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. If verifiable sources are provided that meet the notability guidelines I will of course withdraw my nomination, but it seems unlikely. Artw (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Some of Shermer's work is independently notable per WP:BK - for example, Science Friction, Why People Believe Weird Things, and Denying History. I have to say, I'm not finding a lot of independent coverage of this particular work, at least in my initial Google-search permutations, nor does it seem to have spent any time on the bestseller list. If that's the case, it might make sense to merge the available info (which is largely just a description of authors and subject matter) into the biographical article on Michael Shermer. MastCell Talk 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. He does seem to be raising the same issues about that article that have been repeatedly raised at Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker. However it is true that the book does not meet WP:N, and from Googling it does not seem like the sources are there to make it meet WP:N – adding quotes to the Google books search brings up no substantial mentions [1], and a general web search is just coming up with product descriptions and the like. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. If verifiable sources are provided that meet the notability guidelines I will of course withdraw my nomination, but it seems unlikely. Artw (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- The linked article for The Skeptic's Dictionary Does not appear to meet WP:N, WP:BK, WP:WEB. All current references are links to the skepdic site. I would suggest adding some sources there as well – Google doesn’t come up with much that is usable but there seem to be some mentions of it if you do a books search
- An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural has similar problems - I suspect it would be better off merged to James Randi Artw (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot even be serious with this recent tagging spree of yours filing AFDs and throwing notability tags on books that are skeptical and that get mentioned here. You can't just start attacking any source that says something you don't want to hear and hope to censor the topic. This is an obvious WP:POINT violation, and if you continue on in this path you should get blocked for it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- See your talk page. Artw (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural is notable by virtue of its authorship (Arthur C. Clarke, together with Randi). Note that virtually all of Clarke's published ouevre is considered independently notable, probably under WP:NB criterion #5. MastCell Talk 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clarke appears to have only written the introduction, with Randi you may have a point. I'd be happier all round with proper references. Artw (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I'm going to go ahead and say that it doesn't meet 5, as it requires a conciderable level of historically significant that, no offense to him, Randi does not have. Artw (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I took a look at this and found an additional ref in seconds, which with the existing refs means the template is no longer needed. I suggest that those of you that do not like the presence of notability templates on those other articles do the same instead of complaining to me about tagging. Artw (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clarke appears to have only written the introduction, with Randi you may have a point. I'd be happier all round with proper references. Artw (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural is notable by virtue of its authorship (Arthur C. Clarke, together with Randi). Note that virtually all of Clarke's published ouevre is considered independently notable, probably under WP:NB criterion #5. MastCell Talk 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- See your talk page. Artw (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot even be serious with this recent tagging spree of yours filing AFDs and throwing notability tags on books that are skeptical and that get mentioned here. You can't just start attacking any source that says something you don't want to hear and hope to censor the topic. This is an obvious WP:POINT violation, and if you continue on in this path you should get blocked for it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The asrticle on Robert Todd Carroll seems like a rich source of potential references that could be used to bring the The Skeptic's Dictionary to the point where it meets WP:N. I'm not entiurely sure why I mention this, since form the evidence of the last few days conversation you lot are far too lazy and useless to do it and I'll end up doing it myself. Artw (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the recent keep arguments for the Encyclopedia convinced me to vote keep although earlier I was considering voting for a merge. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Armenian patriotism galore. After all these months, this article still hasn't gone past the mandatory handful of diehard nationalists pushing Soviet era propaganda. Many more encyclopedist's eyes needed. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
hello? There are at least three nationalist kids between them "owning" the article. We either need enough bona fide editors to keep the article under control, or an admin with balls to show them the door. --dab (𒁳) 07:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Some one should stop with fantasies and start reading the talkpage. Traina, Mahé, ... have nothing to do with Armenian nationalism. Sardur (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The only "kid" around here is Dbachmann - his language is like that of a spoilt brat whose offensiveness knows no limits and who has never had limits imposed. Meowy 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- says Meowy, who had to place about four rants on my talkpage before understanding the very simple concept of WP:CITE. There is a problem: The Moses of Chorene article is under attack by patriots pushing pseudohistory. This noticeboard is designed to address such problems. Meowy's animosities towards my person have nothing to do with this. Indeed, Meowy could help protect the Moses of Chorene from the trolls and thus contribute to the resolution of the problem instead of stalking me with random personal attacks. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- "under attack by patriots pushing pseudohistory": how funny, I'm Belgian and of absolutely no Armenian descent.
- On the other hand, Dbachmann is edit-waring and tries to impose his PoV (while scholarship on Moses generally agree that the dating issue is still disputed); and he even doesn't care about what has been reached after request to WP:3O. Who is the "troll" (as quoted from Dbachmann's post preceding mine, not as my opinion)? Sardur (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- And even after those 4 "rants" Dbachman still couldn't understand the very simple concept that deleting content is not the same as asking for citations. Meowy 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- says Meowy, who had to place about four rants on my talkpage before understanding the very simple concept of WP:CITE. There is a problem: The Moses of Chorene article is under attack by patriots pushing pseudohistory. This noticeboard is designed to address such problems. Meowy's animosities towards my person have nothing to do with this. Indeed, Meowy could help protect the Moses of Chorene from the trolls and thus contribute to the resolution of the problem instead of stalking me with random personal attacks. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The only "kid" around here is Dbachmann - his language is like that of a spoilt brat whose offensiveness knows no limits and who has never had limits imposed. Meowy 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
ahem. I am willing to absorb as many personal attacks as I have to, but the issue of the Moses article pushing pseudohistory still remains. So, the sooner you switch from taking potshots at me to reacting to the actual problem at hand, the better you will pobably look to the outside observer.--dab (𒁳) 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't got time to deal with this at the moment (nor for the foreseeable future) but WP:VUE is worth reading on the use of foreign language sources. --Folantin (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- "the sooner you switch from taking potshots at me to reacting to the actual problem at hand,..." And the sooner you will actually read the talkpage of the article, the better you will start to understand that quotes from Western scholars have been given for weeks. As for personal attacks, I didn't make a single one. I wish I could say the same from others. Sardur (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with dab. The article is taken over by a group of editors, who prevent others to add any info. If anyone tries to add any info that contradicts the 5th century claim, it gets instantly reverted, no matter how reliable the source you are referring is. The discussions are being stonewalled, and the progress is extremely slow. After many months of discussions I managed to achieve a consensus only on 2 short sections. In general, the article attaches an undue weight to the opinion of the Armenian scholarship, while the western scholarship is being suppressed. Mahe and Traina mentioned above are among the few international scholars who agree with the 5th century dating. Most of the 5th century dating supporters are the scholars in Armenia and the Armenian diaspora, as described by politologist Razmik Panossian: [2] Something needs to be done to bring the article to neutrality, and fairly represent both opinions on dating. Grandmaster 05:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Misrepresentation of Mahé (whose position in the introduction of his translation is that the issue is not settled) and of Panossian. Sardur (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's BS and you very well know it! Dab edited the lead against consensus and removed the 5th century date from the first paragraph in its entirety, when both dates were present earlier. You agreed with that version of the lead which was deleted subsequently by Dab! Also, Mahé's translation of Khorenatsi has receieved less negative criticism than Thomson's. Your understanding of what is an international scholar is tainted by your Armenophobia, several of those 'Armenian scholars' have published work in peer reviewed western journals and that's all that matters here (what a shocker that most of them are Armenians, Armenian manuscripts are mostly written in Armenian ... surprise, surprise). It's hard for you to accept that every individual regardless of his ethnicity has equal chance of having his work published in reputable publications if their paper is well researched and respects standard protocols. It's dishonest to come here and claim that the article is taken over by a group of editors and then supporting everyone blindly regardless of the fact that they sabotated the concensus you participated in, simply because they're in a dispute with editors that you consider opponments. Don't forget to mention why you began editing that article to begin with. Thanks.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- It would be good if you refrained from personal attacks on other editors and minded WP:AGF. It is behavior like this that drives people away from editing this article. Like it or not, as it was mentioned above, it is a group of people with certain national POV that edit wars and WP:OWNs this article. It is enough to check who exactly edit wars to prevent the alternative opinions on dating of this author from being included in the article. This is the biggest problem wikipedia is facing with. Many articles are taken over by groups of editors who do not allow others to edit them. The fact remains that the 5th century dating is not generally accepted in the scholarly community, especially that outside of Armenia. All the existing scholarly opinions must be fairly represented in the article, whether someone likes them or not. That's what WP:NPOV requires. Grandmaster 06:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Spinning off from the discussion regarding The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience I did a quick survey of articles relating to the feild of skeptisism and found quite a number that currently fail WP:N.
The Skeptic's Dictionary- Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown
- Junior Skeptic
- Voodoo science
- Daniel Loxton
Barry BeyersteinMilbourne ChristopherDerek ColandunoThe Planetary Society- Kendrick Frazier
- Sven Ove Hansson
Ray HymanJoe Nickell- New England Skeptical Society
James ObergRobert Sheaffer- Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj
CICAP- China Association for Science and Technology
- Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association
- Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham
- Science and Rationalists' Association of India
- Tarksheel Society
- Irish Skeptics Society
- Swedish Humanist Association
- Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning
- Indian Rationalist Association
- Sociedade Brasileira de Céticos e Racionalistas
- Sociedade da Terra Redonda
Given their expertise in this field I'm assuming members of WP:FTN will want to do search for third party reliable sources and add them to these pages where they can be found. I'm assuming them will be no brainers, but it does need to be done if WP:N is to be met.
Note that removal of the notability tag without providing sources is not particularly helpful: It is an informational tag that describes steps required to keep an article within Wikipedia, so assuming you don't want to see an article deleted or merged before someone has a chance to fix it you probably want to leave that tag on there. Artw (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you consider the Planetary Society as "relating to the field of skepticism". Cardamon (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's linked to from List of skeptics and skeptical organizations, so I ended up taking a look at it, but you are correct: It's only tangentially related to skeptisism. Still, I'm sure that someone here would be interested in helping it along. Artw (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
many of these should just be merged without further ado, e.g. Voodoo science into pseudoscience, or Derek Colanduno into Skepticality. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Some of these perhaps make sense, but some are absolutely ridiculous. Joe Nickell, Ray Hyman, James Oberg are not notable? Thats insane. Just Joe Nickell's bibliography alone is longer than most stubs. It's not enough to write 30+ books? And Oberg has made significant contributions not only to scientific skepticism but also to journalistic reporting on the space program. I'm not sure merging Derek Colanduno makes sense, because he has significant contributions other than Skepticality and has an asteroid named after him.
- Is this just very strict adherence to the rules, or someone with an anti-skepticism axe to grind at work here? --Krelnik (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, well then thanks for the "help". I really enjoy having a deadline to fix 30 articles all at once, with overanxious "fringe theories" editors hovering over my shoulder. (I find it odd that this list is even brought up here in "fringe theories". Science & skepticism is not the fringe viewpoint, it is the consensus viewpoint). I only noticed this list by virtue of some watchlist items and following several links to find this. A more appropriate venue would have been to bring it up under Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism which most of these articles are connected to. --Krelnik (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it worth chekcing in relation to the Skeptics Encycolopedia discussion above. If you think it would be reposting the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism then please feel free to go ahead and do so. Artw (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also there is no deadline here - none of the articles are up for deletion and you have my word that I won't be putting them up for deletion unless I've done a very thorough search for sources. I suspect a few merge discussions to lessen the workload may be a good idea, but I intend to leave that to others. Artw (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, well then thanks for the "help". I really enjoy having a deadline to fix 30 articles all at once, with overanxious "fringe theories" editors hovering over my shoulder. (I find it odd that this list is even brought up here in "fringe theories". Science & skepticism is not the fringe viewpoint, it is the consensus viewpoint). I only noticed this list by virtue of some watchlist items and following several links to find this. A more appropriate venue would have been to bring it up under Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism which most of these articles are connected to. --Krelnik (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Artw has a very valid point. We have to hold the skeptics up to the same standards that we hold the Fringe theorists. That means we have to establish why a skeptic (or any thing else) is notable. If we are going to demand this in an article about some Fringe theorist, we have to demand it in an ariticle about a skeptic. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The follow also need a little work, mostly bringing references in line, to make it clear that WP:N is met, though I beleive from the various links and references on the page that they do:
Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations Julia Sweeney Martin Gardner Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Gene-centered view of evolution Richard Wiseman Randy Cassingham The Blank Slate
(Again, this is a pretty meandering and informal survery of articles, so some of these are only indirectly skeptisism related (Gene-centered view of evolution is by way of Dawkins, that sort of thing) and by nomeans should it be considered a complete list. Artw (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see any stated procedure anywhere for removing a ((notability)) tag, so I've added 11 footnotes (cited in 17 different spots) to Ray Hyman and went ahead and removed the tag on that article. Let me know if there's an issue. --Krelnik (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The procedure is that if you think the tag is invalid or (preferably) you improve the article to the point where it no longer applies, you remove it. There aren't a lot of bureaucratic rules for this. So it sounds like you did the right thing. As for some of the articles listed above such as Sweeney and Gardner: they are highly notable (not necessarily primarily for being skeptics) but as Artw points out the sourcing in them is inadequate, so I agree that some improvement seems to be called for. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say best the procedure is probably WP: BRD. Sifaka talk 18:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice David Eppstein & Sifaka. I'm relatively new, only been editing for about 9 months. I spend considerable time coming up with new material to put in Wikipedia, including actually looking at microfilm at my local library. (What? There are ways to research other than Google?) You can see how it might seem annoying when someone swoops in from a different area of Wikipedia entirely and starts slapping tags on things without attempting fixups themselves. I've alerted several other editors who work on these skepticism articles all the time and improvements are underway. --Krelnik (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- If I had my way, article tags would be outlawed for anything except likely hoaxes and major proposed changes such as deletions or mergers. They are very obnoxious, and often are used to push a point of view rather than to improve the article. In most cases it would be better to raise a point on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've updated the list a little to cross out some articles that have been considerably improved. A tip of the hat to Krelnik in particular who is doing some fantastic work with these. Artw (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice David Eppstein & Sifaka. I'm relatively new, only been editing for about 9 months. I spend considerable time coming up with new material to put in Wikipedia, including actually looking at microfilm at my local library. (What? There are ways to research other than Google?) You can see how it might seem annoying when someone swoops in from a different area of Wikipedia entirely and starts slapping tags on things without attempting fixups themselves. I've alerted several other editors who work on these skepticism articles all the time and improvements are underway. --Krelnik (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say best the procedure is probably WP: BRD. Sifaka talk 18:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The list is laughable. I just grabbed an article title at random (China Association for Science and Technology,) put it into Google, and got a BBC article about the president of China speaking at their 50th anniversary dinner. Yes, maybe Derek from Skepticality shouldn't have his own article. But The Skeptic's Dictionary? It's been reviewed in New Scientist, the BBC, etc etc. James Oberg is the foremost Western expert on the Soviet space program and the chief space reporter for MSNBC (and not even particularly well-known as a skeptic.) You're obviously using some strange criteria to make this list and certainly not the WP:N policy you've cited. 69.159.60.55 (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
James Oberg not notable? A clear case of WP:POINT. NVO (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- The "strange criteria" I am using here is called "looking at the article", which at present contains references to James Oberg's website and some articles penned by James Oberg. Given the guys stature it a couple of reliable third party links covering his work shouldn't be too much to ask, should it? Artw (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- You do not understand WP:N. WP:N is an objective criterion for whether a subject is notable, not an evaluation of whether a Wikipedia article has enough references. If I write article "George W. Bush" referencing only "ihatedubya.blogspot.com" this means not that George W Bush is a non-notable subject. Some small fraction of the articles you list are arguably non-notable, like Derek from Skepticality as I said above. Most are very obviously notable, even if their current articles lack third-party refs. 74.14.70.54 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This is just User:Artw disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT again. I would suggest that WP:DENY applies here. DreamGuy (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated a number of these articles that do not appear likely to be improved for deletion here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association
A group editors advocating Armenian POV in Wikipedia is persistently attempting to either remove or obscure a reference to the Georgian origins of the name of this Turkish city - [3], [4], [5] (initially removed by a sock [6]). While the city may have been associated with Armenia at some point in history, it is not now, and there is no reliable reference as to either the meaning of "Kars" in Armenian or to the fact that the origin of the name is Armenian, whilst a reference that clearly says the name is Georgian. Can you please, look at the issue and decide whether Armenian transliteration should even appear in this case, when Georgian is not being allowed. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Even worse now. While the source is presented, another source is removed altogether to emphasize only Armenian claim to the name - [7]. Atabəy (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are reading a hell of a lot into what are actually extremely minor changes. And what does this have to do with fringe theories again? I mean other than the fact that your opponent's presumed "Armenian POV" is clearly fringe, while your own evident Azerbaijani POV is obviously not... 64.231.61.103 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is awfully ridiculous. Let's make this clear. If editors follow the edit wars on that article, they will see an attempt to add a modern Azeri transliteration of the word Kars to no avail. After this unsuccessful attempt, Atabey came and removed the Armenian term and replaced it with Georgian. The fact is that the word 'Gari' was never used for the place in English, the word 'Kars' came to us first to describe an entity in Armenia from Armenian literature. While it is true that the word is claimed to have come from either an Armenian or a Georgian word, the naming of the city as 'Kars' came to us from Armenian. It's as simple as that... as simple as providing the original transliteration of the current English language word, just as much as in any serious English dictionary the Latin or Greek original terms are just next to the English word to give them a clue. Also, Atabek's claim of Georgian etymology is contradicted by his own long term behavior on Wikipedia..., as several places like Nakhichevan have etymologically Armenian terms which is backed up by dozens of sources (unlike the one single source he came up with here), but all those were systematically removed. - Fedayee (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be a definitive policy about the purpose of listing alternative names for a location. Is there one? In his edits, I think Atabəy was quite conciously distorting the common-sense usage, which would be to list the historical name(s) for a place that has changed its name, or to list the native name(s) where the name commonly used in English is not the same as the native name(s). Atabəy is trying to introduce into the first sentence of the article a specific theory (one of several) about the etymological origin of the name "Kars" [8] and [9]. Those controversial edits form the background to this edit conflict. They are controversial for three reasons. Firstly, there is no evidence that the settlement of Kars was ever called "Karsi". If the alternative names are there to list historical names then his addition is not valid at that location within the article. Secondly, the Georgian word "karsi" is just one possible etymological origin for the word "Kars", and there are other theories - so inserting just that theory is POV. Actually, the concept that every placename must mean something and that that something can be deduced with certainty, is wrong. Thirdly, the core reason behind Atabəy's edits are to remove the Armenian name that appears on the first sentence. That Armenian name is justified because it is a real alternative name, an historical name which differs from the curent name. Meowy 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think the opinion of independent (i.e. non related to the region) reviewers would be more valuable in this regard. The argument here is that if there is one possible etymological origin of the name, it shall be listed also, while others are listed. Conversely if Georgian etymological origin is removed, then there is no reason to keep the Armenian one. Keeping one and removing the other from the introduction of the article is clearly an Armenian POV pushing, especially given the fact that the city is located in Turkey not in Armenia.
- Another point to be emphasized here, if we list etymological origins of the city in Turkey, why not also list the etymological origins of various cities in Armenia, especially those that do not originate from Armenian? Atabəy (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is a plain old content dispute, with nothing to do with fringe theories. Please find somewhere else to resolve this. Fences&Windows 20:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a content dispute (though neither is it a "fringe theory" dispute). Does Wikipedia have a policy on what should be in the first sentence of an article about a place? Can you suggest where we can go to ask about what is, and what is not, appropriate to include as "alternative names", and whether it is appropriate to include theories about the etymological origin of the place name in that list of alternative names? My opinion is that it is not appropriate because it is the wrong location within the article to place such information. Meowy 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is a plain old content dispute, with nothing to do with fringe theories. Please find somewhere else to resolve this. Fences&Windows 20:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- The closest we have to a guideline on this is: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Based on those guidelines, theories about the etymology of a placename should not be placed in the lead section. Meowy 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed a section from the article, and there is a very unhappy editor complaining about this on the talk page. If anyone else is interested in this I'd appreciate it if they'd take a look. Maybe some of it should go back, but it was a lot of SPS stuff and I may have missed some relevance that would mean that some of it should go back. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Falun Gong
- Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (including but not limited to: Teachings of Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)).
The topic area is plagued by POV pushing and personal commentary. I am currently attempting to help mediate the dispute. The current stage of the mediation is focused on identifying serious issues and soliciting uninvolved outside input. I have invited some experienced uninvolved editors to take part in the editorial process, in an attempt to help steer things back on track. However, further specialized outside input would be invaluable. If some of the regulars from this noticeboard could review the main Falun Gong articles for fringe theories and severe undue weight violations, it would be sincerely appreciated. Providing a review at the main article talk page and/or correction of the problems would be particularly helpful. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- One issue, when I originally started working with these articles I came to it as an "uninvolved" editor and eventually found myself being thrust firmly into an anti-FLG mold by the people defending the PoV in the articles for my attempts to remove POV. Some semblance of order is finally descending thanks to the concerted efforts of MANY editors but I have to say, more help is ALWAYS welcome.Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
no doubt an extremely important artefact, but it would appear the article has been written by people who want it to be aged 20,000 years, not 9,000 years. That's a huge difference, and raises WP:REDFLAGs. Also the speculative, question-marked "interpretations" seem rather far-fetched. Also raises further {{notability}} issues for the Alexander Marshack and Claudia Zaslavsky articles linked. The lakeside Ishango population of 20,000 years ago may have been one of the first counting societies, but it lasted only a few hundred years before being buried by a volcanic eruption sounds like cheap fiction of the Lost World kind. In any case. my WP:FRINGE detectors went off with this article and perhaps somebody else wants to take a look. Also check out Lebombo bone which imo is a clear case of a ghost-artefact. --dab (𒁳) 08:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd also object that a tally stick does not imply counting. In fact, a tally stick might be used because a society doesn't count (eg speaks a language that has no numerals), though of course it might lead to counting. kwami (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- this isn't plausible. Everything points to finger-counting as the natural first step. This of course doesn't leave archaeological traces. number names become associated with that. Additional "tools" like tally sticks are a later step.
- but my issue here is not with the Ishango stick being a tally stick, but with (a) the early date and (b) the speculations regarding multiplication / prime numbers etc. and the lunar calendar thing. I find it very very problematic to postulate something like this for the early Upper Paleolithic. --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- A quick check shows that there are a number of relevant recent sources on this, but unfortunately I can't download them from home, so I can't figure out which date is supported by the current consensus of anthropologists. Both dates still seem to be mentioned. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be only some shaky evidence for this, and while I'm no longer convinced it's a blatant hoax, I'd like some more people to take a look. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I found this, so it's at least not a blatant hoax. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are now ten references in the article including academic journals. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I put this up while the article still looked very shaky. It's far better now. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are now ten references in the article including academic journals. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"the Galileo of the 20th century"
An editor is attempting to push opinion of Harold Lief, a self-described "close friend and indeed an admirer" of Ian Stevenson, that "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known ... as 'the Galileo of the 20th century'" into the lead of that article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Did Stevenson also drop things from towers and get imprisoned by the Catholic Church? Fences&Windows 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, someone needs to get out the ban stick for that article. The dedicated determination of the POV pushers there is crazy. And anybody looked into sockpuppet concerns yet, both in general and for banned users? The strategy of civil POV pushing and gaming the system demonstrated there are way beyond what anyone can in good faith expect from newbie accounts. DreamGuy (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- So true. Two very hard working red link WP:SPA's have politely ("Cheers!") but firmly tilted the WP:WEIGHT of that article with persuasive pro-reincarnation arguments to rebut each scrap of criticism and successfully WP:COATRACKed material openly supportive of Stevenson and reincarnation in at least three other BIOs. But they haven't done anything ban-worthy per se (unless WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is now a ban-able offense.) I don't have the time to bicker with this crowd. If they want the article THAT bad, I say let them have it for the time being. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Lots of nonsense in here.
The worst bit: "Chi Kung practiced at the mind level cures any disease, including diseases considered by some as incurable, such as cancer, diabetes, ulcers and cardiovascular disorders."
Please see its AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaolin Wahnam Institute. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Viktor Suvorov is a former low-level GRU officer-cum-amateur historian, who argues without sources and from extremely circumstantial evidence that Hitler's 22 June 1941 invasion of Soviet Union was desperate pre-emptive strike against Communist juggernaut about to attack him (in accordance with long-held Stalinist master plan of world takeover.) He has found extremely hostile reception among professional historians, although a few have made vaguely sympathetic though noncommittal reviews.
Suvorov article as of now is highly promotional. Worst problem: It conflates "Suvorov thesis," which is about disposition of Soviet ground troops in Spring/Summer 1941, with various "Stalin's psychology and ideology" debates, which revolve around his committment to Socialism in One Country versus his possible sympathy for Permanent revolution achieved by military force (ie, Soviet invasions / subversions of other countries.) So you have a lot of legitimate authors saying "Stalin was maybe more aggressive than some people realize," and they have no time for Suvorov, yet they are presented as allies supporting Suvorov's fringe theory. Careful attention has been lavished on accumulation of book and scholarly journal sources, but of those I have checked, many are being blatantly misused.
Suvorov's own article is worst. Soviet offensive plans controversy is about his thesis and looks OK though disproportionate space in text given to his few allies, overall framing makes clear his idea is non-mainstream to say the least. Suvorov influence is apparent in other articles though. He has other wild ideas in relation to not just 1941, for example, he claims that all estimates of Soviet military equipment are wildly distorted by Monkey model bias (that article should probably be AfDd) and his ideas are liberally sprinkled through articles relating to various pieces of USSR military equipment. 74.14.70.54 (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you actually disagreeing with any of his points? Find an argument in defense of Onkel Joe and fix the articles. NVO (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Doubt
Is it necessary to quote works in English to prove that a theory is not a fringe theory,Can foreign works be used too ? If a publication claims that their book is Academy reviewed or peer reviewed can the publishers word be taken as true ? --Gnosisquest (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- We allow non-english sources on wikipedia (although English sources of the same quality or better take precidence over non-english sources). As to your second question, the fact that a book claims peer review does not make it so. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Its like this I have a single reliable source in English language proposing a theory ,There are other sources proposing the same theory but in different languages .So can I use these foreign sources to prove that the english source is not a fringe theory ?--Gnosisquest (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am concerned by your word choice here... If what you mean is: "can I use non-english sources to subtantiate that the topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (per WP:NOTE)?" then the answer is: Yes. If you truely mean "do foreign sources prove that the theory is not Fringe"... then no... the fact that a theory is discussed in multiple languages has no impact on whether it is considered Fringe or not. Fringe theories can come in any language. More importantly, we should not be using Wikipedia to "prove" anything (trying to prove things is biased editing, and violates WP:NPOV)... we should simply summarize what the reliable sources say on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Its like this I have a single reliable source in English language proposing a theory ,There are other sources proposing the same theory but in different languages .So can I use these foreign sources to prove that the english source is not a fringe theory ?--Gnosisquest (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, Gnosisquest, I suppose the easiest would be for you to just present your case with what sources you have and see how people react, and things will develop from there. --dab (𒁳) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- When you bring a topic here, it's good to provide a pointer to the article in question. We've all had the experience of people describing a dispute in a slanted way and then asking for opinions -- editors here will be reluctant to commit themselves if they can't verify that your summary is accurate. Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if the subject interests anyne else, but I'm already too involved in this article and want to back out if I can. Various problems, see the talk page. I won't comment myself about it, but if, as I said, anyone's interested in Egyptology they might enjoy this. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
oh dear, this appears to be the classic WP:FRINGE case, a theory associated with a single scholar, who is even personally dominating the talkpage and giving directions on how he would like his views advertised on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have left a notice at the Ancient Egypt project talk page about this. Hopefully those with more knowledge of the subject can attend to it. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not think a lot of expert knowledge is needed here. Rohl suggested this revised chronology based on "let's take the Hebrew Bible and find a historical person to match each character that appears in it". Egyptologists have looked at it and said "98% rubbish". It's a fringe theory that received some limited media coverage. It should just be merged back into the David Rohl article and presented for what it is worth. --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
this is pretty bad, and we need to look after the "revised chronology" articles more generally. A lot of undue crackpottery seems to have been festering here. See Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, apparently a clone of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies dedicated to Immanuel Velikovsky. David Rohl appears to be a product of a sizeable "shadow academy" starting with Velikovsky's Revised Chronology (1952) which engendered the Glasgow Chronology (1978). This is all 100% WP:FRINGE. Other limbs of this would include Emmet Sweeney (link to deletion debate) and Gunnar Heinsohn (a tenured sociologist who apparently fell for Velikovsky), Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered), Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis. All of this needs to be checked for notability and proper presentation, strictly within Category:Pseudohistory. Super-articles are Catastrophism and Phantom time hypothesis. The David Rohl articles appear to be the most vigorous attempt at misrepresenting this thing as part of bona fide Egyptology at the moment.
Help from more FRINGE-savvy editors is badly needed here, as we haven't got past the stage of "but it was on TV" on talk yet. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- PS, Donovan Courville, Peter James (historian). This seems to be a pretty deep well of WP:FRINGE that has so far passed largely unnoticed on this board. Oh yes, Rohl also knows where Eden was, James knows about Atlantis, and Courville can revise the chronology of Sumer to fit Ussher's date for Noah's flood. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
some more assistance here? The talkpage of this article is a regualar COI swamp and I cannot be bothered to resolve this on my own. --dab (𒁳) 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
We have a new editor, ArXivist who doesn't quite get WP:NPOV on WP:Fringe topics. Me and several other editors have tried explaining it to him, but without much success. Our 9/11 conspiracy theories article might need some extra attention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- New editor? I. Don't. Think. So. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about sock puppetry on Wikipedia to form an opinion, but Cs32en is one of the most prolific POV-pushes I've ever encountered. He's been able to grasp the basics of Wikipedia policies and guidelines which leads to some very time consuming rebuttals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is again undergoing edits that change whether Stevenson's research is accepted or rejected at large, possible mischaraterisations and misrepresentations of sources, peacocking, etc. Please take a look. The discussion on the talk page is repetitive and tedious, unfortunately. Verbal chat 13:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Sigh)... This needs to be bumpped up the dispute resolution chain. POV pushing is never acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Now sourced information is being removed as it's 'unfair'. Sheesh. Verbal chat 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see this article now states that "scientific opinion of his research is split". Wow. This is the first I've heard of a controversy within science that reincarnation is the best explanation for this guy's anecdotal evidence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories and pseudoscience
Question being considered here: Should this article have the pseudoscience tag and template? It's also home to a lot of fringe POV pushing generally, so a good one to add to watch lists. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience category does not label the article as pseudoscience, it labels the article's subject. "Moon landing was a hoax" qualifies as pseudoscience. And now excuse me while I hop over to Youtube for the vid of Buzz Aldrin decking the annoying fool calling him a liar, I never tire of watching it. Go Buzz! Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It has win written all over it. Verbal chat 12:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not pseudoscience, it's a conspiracy theory. (Theorists may make use of faulty quasi-scientific reasoning to prove that we never went to the moon, though.) You wouldn't call Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories pseudoscience, would you? --Akhilleus (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It has win written all over it. Verbal chat 12:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Akhilleus... the topic isn't pseudoscience (if it is "pseudo" anything it would be pseudo-history).Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)- (ec) There is precedent for tagging a topic that is primarily something else and only part of which is a pseudoscience as a pseudoscience. Homeopathy is also tagged as a pseudoscience, although it is primarily a (complementary/alternative medicine) practice, and it's not clear how relevant the pseudoscientific aspects of the belief system and the questionable attempts to support it scientifically really are.
- We don't seem to have clear criteria for this. Personally if I feel that something needs to be rooted out once and for all (to prevent further damage, or just because it's so unbearably silly), then I am more inclined to add it to the article than when I feel it's harmless nonsense. I suspect that many people feel similarly. Unfortunately the inclusion criteria are not clear enough to settle such questions, because they don't give a working definition of pseudoscience, and properly defining pseudoscience is a field of active research. Hans Adler 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Would someone please explain (briefly) what parts of the article involve pseudoscience. Are pseudoscientific claims discussed, and if so what are they? Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Never mind my last question... I have answered it for myself. The section [Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories#Ionizing radiation and heat] clearly involves pseudoscientific claims. I am going to change my mind... the tag does apply. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The whole list of claims that one can tell that there is a hoax is, from end to end, based on defective technical claims. This doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason to call it pseudoscience. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Shifting to neutral gear… I could see it labeled as "pseudohistory" instead as suggested by Blueboar. Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The whole list of claims that one can tell that there is a hoax is, from end to end, based on defective technical claims. This doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason to call it pseudoscience. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jenny McCarthy has the pseudoscience tag for claiming that vaccines cause autism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- May I point out that Category:Pseudohistory seems tailor-made for this article? It has a little pseudoscience, but that's solely to back the pseudohistory. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is full of shaky claims and lacks anything resembling a reputable source. I suspect the best thing to do would be to delete it. (It was prodded some time ago but the prod was contested.) An editor named James Aslan (talk · contribs) has complained about the article on the talk page, but apparently isn't familiar enough with Wikipedia procedures to address the problems effectively. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is quite a lot of material (fringe or otherwise) about this theory. See, for example, Google books. It clearly passes WP:N and should be covered. I made a cursory attempt to make it clear the theory isn't mainstream. I am no expert by any means, so I welcome better editing efforts. However, outright deletion doesn't seem appropriate given the level of coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this topic to make any kind of realistic call on this article, but it sounds awfully fringey to me. It's currently up for AFD with zero !votes after four days, so I thought people here might want to take a look at it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It shows up on Google Scholar well enough, but it is also clearly a fringey attempt to medicalize acupuncture. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy is/isn't FRINGE
Some debate on the homeopathy page talk here as to whether homeopathy is covered by WP:FRINGE. Clearly relevant to this noticeboard. Also, several other interesting discussions, if you can cope with the feeling of déjà vu. Verbal chat 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- That talkpage has never been a thing of beauty or an attractor of purely saner heads, but after reading it, abandon all hope ye who enter there. You have both my sympathies for your participation and my apologies for the lack of mine. I am admitting to this not because I believe my attitude is healthy (it most certainly isn't) but rather to demonstrate what a dire need of reform this project has to issues that befuddle such articles. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- In case somebody doesn't understand this remark and is afraid of looking: It's about FAQ Question 4: "Should the article call homeopathy a fringe belief?" The FAQ's answer is "yes", but the article doesn't actually do it. An editor changed the answer to "no" and started a discussion. I introduced the aspect whether for the purpose of this question (note the word belief in the question) homeopathy should be evaluated as something that wants to be a science, as CAM, or as a belief system. Personally I don't think a 200-year-old belief system with homeopathy's number of followers (in some key countries) is a fringe belief, even if it has a strong pseudoscience component and attempts to justify it scientifically are without a doubt fringe science or worse. Of course not everybody is happy with treating this topic as anything but a failed science, though. In particular homeopaths generally want it accepted as a science. I think this should give a general impression. ;-) Hans Adler 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, the yes-or-no answers in the FAQ. A sockpuppet of a permabanned user ran around messing with a bunch of FAQs, including the ones for Evolution and Global warming as well as homeopathy. In the global warming one I got rid of all the yes/no answers on the grounds that we should present readers with the facts but shouldn't tell them what to conclude. (The guy fought this, but eventually it stuck after he was blocked.) The Homeopathy FAQ may benefit from a similar approach; at the least, it would obviate the wrangling over whether the answer should be "yes" or "no."
- I admit I've given up regular monitoring of the talk page. It's a mess in the best of times, and lately has degenerated into a free for all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ec x 2) As one of the few who almost always answer "it depends" when these polarising questions are asked, I totally agree with this idea, of course. In the current form there is no chance that it convinces anybody in the targeted group, anyway. But perhaps we should give people a few weeks to calm down first.
- Yes, it's the same for me. Too much polarisation recently. Hans Adler 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing SBHS's comments leaves me less with a feeling of validation for my own cowardice but rather more with one of inevitable resignation.
- To partially repent for my original lame comment above, I will add that Hans' summary appears reasonably accurate, although the problems there go far beyond and before that particular section. As a silver lining, one extraordinarily disruptive (by being naive to the goals and principles of the project, not by necessarily meaning poorly) editor recently got topic-banned from there, which should be a (very) small step in the right direction. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- My 2 cents - Homeopathy = fringe.Simonm223 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- In case somebody doesn't understand this remark and is afraid of looking: It's about FAQ Question 4: "Should the article call homeopathy a fringe belief?" The FAQ's answer is "yes", but the article doesn't actually do it. An editor changed the answer to "no" and started a discussion. I introduced the aspect whether for the purpose of this question (note the word belief in the question) homeopathy should be evaluated as something that wants to be a science, as CAM, or as a belief system. Personally I don't think a 200-year-old belief system with homeopathy's number of followers (in some key countries) is a fringe belief, even if it has a strong pseudoscience component and attempts to justify it scientifically are without a doubt fringe science or worse. Of course not everybody is happy with treating this topic as anything but a failed science, though. In particular homeopaths generally want it accepted as a science. I think this should give a general impression. ;-) Hans Adler 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
AfD link where the theory that the pharmaceutical industry is engaged in "competitor suppression" forms a major part of the discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Another eye on these articles would be useful, see the talk page of both. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Timewave zero again
Time, like light, may best be described as a union of opposites. Time may be both wave and, ultimately, particle, each in some sense a reflection of the other. The same holographic properties that have long been an accepted part of the phenomenon of the perception of three-dimensional space also suggest that interference patterns are characteristic of process. Living beings especially illustrate this: They are an instance of the superimposition of many different chemical waves, waves of gene expression and of gene inhibition, waves of energy release and energy consumption, forming the standing wave interference patterns characteristic of life. We hypothesize that this wave description is the simple form of a more complex wave that utilizes the simple wave as the primary unit in a system of such units, combined in the same way as lines are combined into trigrams and then hexagrams in the I Ching. We will argue that this more complex wave is a kind of temporal map of the changing boundary conditions that exist in space and time, including future time. We have called the quantized wave-particle, whatever its level of occurrence within the hierarchy or its duration, eschaton.
We don’t think about time because we take it for granted like breathing, but consider our hypothesis that the space-time continuum is a modular wave-hierarchy. The Eschaton is a universal and fractal morphogenetic field, hypothesized to model the unfolding predispositions of space and time. This structure was decoded from the King Wen sequence of the I Ching and was the central idea that evolved in the wake of the events of La Chorrera as described in my book, True Hallucinations.
The above is a good example of the pseudoscientific word-salad babble that makes up the WP:PRIMARY source material for this 'theory' (to which I became exposed after responding to an earlier FTN notice on the topic).
In that time, I have discovered that:
- This babble is apparently quite notable, at least in the fuzzy new-age quantum mysticism style fringe of things.
- There appears to be absolutely no WP:RS interpretation or analysis of it.
- As it is essentially meaningless, it is virtually impossible to summarise.
- We have an editor, Systemizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mercifully blocked at the moment), who insists on adding his own WP:OR interpretations which, although no more meaningful than the primary source, bear no particular resemblance to it, and appears totally disinterested in discussing the problems this causes on talk.
How does one treat such material, which appears to be so far out on the fringe as to have no contact with reality, whilst still retaining notability?