MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 21d) to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 15. |
→Passage meditation: new section |
||
Line 436: | Line 436: | ||
:::The guru of sungazing, [[Hira Ratan Manek]], has pictures of himself on his website which show that he has a chronic case of [[arc eye]]. I suspected a hoax until I saw that. [[User:Skinwalker|Skinwalker]] ([[User talk:Skinwalker|talk]]) 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
:::The guru of sungazing, [[Hira Ratan Manek]], has pictures of himself on his website which show that he has a chronic case of [[arc eye]]. I suspected a hoax until I saw that. [[User:Skinwalker|Skinwalker]] ([[User talk:Skinwalker|talk]]) 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[Passage meditation]] == |
|||
This article just came to my attention. Could do with a cleanup and perhaps rebalancing. Thanks, <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> 11:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:13, 19 October 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!
Needs some attention, Systemizer (talk · contribs) is adding what is apparently OR, but eyes from more scientific types would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unsure if it is OR or not but it is certainly hardcore edit warring. 8 reverts against edits by 4 editors in 24 hours is double-plus-un-good. I have notified 3RR noticeboard.Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also Holographic principle is being spammed in the same way by the same editor, who refuses to participate on the talk page. Verbal chat 20:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- At this point I'm waiting on the 3RR admin board to do something before I engage him further in edit warring.Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Has been blocked for two weeks. Looie496 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- He has immediately started trying to put the disputed material back on Holographic principle now that his block has expired. Simonm223 (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Has been blocked for two weeks. Looie496 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- At this point I'm waiting on the 3RR admin board to do something before I engage him further in edit warring.Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also Holographic principle is being spammed in the same way by the same editor, who refuses to participate on the talk page. Verbal chat 20:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a report on a bizarre project that claims that any tiny statistical variation in a random number generator that occurs for any length of time any time within a few days of an event the authors deem important is proof of psychic powers.
- Presents this as legitimate, respected science
- Leaves all criticism out of the lead
- Minimises criticism and gives proponents of the project the last word to any criticism.
In short, a pretty bad article. A lot of the articles in Category:Parapsychology could use a similar cleanup, since a lot of true believers have pulled out the crankiest research in parapsychology and made promotional articles out of it. More mainstream parapsychological articles tend to be better. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have made some improvements and fixed some of the worst wp:undue and wp:npov problems. I cleaned up the citations a little but was unable to add any new or reliable sources, which would go a long way to getting this article into shape. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've done some further edits to sharpen it and reorganised it. I've put some sources on the talk page here. Fences&Windows 20:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think I have to bow out. I have found some of the comments on the talk page to be quite offensive for personal reasons but I don't believe they actually violate WP policy. If I continue I fear, however, that I may violate WP:CIVIL. Sorry guys. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've done some further edits to sharpen it and reorganised it. I've put some sources on the talk page here. Fences&Windows 20:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
All this renewed attention to the article, and yet still no mention there of the definitive project that stands a chance of pegging the meters and silencing the critics for good. I may get around to adding it myself, but then again it might be more productive to use that time to train for this year's big December event. Tim Shuba (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- One of the best constructive edits in this section, though a bit violating Wikipedia:Noticeboards. Thanks for bringing global orgasm into attention. Logos5557 (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Zero-point field
Hi.
There's this article at Zero-point field that seems to promote various alternative theories about quantum mechanics and zero point field in a manner not consistent with Wikipedia's policies on the issue. I went and started to discuss it on the talk page at that article, and they seemed to want to turn it into a discussion about the validity of the theories and not how it conforms to WP policy or fails to do so. It seems to involve a group of anon editors, and they're threatening to pull the dispute tag. What to do about this? You should also review the discussion at Talk:Zero-point field too (the last couple of threads about neutrality dispute). mike4ty4 (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Most of the article seems reasonable. The section on "Andrei Sakharov and the elasticity of space" seems essayish and a bit inflated. The section called "Related" is really bad. It says, "Such views are not without controversy. Some see such discussion as pseudoscience. [22] However, physicist David Bohm and other respected scientists...". The reality is that nearly all physicists see this as utter nonsense. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. However some also seems to recapitulate stuff already said in Zero-point energy, like the bit about the harmonic oscillator, so perhaps it needs to be worked more into the context of the quantum field theory, as the very first part "In quantum field theory, the zero-point field (or zpf) is the lowest energy state of a field, i.e. its ground state, which is non zero.[1] This phenomenon gives the quantum vacuum a complex structure, which can be probed experimentally; see, for example, the Casimir effect. The term "zero-point field" is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field." Also there seems to be so much focus on the E/M field, is not there a zero point field of every quantum field? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just went in and tweaked the "new age" theories bit. What do you think of the revised version? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realize there are two articles. I don't really see any need for that. Looie496 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Another thing is, I wonder about statements in there like these: "More recently it has been understood that the electromagnetic zero-point field and the electromagnetic force carrier (the photon) are probably fundamental to all three forces, because the electromagnetic force (expressed by the Lorentz force equation) does not require mass." However is that really right? I thought the nuclear force were carried by other particles like gluons (which may or and the W and Z particles (which have mass!)). Or does this relate to stuff like electroweak theory and grand unified theories (the latter of which are not yet even agreed on)? But would it really be proper to call the unified force particles "photons" in that case? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be best to merge it with Zero-point energy? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I redirected it to Vacuum state. See my comments on the physics project page for more info. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realize there are two articles. I don't really see any need for that. Looie496 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Pre-Graves goddess threesomes
The section Pre-Graves goddess threesomes in Triple Goddess has a {{cn}} tag on virtually every clause. I'm inclined to delete the whole section, but if anyone would like to take a crack at cleaning it up before I take WP:BOLD action, be my guest. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like you have provoked a burst of referencing, which is good, because it would be a real shame to lose that material if it is valid. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually no, the "sources" added are all primary sources with the 'interpretation' of them is being done by an editor. I'd leave the section up for a while, there is some potentially citable content there hidden amongst the nonsense. Any help properly citing it would be appreciated! Davémon (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would be nice if some new voices would join the discussion at Talk:Triple Goddess, things seem to be going in circles. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually no, the "sources" added are all primary sources with the 'interpretation' of them is being done by an editor. I'd leave the section up for a while, there is some potentially citable content there hidden amongst the nonsense. Any help properly citing it would be appreciated! Davémon (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(undent) OK, I'm losing patience. This thing is being sat upon by a WP:SPA who is talking the thing to death. Can someone uninvolved care to take a look and see whether we are off-base in resisting him? Mangoe (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is getting out of hand. If Sizzle wants to improve coverage on triple goddesses in general, why cannot he do so in a straightforward manner and without pointless disputes on the Neopagan article? --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Clear content fork with Random Number Generator. Article creator is opposing redirect. Third party opinions welcome. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry but I don't think this is a proper redirect. The material in that article does not belong in Random Number Generator in my opinion, so by redirecting, you're effectively deleting the article without discussion. The phrase "random event generator" gets 447 hits on Google Scholar (virtually all parapsychology-related), including a number of articles that use it in their titles, so a claim that it does not deserve coverage on Wikipedia would be doubtful at best. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Other than the name in what way is a "random event generator" different from a "random number generator"? Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Two ways: first, it runs in hardware whereas most random number generators are actually "pseudorandom" algorithms that generate sequences that are not truly random; second, it is used for a specific purpose whereas software random number generators are used for a huge range of purposes. A "random event generator" is a type of random number generator, but its use is so unusual and fringey that it would be undue weight to even mention it in the random number generator article. Random event generators are notable but barely so; random number generators are a major topic in computer science that every programmer needs to understand. Looie496 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Would the alternate redirect (which links to parapsychological uses of the hardware device) satisfy you? I am fine with it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Being hardware doesn't make it not pseudorandom, that would depend on the hardware - and it should be discussed at random number generation. Parapsychology isn't the only, or even a very good, application for real random numbers. The software/hardware debate is also a bit misleading - there really isn't much difference between them, any hardware can be implemented in software - and hardware is generally "petrified software". All instances of general purpose software and hardware are used for a specific purpose, so I don't see what that changes. The new redirect is the best resolution I feel.Verbal chat 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- My concern with the redirect is that if things go as they usually do on Wikipedia, somebody will remove that material from the random number generator article in a week or so, and nobody will complain about it. (I'm certainly not going to keep watch for this.) Other than that, the only quibble I have with what you wrote is that unless you believe in hidden variables, quantum mechanical randomness is "true" randomness that can't be implemented in software. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Quantum computation is one of my areas of professional expertise :) You are right that measurement cannot be simulated in software authentically without using a random source, but these exist and we don't need to mention parapsychology to discuss these. There are interesting in their own right and for much more important practical reasons (in cryptography, for example), or even simulating a QC. Verbal chat 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- My concern with the redirect is that if things go as they usually do on Wikipedia, somebody will remove that material from the random number generator article in a week or so, and nobody will complain about it. (I'm certainly not going to keep watch for this.) Other than that, the only quibble I have with what you wrote is that unless you believe in hidden variables, quantum mechanical randomness is "true" randomness that can't be implemented in software. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Two ways: first, it runs in hardware whereas most random number generators are actually "pseudorandom" algorithms that generate sequences that are not truly random; second, it is used for a specific purpose whereas software random number generators are used for a huge range of purposes. A "random event generator" is a type of random number generator, but its use is so unusual and fringey that it would be undue weight to even mention it in the random number generator article. Random event generators are notable but barely so; random number generators are a major topic in computer science that every programmer needs to understand. Looie496 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Other than the name in what way is a "random event generator" different from a "random number generator"? Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
{Undent}I wouldn't entirely rule out hidden variable theories within quantum mechanics; it's fully possible that there is deterministic crap happening that we just haven't observed or effectively described with math just yet. But that's getting a bit off topic. I have no intention of removing information from random number generator either, I understand your concern but I'm reticent to allow a POV fork in the off chance that somebody deletes properly referenced discussion to a fringe use of hardware derived random number generators. Simonm223 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hardware means all physical artifacts, not just related to computers (and actually hardware in "hardware number generator" means "physical artifacts"). A zener diode is a hardware for instance, which can provide random data based on its thermal noise. You can't upload (or petrify) a software into a zener diode but you can use a software to collect and transform the data from it. Therefore, there is a huge difference between hardware and software random number generators. When the source is physical, it is hardware random generator, when the source is an algorithm or a software it is pseudorandom number generator. Logos5557 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- And that is a topic appropriate for discussion in random number generator. Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be resolved. I see that Random number generator has already had a section on hardware random number generation for at least a month. Also there's the article Hardware random number generator, which has a section on parapsychology. I was going to suggest redirecting to that section, but I see that that's already been done. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- And that is a topic appropriate for discussion in random number generator. Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced BLP about a hero doctor of the alternative health movement. The section that describes his battles with the FDA doesn't seem very balanced. He's an Associate Editor of Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, so definitely very fringe.Fences&Windows 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Someone is claiming that as this guy has written 3 non-notable books he doesn't need to be notable, and is adding references to the article which are sourced to ... wait for it ... the articles talk page! Which features the famous Nancy Merkle!! And the subject himself (or so the IPs claim) has also posted a long diatribe on the rather awful talk page. Help needed to fix this! Should it go to AfD? Is he notable? Verbal chat 20:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- This Guardian article is one source that briefly mentions Blaylock. Asking for WP:RS, as Verbal just did, seems to be the appropriate way to tackle this issue. Clearly, the article in its present state would be an AfD case. Cs32en 20:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- How is a person a fringe theory?86.3.142.2 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be obtuse. Fences&Windows 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not being obtuse, serious question, how can this board consider the biography of a real human being to be a fringe theory?86.3.142.2 (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- My medical knowledge doesn't extend much farther than first aid so I would not be appropriate to review it and it may very well be just fine. However this article: Excitotoxicity is strongly connected to Blaylock and presents the subject matter of the article as fact (it could very well be fact, again I don't have the background to really make statements to that) With that being said, it might be good for somebody with some serious medical expertise to give it a look over and confirm whether it's scientifically supported assertions or a fringe theory. Simonm223 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blaylock's recent work on nutrition etc. places him in the scientific and medical fringe, whether or not he's correct in his claims. Proponents of fringe theories should be discussed here. Fences&Windows 13:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not aware that his theories place him in the scientific and medical fringe, and I see nowhere a cite or statement which of his theories is considered so. The right place to discuss a biography of a living person is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, regardless of what they are "proponents" of.86.3.142.2 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I assure you his theories are fringe, hence this noticeboard is appropriate. The BLP noticeboard would also be appropriate, but this noticeboard is more specialised towards fringe theories and proponents, while the BLP noticeboard is more geared towards breaches of the BLP policy. One of the problems with this article is there is no evidence yet that he is notable, and the article should probably be deleted. Verbal chat 15:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I am not assured. I see no evidence that his theories are fringe, and with respect, either of us assuring each other is no substitute for evidence. I understand your logic for putting people on a fringe theory notice board but respectfully disagree - as I believe compartmentalisation of overview leads to systemic bias as I believe is demonstrated when one looks at the earlier comments in the thread, which all assume guilt of fringe without any evidence. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of his notability.86.3.142.2 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then please provide WP:RS and address the notability issue on the talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- This Guardian article indicates that Blaylock's viewpoints are fringe with regard to the scientific debate, which is what WP policy refers to. There may be other sources, but in the absence of them, this is a reliable source that is clearly sufficient to characterize Blaylock's viewpoint as a viewpoint that has fringe status with regard to WP policy. Cs32en 20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then please provide WP:RS and address the notability issue on the talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I am not assured. I see no evidence that his theories are fringe, and with respect, either of us assuring each other is no substitute for evidence. I understand your logic for putting people on a fringe theory notice board but respectfully disagree - as I believe compartmentalisation of overview leads to systemic bias as I believe is demonstrated when one looks at the earlier comments in the thread, which all assume guilt of fringe without any evidence. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of his notability.86.3.142.2 (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I assure you his theories are fringe, hence this noticeboard is appropriate. The BLP noticeboard would also be appropriate, but this noticeboard is more specialised towards fringe theories and proponents, while the BLP noticeboard is more geared towards breaches of the BLP policy. One of the problems with this article is there is no evidence yet that he is notable, and the article should probably be deleted. Verbal chat 15:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not aware that his theories place him in the scientific and medical fringe, and I see nowhere a cite or statement which of his theories is considered so. The right place to discuss a biography of a living person is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, regardless of what they are "proponents" of.86.3.142.2 (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blaylock's recent work on nutrition etc. places him in the scientific and medical fringe, whether or not he's correct in his claims. Proponents of fringe theories should be discussed here. Fences&Windows 13:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- How is a person a fringe theory?86.3.142.2 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a source, I can understand your position now. The paper you quote is from 2004 and says
But popular opinion has travelled - spectacularly - in the opposite direction to science. By the early eighties, fuelled by books like Russell Blaylock's Excitotoxins - The Taste That Kills, MSG's name was utter mud. Google MSG today, and you'll find it blamed for causing asthma attacks, migraines, hypertension and heart disease, dehydration, chest pains, depression, attention deficit disorder, anaphylactic shock, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases and a host of diverse allergies.
It is making a bit of leap (WP:OR) to say he has "fringe status" based on 'popular opinion's spectacular travelling away from science' as couched in the journalist's opinion. The source does not show Blaylock's position on MSG at all, or if it itself is non-mainstream, just that his book was a spur against MSG. Even then, the article continues
However, there remains a body of respected nutritionists who are sure MSG causes problems - especially in children. And parents listen. Most doctors who offer guides to parents qualify their warnings about MSG - it may cause problems, it has been anecdotally linked with disorders. But public figures like the best-selling nutrition guru Patrick Holford are powerful advocates against MSG. He's sure the science shows that MSG causes migraines and he is convinced of the dangers of the substance to children, particularly in the child-grabber snacks like Monster Munch and Cheesy Wotsits.
If I were to WP:OR that myself I would say "Respected nutitionists and most medical doctors warn about MSG" but that is actually closer to the source. I note a more recent article from the same paper, attributed to the BMJ as listing MSG as one of the common things that can trigger a migraine attack. Whereas MSG may have been dismissed recently as not being the cause of 'Chinese restaurant sydrome', Blaylock's concerns were not that it ever did.86.3.142.2 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Guardian article indicates that it very likely is a fringe viewpoint (theories that "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study", WP:FRINGE); it is not a proof that Blaylock's views are fringe. However, there is, to my knowledge, no default assumption that a particular theory would be not fringe, and as we would prefer to err on the side of caution, I'd say it's sufficient for making the preliminary determination that Blaylock's views are to be considered fringe and that WP:FRINGE thus applies to the article. A single mention in one article is not enough to meet the notability criteria anyway, and additional secondary sources would very likely contain further information that can help to clarify the status of his theories and hypotheses. In the unlikely event that there would be enough sources to meet WP:N, but no further information on the status of his theories, we would probably have to quote the relevant part of the guardian article verbatim, so that the reader can draw his or her own conclusions about its meaning. Cs32en 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, the source does not say what you are saying it says, using anything that amounts to 'likely pointing to being fringe' is utterly unacceptable in BLP. None of the information in the article refers to fringe science, the information in the article refers to a person's biography and is adequately and appropriately sourced. As I noted on the talk page, there is a wealth of information out there when you trawl, most of it, though, wants money to view the data, so I have deliberately chosen to use only those pieces which are free.86.3.142.2 (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't advocating to write in the article itself that (some) views of Blaylock are fringe, but that, based on the available information, we should classify the article, or the part of the article that deals with these views, as falling under the WP:FRINGE guideline. If there is a (permanent) article on Blaylock, we will very likely have further information on this question, and we need not say that his views are "fringe", we can (always depending on the actual information from appropriate sources) characterize his views as "supported by a minority", "minority viewpoint", "differing from the established theory" or whatever would seem most adequate. Many of these terms do not violate WP:BLP guidelines (and "fringe" also would not, if sources clearly indicate that the views are unambiguously fringe). Cs32en 01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, the source does not say what you are saying it says, using anything that amounts to 'likely pointing to being fringe' is utterly unacceptable in BLP. None of the information in the article refers to fringe science, the information in the article refers to a person's biography and is adequately and appropriately sourced. As I noted on the talk page, there is a wealth of information out there when you trawl, most of it, though, wants money to view the data, so I have deliberately chosen to use only those pieces which are free.86.3.142.2 (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that this article has been nominated for deletion. Verbal chat 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
An IP has been doing a whitewash of this article, stripping all critical material [1]. He's at 5RR, for the record. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 06:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Make that unresolved, but we seem to have successfully transitioned to the discuss at Talk:Acupuncture phase. More eyes would still be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Could do with some attention. Arguments about notability and adding dubious sources countering criticism, and not only giving the article a criticism section but a response to criticism section - which I find very unencylopedic. Anyway, could do with some TLC from assorted editors here. Please join in! Verbal chat 21:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Verbal, is there likely to be any mileage in the idea of merging it with the article on its founder, Shelton? I don't know if it's notable in its own right, but I don't like to see it with only two kinds of source (its founder and the debunker Stephen Barrett). If its profile were as high as some other forms of complementary medicine then there might be some independent sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support that merge. At the moment there is a new editor attempting to remove the criticism by Barrett saying it's unfair. Verbal chat 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- That would help, especially since the field is not well-distinguished by outside observers from similar practices. The Shelton article should not get the Fit For Life stuff, though. If I recall correctly, the paucity of material treating the modern revival has more to do with my attention span than availability of independent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support that merge. At the moment there is a new editor attempting to remove the criticism by Barrett saying it's unfair. Verbal chat 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed the merge, however the other editor has again removed some of the only reliably sourced material - the criticism - from the page, in apparent retaliation that I removed his quote and WP:SYNTH. Verbal chat 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
How to properly acknowledge a fringe theory?
If a fringe theory appears in an article, should the fact that it is fringy, and the current mainstream academic view of the theory be consigned to a footnote, or should it appear in the main copy of the article? Davémon (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd suggest the following:
- Always in the text, not in a footnote.
- Always refer to the relevant article with a link, and state that it is a specific viewpoint.
- Depending on the circumstances, describe the majority viewpoint.
- Depending on the circumstances, use "minority viewpoint" or a more specific description that clearly characterizes the viewpoint as a viewpoint held by a minority. The term "fringe" may sound dismissive rather than encyclopedic (my personal viewpoint), so I would be reluctant to use it, but this also probably depends on the circumstances. Cs32en 20:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Always with reference to the relevant scientific community. Minority viewpoints should be characterized as minority viewpoints, while some fringe viewpoints may in fact best be described as "singular" viewpoints, if they a propagated by a single proponent. Cs32en 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't think this is something we can or should make firm and fast rules about. Some Fringe theories do not even merit mention in other articles (per WP:UNDUE), while others do. Of the ones that are mentioned in other articles, sometimes it is best to clearly note that it is a fringe theory, and at other times it is best to phrase things with more subtlety. How to phrase things in articles is really a matter of consensus between the editors working on the article. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Always with reference to the relevant scientific community. Minority viewpoints should be characterized as minority viewpoints, while some fringe viewpoints may in fact best be described as "singular" viewpoints, if they a propagated by a single proponent. Cs32en 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
(← outdent) Since y'all are discussing here what I brought up there, I'll quote myself and hope for an answer here:
- "I wish WP:Fringe specifically said whether editors may or may not introduce the word fringe in an article when it isn't found in any source. IMO if something is decidedly non-notable fringe we leave it out, otherwise we call it minority."
Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- We have to take the discussion of Fringe theories on a case by case, article by article basis. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the specific situation is very important, and that editors thus should make decisions on a case by case basis. However, guidelines may contain guidance on (a) which aspects should be taken into account when discussion a specific case (b) the range of possible solutions applicable to most cases. Cs32en 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with pretty much all points raised. I think Cs22ens outline is a good one. Formal guidelines should only be based on already formed general consensus, with an aim to aid editors in arriving at a conclusion quicker. I would say that the phrasing should be taken as verbatim as possible from at least one of the mainstream sources which are critiquing the fringe theory, avoiding the editorial judgement of using the phrase 'fringe' or 'minority' (unless the critiquing source does). Strong or emotive language (even from highly respected experts in the field) should probably be avoided! Davémon (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the specific situation is very important, and that editors thus should make decisions on a case by case basis. However, guidelines may contain guidance on (a) which aspects should be taken into account when discussion a specific case (b) the range of possible solutions applicable to most cases. Cs32en 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- We have to take the discussion of Fringe theories on a case by case, article by article basis. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Context should also be important. E.g. the article about (say) Robert Graves's The White Goddess should (and does) have a section on criticism of that work. This needn't be replicated in the text body of every article that even mentions that book; it would be redundant, and require maintaining every separate copy. A footnote and/or wikilink — e.g., [ref] Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception.[/ref] — should suffice in that situation. Also note that this does not put Wikipedia in the position of declaring Graves's work either "fringe" or wrong (or right); this only says it was "criticized" (objectively true), and points to where those criticisms are quoted and cited. That leaves this encyclopedia a "fair broker" of ideas, not an advocate. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- The "redundancy" concept does not sit well with the idea that minority/fringe views should be explained as such where they are talked about in detail, which is clearly beneficial so not to mislead average reader into thinking wikipedia endorses a minority view. Relying on wikilinks and footnotes isn't quite enough to get the message across, some acknowledgement in the main body of the article is preferable. Wikipedia should be a "fair broker" of ideas as they are reported by the mainstream academia, subjects like 911 conspiracy theories, alien abduction, prehistorical matriarchal societies, should not be treated as equal with mainstream historical and scientific narratives. I agree, using the words used by the mainstream sources that critique a fringe theory is the right way of approaching this. Davémon (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- There are two points to clarify here. (1) "where they are talked about in detail" doesn't mean "everywhere they are mentioned or alluded to", e.g. in a short dependent clause of a sentence. (2) "should be explained as such" can be done very briefly in such mentions/allusions by adding (say) the word "controversial" and either a footnote or a wikilink to the detailed coverage — rather than inserting a lengthy argument that breaks the narrative and swings the whole sentence out of balance. I have in mind the one-line sentence with a four-word dependent clause:
... which became:...According to Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess.
...adding two lines of text to the four-word dependent clause, and overshadowing what the sentence was actually about. Adding just "the controversial[13] or "the controversial" before Graves's name wouldn't have been so obtrusive, but still would have given fair warning — perhaps even more clearly than that long text.According to the Robert Graves whose work on Greek Myth classicist Micheal Grant CBE considered to be "refashioned after [Graves] own images" and has been characterised as "startlingly distorted" and "misguided" by academics such as Richard Buxton [13] and considered only useful as a guide to Graves personal mythology [14]; Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess.
- Incidentally, the idea that Kore (the maiden) is not Demeter's daughter, but Demeter's own younger self, was discussed much earlier than Graves, in 1896, by Lewis Richard Farnell in The Cults of the Greek States, volume 3, p.121. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- There are two points to clarify here. (1) "where they are talked about in detail" doesn't mean "everywhere they are mentioned or alluded to", e.g. in a short dependent clause of a sentence. (2) "should be explained as such" can be done very briefly in such mentions/allusions by adding (say) the word "controversial" and either a footnote or a wikilink to the detailed coverage — rather than inserting a lengthy argument that breaks the narrative and swings the whole sentence out of balance. I have in mind the one-line sentence with a four-word dependent clause:
- The problem in this example is simply poor writing... The material could be rewriten as...
According to the Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess. Graves's theory, however, is controvercial. Academics such as Richard Buxton have characterised Graves's work as "refashioned after [Graves] own images" and "startlingly distorted" and "misguided" [13] and considered only useful as a guide to Graves personal mythology [14];
- ... and it would be both acceptable and accurate. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blueboar's text is an improvement (except for the spelling!), but I wonder if it would be better to cut out the sentence "Graves's theory, however, is controversial." The following sentence, cited to Buxton, seems sufficient to establish that Graves' opinions aren't widely shared--although I actually think Graves' views are quite popular, or at least many people seem to have views of Demter that are similar to his, even if they're not directly inspired by his work. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fine, so there we have it, clear as crystal: "Graves's opinions are not widely shared, though his views are quite popular, or at least many people have similar views even if they're not directly inspired by his work." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- ... I'm hoping you were being sarcastic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, who was being sarcastic? Anyway, Sizzle, I don't think it's that hard to understand what I was saying--Graves' views are not widely shared in academia, especially among people who study ancient Greece and Rome, but his ideas have had impact in the popular sphere. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Buxton's sentence establishes that Graves's opinions are not shared by Buxton. Each of the critics presumably expressed his own view. Whether academia (or the lay population) in general agreed more with the critics than with Graves is not in evidence just from quoting the critics. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry, Sizzle, you are not making a whole lot of sense here. Please make an effort to separate academic opinion on historical Demeter from modern literary or pop culture references to Demeter. I submit that this is a problem of section scope. The whole Graves discussion should be removed from the "Demeter and Persephone" section (which should focus on academic literature on the Eleusian mysteries), and put in a new "reception in modern literature" section. Grave's book is perfectly notable, but it isn't notable because it contributes to the scholarly study of ancient religion. It is notable, as the The White Goddess article points out, because it "remains a major source of confusion about the ancient Celts and influences many un-scholarly views of Celtic paganism" and because it has "misled many innocent readers with his eloquent but deceptive statements about a nebulous goddess in early Celtic literature". This makes Graves a perfect addition to an "in popular culture" section, but his WP:DUEness really stops there.--dab (𒁳) 09:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Academic opinion is not monolithic. Some of that criticism is quoted/paraphrased from an essay by Michael Pharand, who himself was quoting it but then disagreed with it. FYI, The White Goddess article points all that out only because I moved the text to that article from Triple Goddess. It is appropriate to point all that out in the article on the book, which is why I moved it there. That done, it needn't all be said again everywhere the book is mentioned: we can wikilink to it with a brief summary comment like "Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception." ... Which is precisely what I did.
Re Demeter: Graves is not the only person who has ever referred to her as part of a triple goddess; however, he is the person who popularized the idea, which makes him (and the book) worthy of mention there. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Academic opinion is not monolithic. Some of that criticism is quoted/paraphrased from an essay by Michael Pharand, who himself was quoting it but then disagreed with it. FYI, The White Goddess article points all that out only because I moved the text to that article from Triple Goddess. It is appropriate to point all that out in the article on the book, which is why I moved it there. That done, it needn't all be said again everywhere the book is mentioned: we can wikilink to it with a brief summary comment like "Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception." ... Which is precisely what I did.
- I am sorry, Sizzle, you are not making a whole lot of sense here. Please make an effort to separate academic opinion on historical Demeter from modern literary or pop culture references to Demeter. I submit that this is a problem of section scope. The whole Graves discussion should be removed from the "Demeter and Persephone" section (which should focus on academic literature on the Eleusian mysteries), and put in a new "reception in modern literature" section. Grave's book is perfectly notable, but it isn't notable because it contributes to the scholarly study of ancient religion. It is notable, as the The White Goddess article points out, because it "remains a major source of confusion about the ancient Celts and influences many un-scholarly views of Celtic paganism" and because it has "misled many innocent readers with his eloquent but deceptive statements about a nebulous goddess in early Celtic literature". This makes Graves a perfect addition to an "in popular culture" section, but his WP:DUEness really stops there.--dab (𒁳) 09:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Buxton's sentence establishes that Graves's opinions are not shared by Buxton. Each of the critics presumably expressed his own view. Whether academia (or the lay population) in general agreed more with the critics than with Graves is not in evidence just from quoting the critics. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fine, so there we have it, clear as crystal: "Graves's opinions are not widely shared, though his views are quite popular, or at least many people have similar views even if they're not directly inspired by his work." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I realize that academic opinion is not monolithic. I should hope it is not. This is no excuse for discussing Demeter in terms of Graves. Graves is relevant indeed for popular opinion, but he is completely irrelevant for academic opinion. I am not sure what you are trying to do with these articles. It's ok to include the criticism in the White Goddess article, as you did, but at the same time, The White Goddess is also extremely relevant to the (neopagan) Triple Goddess article, while all of this is perfectly irrelevant at the Demeter article, which I thought was what is under discussion here. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Historical racial categories
Capoid race had a lot of original research and didn't make clear that the term was no longer current. I've dealt with that, but I've also come across Africoid peoples, which is a harder nut to crack. There's debate on the talk page that flags up the problems with the article, but broadly it has a lot of personal opinion, original research, poor sourcing, and confused writing. A reduction and merge into Negroid has been proposed. Fences&Windows 17:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- This whole series of articles is a massive mess. It will need a whole taskforce to clear it up, because the minute any voice of sanity is introduced, at least 3 sockrings start jumping up and down all over again, plus a bunch of other Afrocentrist non-sock accounts. Afrocentrism is another unholy mess, as is Race of ancient Egyptians, where the destruction into stupidity of months of hard work drove me into wikibreak for months. I don't even want to start thinking about Africoid peoples, where the most bizarre claims are made, by the Afrocentrists, that 19th century concepts of race are still viable. Moreschi (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Race of ancient Egyptians needs to be reverted to the last sane revision. We have rules for a reason. The "historical racial categories" articles are a huge magnet for current-day racists, and we need to impose some sort of order there. The best move may be to merge all of them (excepting some three major ones) into scientific racism. As it is, the Iranid race article gets disproportional attention from Iranian racialist cranks, the Africoid peoples/Negroid race one gets disproportional attention from Pan-Africanist racialist cranks, etc. Having a main article on historical racial categories more generally will even out this effect. This whole racism issue remains a huge unsolved problem for Wikipedia. On one hand, we have politically correct hysteria preventing detached coverage of perfectly encyclopedic topics like the Race and crime debate in the US, while at the same time, positive racist fringe theories are running unchecked at all these little "this race", "that race" articles. On the Afrocentrist side, I think we are seeing a concerted effort at pushing the theories of [[S.O.Y Keita] way beyond their WP:DUE relevance --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Webmaster6, Francesco Fucilla et al
There have been several previous threads on this noticeboard about the Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science, a web organization either down a back lane in East Croydon or somewhere in Hungary. (It is connected with The Alpha Institute for Advanced Study, a web organization either in a village on the outskirts of Swansea or somewhere in Hungary.) This organization is devoted to pseudoscience and awards prizes mostly to those who have contested well-established parts of theoretical physics. Prizewinners include Myron Evans, Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Diego Lucio Rapoport, Alwyn Van der Merwe, Lawrence Paul Horwitz, Florentin Smarandache, other editors of Progress in Physics and Franco Selleri, whose BLP is currently up for deletion here. The organization at first bore the name of Ruggero Santilli; it appears to be financed by Francesco Fucilla, who has edited wikipedia himself (his editing style is instantly recognizable because he uses capitalization and exclamation marks, London IPs and often adds his own signature, a tell-tale sign). Webmaster6 (talk · contribs) has been slowly adding pages to wikipedia connected with Fucilla and this organization. Several articles on promotional videos have been deleted (starting with "The Universe of Myron Evans"; here's a video of Dunning-Davies extolling Santilli's theories [2]). Both Evans and Fucilla run off-wiki commentary on the BLPs they wish to add to wikipedia and the deletion process: Evans on his blog at www.aias.us [3] and Fucilla on the Telesio-Galilei website [4]. I believe that Myron Evans actually threatened WMF with action over his BLP (later confirmed by User:Daniel), which resulted in his own biographical stub being put up for deletion by me some time back. (A neutral description of his eponymous theory took its place.) I think more eyes are needed on this little walled garden of articles and in particular the contributions of Webmaster6 who appears to have a WP:COI. No need for wikipedia to become a mirror site for pseudoscientific websites, even if there is a slightly comical aspect to the whole thing (Santilli's magnegas - an alternative fuel based on his own new molecule, made from reprocessed human waste, tested on a Ferrari). Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just to remind everyone that the first step in handling a suspected conflict of interest is "direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline". There is no evidence that Mathsci has troubled to do that, or even had the courtesy to notify Webmaster6 of this discussion about his contributions. A further reminder: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." 213.48.162.2 (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- 213.48.162.2 (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet account. There seem to be too many around at the moment. Their statements are inaccurate, because of previous deletion discussions of Webmaster6's contributions (here for example) and threads on this noticeboard. Perhaps when 213.4.162.2 has a moment to spare, they can consult with their twin 213.48.162.4 (talk · contribs) on how to stalk me in a slightly less obvious way. Mathsci (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Note: this editor also seems to be Quotient group (talk · contribs), probably a new account of A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Alfred de Grazia
Consider stubbing this article. Lacks third-party independent sources. Is essentially WP:VANITY. 128.59.171.155 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, what a mess. yeah, I'm going to stub this down for now, and see about some sources later. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I worked on it about this time last year, and Science Apologist also put in useful work. Subject's notable as a political scientist, and the books on political science are worth listing. Later he became a fan of Velikovsky, and I suppose that is a notable fact about him, but it doesn't need too much detail. User:Amideg is the subject or close to him, so the article continues to be dogged by COI. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, he does seem notable. I'd say this can be re-written with an eye towards his works, but the way it was when I found it... blah. I'm expecting to get a heaping helping of flak when the interested parties notice, but I might be able to get some more relevant citations by then. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I worked on it about this time last year, and Science Apologist also put in useful work. Subject's notable as a political scientist, and the books on political science are worth listing. Later he became a fan of Velikovsky, and I suppose that is a notable fact about him, but it doesn't need too much detail. User:Amideg is the subject or close to him, so the article continues to be dogged by COI. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if you live in some parallel Wikipedia. Or what do you mean by "notable"? The article as it stands indicates no trace of notability. Just whence do you take your knowledge that he "does seem to be notable"? Nothing currently in the article I am sure (wrote a book, founded some sort of commune in 1970 which fell apart in 1972) -- please note that "notability" does not mean "can be googled". It means significant coverage in quotable, independent third party sources. Where are these sources? If they aren't forthcoming, simply delete the article, especially if it is a WP:BLP. --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- He did write quite a lot of books on political science, and they looked to me like standard textbooks but I'll look again. WP:PROF should be our guide. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
David Talbott
Consider stubbing this article. Most of the sources are promotional and directly connected to the author. Is essentially WP:VANITY. 64.206.236.98 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, no. Unlike the de Grazia article above, this one is well-sourced and appears neutrally written. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Quantum?
What the heck's going on in this user's contribution history? Both the articles and the edits need examination. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Scratching around from this user's history, there seem to be a number of rather fringey-looking quantum/mind-related articles that may be in need of closer scrutiny:
- Quantum mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Quantum mind/body problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Orch-OR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (aka Roger Penrose' "quantum mind theory", probably the worst of the lot)
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if there is an article devoted to documenting the misuse of the word "quantum" within fringe science and alternative medicine? It's got to be one of the most misused terms. There are plenty of examples (including articles here), with V & RS of the type allowable for an article on a fringe subject. Sources from believers and from skeptics would be allowable. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure I see the problem here. Quantum mind/body problem is a survey of philosophical thinking on the apparently anomalous position of the conscious/sentient observer in some interpretations of quantum mechanics; quantum mind is an overview of various theories that invoke quantum mechanics as an explanatory mechanism for mind, concoiusness and free will; and the most notable quantum mind theories are detailed in individual articles such as Orch-OR. Minority views, maybe, but those articles seem to be balanced, NPOV and well sourced. What exactly are your concerns ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- For some background you might also want to look here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Quantum mind/body problem seems to have little but original synthesis. Apart from mentioning Hugh Everett, it doesn't tell you anything about how quantum mechanics has been regarded in philosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- For some background you might also want to look here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think quantum mind/body problem breaks WP:SYNTH because it is not advancing a position. It is just a survey article like history of quantum mechanics or philosophy of mind. It summarises a whole bunch of attributed views, from Einstein to Dennet. Somewhat unevenly written, perhaps, but not a problem article. I still don't see what Brangifer's concerns are with the three article he listed (quantum mysticism is another kettle of fish entirely ...). Gandalf61 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not advancing a position? It's purely the view of Wigner. Which might be notable enough to warrant summarising somewhere (probably in the article on Wigner), but not like this. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's not how the article reads to me. The term "quantum mind/body problem" may have been coined by Wigner, but the article presents the views of several scientists and philosophers on this topic. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- It collates the views of several scientists and philosophers, but they were usually not directly addressing this topic. So it's synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's not how the article reads to me. The term "quantum mind/body problem" may have been coined by Wigner, but the article presents the views of several scientists and philosophers on this topic. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not advancing a position? It's purely the view of Wigner. Which might be notable enough to warrant summarising somewhere (probably in the article on Wigner), but not like this. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think quantum mind/body problem breaks WP:SYNTH because it is not advancing a position. It is just a survey article like history of quantum mechanics or philosophy of mind. It summarises a whole bunch of attributed views, from Einstein to Dennet. Somewhat unevenly written, perhaps, but not a problem article. I still don't see what Brangifer's concerns are with the three article he listed (quantum mysticism is another kettle of fish entirely ...). Gandalf61 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor trying to connect Stephen Hawking's remarks on dark matter to paranormal beliefs. The article itself is based on very marginal sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the whole article appears to be nothing more than presentation and synthesis of (mostly fringe) WP:PRIMARY sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Dargaville's article involves a number of highly fringy things he's involved with or promotes. The article has quite a few issues, from style and grammar to lacking cites, to bordering on advertising. I had a go at trimming the fringe a bit, but there's plenty left to do. (much of it was written in the tone of an unquestioning believer, stating as fact things like Dargaville's meditation techniques being able to cure cancer, or his physics of mind 'validating' teleportation and "alien space travel")
Point is, I don't honestly know where to start with the numerous issues, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of those more experienced and see if anyone wants to work on it, rewrite it, ignore it, or nominate it for deletion. ;)
Hatchetfish (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've sent it to AFD as third party interest seems decidedly lacking. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Reincarnation research an attack page?
Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) recently nominated Reincarnation research for speedy delete as an attack page. More input and eyes requested on this and related articles (Ian Stevenson, Jim Tucker, Reincarnation, and European Cases of the Reincarnation Type). Verbal chat 09:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't canvass speedy deletions. Ikip (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I note that this is not the first time you've done this. Do not post requests here in this way. Ikip (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? This is an appropriate noticeboard and the speedy template was removed before I posted here - there is no ongoing deletion debate. I have never canvassed an AfD or speedy. Verbal chat 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ikip, you are not Colonel Warden's keeper. Let him make his own mistakes and defend them. Trying to delete that page via speedy deletion was... bizarre. Fences&Windows 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I note that this is not the first time you've done this. Do not post requests here in this way. Ikip (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed the POV tag as it doesn't seem justified. The resons given include that it is too skeptical (like the preponderance of RS) and that the lead summaries the article, including the fact that belief in reincarnation has been linked to trauma. Verbal chat 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Add borderline coatracking at Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect to your list of related problem articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
An article about a software program claiming to predict the future including 9/11, the Columbia accident and 2012. I would probably go and afd the article as being not notable. Or we can wait for October 25 for its next prediction to see if it comes true or not. --McSly (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- It has received significant coverage in the press, so I'm not sure AfD is appropriate. I've done some sourcing, still needs improvement. Fences&Windows 20:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Given its connection to various fringe theories, people on here may be interested in this AFD. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has time and an interest in this, there are quite a few sources on the talk page that could be used to improve the dating section which at the moment is biased towards a fringe viewpoint. I am not around much for a while and don't have time myself. There's also a long forum style post on the talk page and although maybe it should be removed I think editors should avoid responding in kind, we all know talk pages aren't forums. Some of the links on the talk page can't be used themselves but lead to good sources. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Corrected link. Moreschi (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- This sentence, sourced to an article in National Geographic, sounded bizarre. "Ceramic artifacts depict imagery of warriors, masked with puma skulls, decapitating their enemies and holding trophy skulls, adorned with belts of human heads with their tongues torn out." First, what was adorned with the belts, the warriors or the trophy skulls? Second, how do you show in a ceramic artifact that a tongue is torn out? I'm not even sure what a depiction, in ceramic, of warriors masked with puma skulls would look like. How reliable is National Geographic for archaeology? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- More likely NG has been rendered inaccurately. And this dating issue sounds rather worrying. I need to look into it but 15,000 BC sounds rather implausible. Antiquity frenzy anyone? Particularly when that seems to be partially sourced to German astronomy (huh?) from the 1930s (dated research by now, methinks). Moreschi (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- This sentence, sourced to an article in National Geographic, sounded bizarre. "Ceramic artifacts depict imagery of warriors, masked with puma skulls, decapitating their enemies and holding trophy skulls, adorned with belts of human heads with their tongues torn out." First, what was adorned with the belts, the warriors or the trophy skulls? Second, how do you show in a ceramic artifact that a tongue is torn out? I'm not even sure what a depiction, in ceramic, of warriors masked with puma skulls would look like. How reliable is National Geographic for archaeology? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has just been boldly renamed without discussion. Probably deserves some debate. At the very least the text needs changing to match to the new title of Outline of pseudoscience. (I prefer the very old title without the silly extra verbiage) Verbal chat 10:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- so The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) is at it again. One of the more ill-advised mass-editors I have come across, and one of the most resistent to good advice and criticism. Needs more eyes watching their contributions history.
- this chap insists on littering article namespace with absolutely abominable content forks. Check out his Outline of chocolate or Outline of Iceland (you'd expect a description of the island's coastline) or Outline of water, etc. He copy-pastes the lede from the developed article, and then proceeds to posting a sort of "list of loosely connected articles", looking as if it was just the wikilinks ripped from the deveoloped article by means of a very short shell script.
- this WP:OOK thing isn't pertinent to WP:FRINGE, but "The Transhumanist" and his renitent attitude has caused major disruption and lost man-hours. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have suggested that the proposed policy Wikipedia:Outlines should be marked as failed due to the controversy and resistance found across the mainspace. See the talk page for my suggestion that it be marked as failed. Verbal chat 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Telugu
We have a fresh Indian racial drama, with Jaggi81 (talk · contribs) bent on declaring "Aryan" anything connected to the Telugu people or the Telugu language. The factual background of this is that Andhra Pradesh was indeed an Indo-Aryan/Dravidian contact zone in the Middle Ages. Check out the contribution history to see how this is turned into the usual confused racial nonsense. --dab (𒁳) 07:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, I'll be watching out in case this guy tries any further nonsense. Moreschi (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Recommended for your pleasure: Orpheus's passport!
There is, or was, a dispute at Orpheus over whether he can be classified as Thracian, Greek, or Macedonian. See Talk:Orpheus, the last revision before I swung the axe, my talk page, and even ANI. Weirder and weirder, it appears that Bulgarian Orpheus is even something of a meme in Bulgarian nationalism. This stuff applied to Alexander the Great was weird enough, but when applied to a mythical figure is simply frightening.
Read and weep. Moreschi (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
probably a good candidate for wp:lame Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Having a passport no doubt helped him get in and out of Hades. Don't die without your passport, and make sure you're buried with it! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which is proof the passport must have been Greek, because there's no way Charon would have taken any Macedonian passports as valid. Euridice, an alien, unfortunately got held up at the immigration desk. Moreschi (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly, he was a Kamboja. I have 278 references to demonstrate that. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Admin attn required on Talk:Parapsychology
Rodgarton (talk · contribs) is engaging in persistent personal attacks against editors on the talk page of this and related articles, and his own user page (where he calls other editors "retarded"). He's had several warnings about this, and related blocks. Could an admin look into this please? Verbal chat 12:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Fringe or significant minority viewpoint?
There is a debate going on here about what constitutes a fringe viewpoint and what constitutes a significant minority viewpoint. Namely: is it sufficient to be able to name a few notable proponents of an idea (even though they may be notable for other things) for this idea to be considered a "significant minority viewpoint"? Opinions are most welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
the significant minority viewpoint needs to be debated, and its existence needs to be recognized, in peer-reviewed academic literature. It doesn't matter so much who or how many people propose the view, it matters what impact it makes in academia. --dab (𒁳) 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- And don't forget that the debate moves on. What is the mainstream at one point may not be so for ever. Consider whether that can be addressed by using a chronological structure, or by finding scholarly histories of the contentions. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Lord, what a mess. This is one of those times where we really just have to make a judgement call and hope it all goes well, because it is an ongoing debate and the tertiary sources we could base meta-descriptions on haven't caught up with the research. My general impression is that the "hereditarian" position on race and intelligence - that is, a position that posits a 50/50 role between genetics/environment in explaining race and intelligence data - isn't "significant minority" and isn't "fringe" either. Probably "small minority" gets closest, if anything does. It's not a widespread view but evidently there is a small community of reputable people out there who go for it. As to what impact they make in academia - in a topic such as this naturally quite a lot. The type of impact is a different question altogether. Moreschi (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is funny, sad and interesting to me that wikipedia is trying to purge articles that are 'fringe'. Wikipedia is quickly coming just a run of the mill encyclopedia, like any other. The vision of what wikipedia could have been, ie: an encyclopedia that anyone can add to, is simply gone....this sux, i didn't get the memo until a few days ago. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk • contribs)
Chronic Fatigue, ME, and Viruses
BBC website has a story about a possible link between virus and ME. This will be picked up by many people. There are some people who think ME/CFS can be effectively treated with graded exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy. There are other people who say that CFS is different to ME, and that you can tell the difference because "real" (their words, not mine) ME doesn't respond to CBT or graded exercise. The latter camp seem to say that the illness has no psychological component (and also seem to say that a psychological component means it's not a "real" illness.) It's this group of people who'll seize the reports of a possible link with the virus and they may distort the findings. Here's a linky. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8298529.stm 87.115.68.252 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's more than a "possible" link, the story is based on this Science article, which is pretty compelling. This is a major development, and the story is going to be in flux for a while -- we'll just have to handle it as best we can. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is no fringe theory. Viral or other physical causes of CFS have never been fringe theories. Psychiatric treatment being effective and an underlying cause being triggered by an infection, autoimmunity etc. are not incompatible, but the debate has been wrongly polarised into "All in the mind" vs "Proper illness". Fences&Windows 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this entirely qualifies as fringe, but the authors autiobio makes me think so. Relevant articles are:
- David A. Kaiser
- Nicholas Dogris
- Penijean Rutter
- and Human-suit which I redirected to Human suit (original here[6]).
The first article in the list seems wacky, which combined with the self-promotion angle made me bring it up here. The editor in question has also been removing tags (improvement ones and CSDs) that I and other editors placed. Rather than get into an edit war, wanted to let other eyes take a look. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oddly, this has gotten less overtly fringy after templates were placed. Compare the old [7] version to the current David A. Kaiser. Weird, but still worth a look I think. --Bfigura (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
something to watch out for
Nothing major, but another rather amusing floating IP pushing the bizarre theory that various Indian languages are connected to Finno-Ugric: this proves, apparently, that the PIE urheimat is to be located in Scandinavia, and that "the Nazis were right after all". See contributions. Moreschi (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Geolocates to Finland. I can't recall ever having seen a Scandinavian nationaist take on this issue before. Something of a first, eh? Moreschi (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Finally a nationalist crank who is not from the Balkans, the Near East or India! My faith in humanity is restored :op --dab (𒁳) 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You've forgotten the Netherlands...Moreschi (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- And England vs Britain. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- You mean British Isles vs. "the Celtic archipelago that shall not be named". But that's not crankery, that's just whimpitude of the "how dare you hurt our extremely tender sentiments you imperialist" kind. Actually, I meant this debate. Wrong again, you Swiss person, you. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- And England vs Britain. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The Netherlands have produced at least one Wikipedian with a nationalism of the decidedly cranky kind, but that's a case resolved two years ago, with no sock armies come back to haunt us.
There are two issues of interest here, I think. 1, There has been a lot of vandalism here today (anti fluoridation TV show somewhere?), and 2, there is a talk page discussion about whether the page is "balanced". Cheers, Verbal chat 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Today's featured article on the Main Page, which at least explains the vandalism (if not the talk page stuff). --Bfigura (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Water fluoridation is a contraversial topic within a relatively small sector of society, as are related topics such as fluoridated toothpaste. The article as it stands (and as was promoted to FA, for what little that is worth) acknowledges the controversies in line with WP:WEIGHT: it is mentioned, but it is not the main point of the article. Physchim62 (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hekate and Hekat
At Hecate, one editor thinks that "Hekat" should be given as an alternative name of the goddess in the lead sentence, based on 2 neopagan sources. Another editor thinks these are pretty poor sources on which to base the first sentence of an article about a Greco-Roman goddess. Input welcome at Talk:Hecate#Hekat. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned above. Now in AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not so much fringe as fan-cruft for a few hard sci-fi stories but still agree that it should probably go. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Jesus thing isn't hard sci-fi. Maybe fantasy... --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A fringe bio which is having a lot of back and forth. Mostly consisted of a dubious biography and dubious praise. The AfD seems to rely a lot on GHITS and his large "publication" record. Verbal chat 09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Don't forget the ever-entertaining accusations of bad-faith editing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
cross-post: nationalism and the wiki
For those interested, my recent post at WP:AN#Wikipedia and nationalism - this is not getting any better might be worth looking at. Moreschi (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Shamanism
Please see the etymology section [[8]]. I could not find any of the google book links the person mentioned. But I did check etymology [[9]]. I tried to put the information there, but was reverted with what appears to be a WP:SPA in here: [[10]]. I did a google books search and they mention the word as either Tungus and many sources relate it to the Sanskrit word. Also prominent Turkologist like Gerald Clauson are not sure if Tungus can be classified as Altaic. [[11]]. Any help clarifying the etymology of this word is appreciated. Also I rather not edit that article, but the article requires some work. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- More Turkophilic stuff. If they can come up with a reference in English which we can assess, it could be included as an alternate theory if shows any signs that there are non-Turks who give in some credence. Replacing the whole section is a no-go given the strength of the references backing the Tungus theory; claims that the latter is Turkic can remain in that article. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This was just vandalism. Roll it back, a brainless s/Tungusic word/Turkic word/ replacement, the editor didn't even bother to adapt the spelling šamán. It is a paragraph I wrote back in January. It was already somewhat deteriorated before the vandalism.
The article is already aware that the word made it into Turkic. If more detail on the history of the word within Turkic is added that would be fine, but is it too much to hope that the Turkic history of the word can be documented without vandalism to the non-Turkic content? --dab (𒁳) 18:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories and WorldNetDaily Books
I'm not sure this is the right venue and please feel free to move this to another venue if appropriate. A new editor named Islamrevealed (talk · contribs) (which is a bad sign from the get go) has been edit warring for the inclusion of a conspiracy theory published by WND Books about the Council on American-Islamic Relations on that organization's entry. The text he put in the lead originally read:
- CAIR is also the central subject of a book titled "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America", which was released by WND Books on October 15, 2009. Written by P. David Gaubatz, a former federal agent and U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and counterterrorism specialist, and Paul Sperry, a media fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a former Washington bureau chief for Investor's Business Daily, the book is reportedly an undercover expose that catalogs the ways in which CAIR carries out a "well-funded conspiracy to destroy American society and promote radical Islam".
I have reverted this editor twice and don't want to continue edit warring. In the current version the editor simply removed the name of the publisher and the description of the book from the inserted text as if that changes the fact that it is a fringe conspiracy theory published by a group with a known anti-Islamic POV. Some attention to this by others would be helpful.PelleSmith (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The flap is all over the news, so I think an accurate version could be sourced to real news organizations. Try this one from Reuters, for example. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- That reuters source is not reuters, it's PRNewsWire. WND Books does not, in my opinion, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They should not be used for statements of fact. If the publication of the book, or the book itself were notable, article about those events would be discussed in other, obviously reliable, sources. Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Cyrus cylinder as a charter of human rights, redux
The issue of the Cyrus cylinder as a supposed charter of human rights has come up yet again on the Human rights article (summary version: Iranian nationalists and political figures claim that the CC is the world's first "human rights charter"; historians reject this viewpoint as tendentious and anachronistic). This has been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on two previous occasions. It's being discussed at Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder, where the usual suspects are demanding that it be included. Some input from outside editors would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion in full flow! Now also starring on ANI! Essentially this is an old piece of the Shah's propaganda that our modern-day Iranian patriots are attempting to revive at a completely offtopic article. Moreschi (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- The AN/I discussion, for the record, is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles. I have asked for intervention to block three disruptive editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Sungazing, again
Fringe claims that staring at the sun is safe and can replace food and water continue to proliferate at sungazing. Outside input would again be welcome. Skinwalker (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I thought you were joking above. Having taken a look at the article, words fail me... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mmmm, smells good. Who needs bacon for breakfast when you have hot, burning retinas? --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- The guru of sungazing, Hira Ratan Manek, has pictures of himself on his website which show that he has a chronic case of arc eye. I suspected a hoax until I saw that. Skinwalker (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This article just came to my attention. Could do with a cleanup and perhaps rebalancing. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)