MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 10d) to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 33. |
John Cline (talk | contribs) →'The Plasma Universe': Comment |
||
Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
I've taken things to arbitration enforcement since this civil POV pushing has occured so soon after his topic ban. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC) |
I've taken things to arbitration enforcement since this civil POV pushing has occured so soon after his topic ban. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
* I think requesting arbitration enforcement is exceedingly premature. Additionally, I think the failure to alert Iantresman that his conduct has been mentioned here is rather telling. Give the user a chance to participate in the discussion before assuming bad faith is at core. [[User:My76Strat|<u>My</u><font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 08:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Coelbren Rhodd again == |
== Coelbren Rhodd again == |
Revision as of 08:16, 10 November 2012
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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Panchakarma
Panchakarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ayurveda-related 'detoxification processes', e.g. "Virechan is a process where bad doshas are brought out by the way of anal canal". Not exactly encyclopaedic, I think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Ectomorphic, endomorphic and mesomorphic articles
Hello.
Ectomorphic, Endomorphic and Mesomorphic are pretty much completely pseudoscientific, with sources made up of online weight-losing guides, body-building magazines and similar. They are presented as being genuine scientific concepts, while they are probably of more interest described as cultural phenomena. We already have Somatotype for this, so I personally think an outright deletion with the pages being replaced with redirects to Somatotype would be a proper solution. Autharitus (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- The sourcing is a complete disaster. It also seems to be acting as some sort of Guide as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see you and another editor removed the guidelike parts of the articles; I wonder, however, if there is any merit in keeping them at all. They represent what is thought of as nonsense by most (all?) of the modern scientific community, are completely void of reliable sources (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)) and present the subjects in an inappropriate manner. I don't think they are salvageable. Should I mark them for deletion? I'm a very new editor, which is why I came here to discuss the issue beforehand. Autharitus (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is true, and a search for "somatotypes" [2] yields 10,6k results, with 5,5k from 2000 and onwards. Some of the articles are published in (presumably) notable scientific journals such as American Journal of Physical Anthropology and Journal of Applied Biomechanics. However, it also seems that somatyping is not widely used in the mainstream scientific community, and thus that the somatotypes are not of enough importance to warrant their own articles. Furthermore, the current articles have no credibility at all. Autharitus (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think the best thing would be to redirect them all into somatotype. Mangoe (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. There's no benefit in having four separate articles when one can do the job nicely. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Eye of Horus numbers
There is a section on arithmetic in Eye of Horus which seems to be complete numerological bosh. Searching 'Eye of Horus numbers" in GBooks produces two hits, both of which look to be misses. I'm inclined to delete this and another section which refers to it, but I want to bounce this off of others first. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- More importantly, It is unsourced numerological bosh... tagged as potential OR since last March. I am removing. If an editor objects to removal, let them come up with a source for it. Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- The section deleted is more detailed than what I know, but it is consistent with what I've read. The ancient Egyptians used parts from the hieroglyph of the eye of Horus as symbols for fractions, but only as 1/2, 1/4, etc. as the section explained. The section actually gave extensive references to various important papyri, so it was sourced. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's clearly a genuine an important aspect of the topic [3]. I'm no mathematician, and I really couldn't make much sense of the section as it was written. It was also unclear how the fractions were related to the eye as such. But we should have at least something there. This is not the best source for mathematics, but at least it's clear! [4] Paul B (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- So fix it... I doubt anyone will have an objection to the article including a section on mathematical use of the eye, if such can be reliably sourced (see Agricolae's comment above)... but what was there either improperly relied on primary sources or was completely unsourced... ie Original Research. Add to that the Fringe numerological ideas and the best solution was to remove and hope someone will replace what was there with something more appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's clearly a genuine an important aspect of the topic [3]. I'm no mathematician, and I really couldn't make much sense of the section as it was written. It was also unclear how the fractions were related to the eye as such. But we should have at least something there. This is not the best source for mathematics, but at least it's clear! [4] Paul B (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sources abound for some of this material MathWorld, nrich, a search for "Eye of Horus fraction" yields many more. The section does need a lot of work . I suspect the original author may well be Milogardner (talk · contribs) who has a Community Ban preventing him from work on Egyptian Mathematics. He does have a particular style evident here. There is lots of basic things right in his work but he does tend to spin things greatly.--Salix (talk): 18:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Fringe theory about the Tunguska event
An editor has been adding a theory about "The Electric Universe" to the article on the Tunguska event. I've opened a discussion at Talk:Tunguska_event#Electric_universe_section, and I'd appreciate other editors' input on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would not support including the section,[6] because (a) it is supported by only a primary source published on a website suggesting that it does not meet WP:IRS (b) the source is speculative, but is written as fact, suggesting that it fails WP:SYNTHESIS.--Iantresman (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Macroevolution.net
Koolokamba (talk · contribs) has a website macroevolution.net which includes a self-published alternate theory of evolution. The website has been added to a number of articles as an external link, and occasionally as a reference, although not necessarily to the alternative theory portion.
Examples:
- addition ahead of Science magazine
- as a reference
- linking to own annotated edition of The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
Based on the site supporting a self-published "alternative theoretical formulation", to what extent should it be discouraged as an external link? Novangelis (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like self promotion, I suggest cross posting at WP:ELN as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done[7] I did everything but flip a coin, prior to posting. It is cross-listed.Novangelis (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- It should simply be removed where ever it appears, it's not reliable, it advocates a fringe position and so it's not suitable as an external link. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Interesting information:
User talk:Raeky#The macroevolution edit that you undid.
Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Macroevolution.net
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_32#Darwin was Nearly Right (Click on the show link to see collapsed "Off-topic discussion of work by Eugene McCarthy")
Also see [ http://www.macroevolution.net/support-files/forms_of_life.pdf ] pages 239-244 (page numbers on the pages) or 262-267 (Adobe Reader page numbering):
"Like certain ankylosaurs, some of these giant armadillos had tail clubs. In both ankylosaurs and armadillos, these clubs could be armed with long, bony spikes. These observations suggest that paleontologists have created an artificial distinction by classifying Mesozoic 'ankylosaurs' as reptiles and post-Mesozoic armadillos as mammals."
"The modern giant armadillo is so similar to the ancient ankylosaurs that it is only reasonable to suppose it is descended from them. The same is true for pangolins and stegosaurids (although the case is somewhat weaker because the exact external form of stegosaurids is a point in dispute). These similarities strongly suggest that two of the most common 'dinosaurs' of the so-called Age of Reptiles—ankylosaurs and stegosaurids—were in fact mammals, and, even more remarkably, that their direct descendants exist even today. So in their cases, it seems, there was no 'extinction of the dinosaurs' - there was merely a reconceptualization and reclassification (both may be cases of residual dwarfism; see p. 221)."
So the Armadillo and Pangolin are direct descendents of Ankylosaurus and Stegosaurus, which, by the way, were mammals. It doesn't get much more WP:FRINGE that that. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Element 115 in popular culture
Element 115 in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vague waffle about a fictional 'element' (not to be confused with the actual Element 115) supposed by conspiracy theorists to be involved somehow in UFO propulsion. I'm tempted to go straight to AfD, but is there actually any real 'popular culture' (beyond the tinfoil-hat brigade) actually referring to this, or is this just a coatrack for a non-notable conspiracy theory? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it is the conspiracy of one person (Lazar) and is already mentioned in his article. Bhny (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
A mix of sourced criticism and crazy quackery - like claiming sticking a red LED up your nose will effectively treat you.
- Article seems ok to me. It doesn't say it's a medical procedure or claim that it cures anything Bhny (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has been removing criticism of BLP and adding supposed peer-reviewed papers. Bhny (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm exhausted defending the page. It could do with some help. There's some online journals that an editor thinks are peer reviewed, but I can't see how any BLP paper would pass any kind of peer review. Bhny (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The IP seems to have a lot of energy, using Blacklight power... kidding. I reverted him. Seems like an ISP. History2007 (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this kind of thing is strictly in the spirit of WP. I would have thought that you shouldn't be defending the page at all, but looking to improve it. You asked for a peer reviewed article, I provided two. There are more. I also provided you with this: The International Journal of Energy Research operates an online submission and peer review system... (from here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-114X/homepage/ForAuthors.html) and [Int. J. Green Energy] uses ScholarOne Manuscripts (previously Manuscript Central) to peer review manuscript submissions. (from here: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=ljge20&page=instructions). Perhaps we might make more progress if people weren't trying to freeze and protect a version of the article. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I agree with the other editors that WP:Fringe applies here. It is another one of those "free energy" situations. History2007 (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly you appear to have fallen into the same trap as "the other editors". This is an article about a company, not a theory. The company is very real, and by various accounts, very well invested in. Please point out to me where WP:Fringe endorses the use of an emotive term ("bullshit") sourced from a blog in the lede of such an article (fringe or otherwise). Thanks. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, I am absolutely against the use of profanities in Wikipedia or in real life. But I am also against the use of fringe. And that a company is well invested in has no bearing on the fringe nature of the claims. Many people invested in fringe ideas that never flew. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
e/c
- Have a look at WP:ITA and explain how this version:
- Several prominent physicists have been extremely critical of the underlying physical theory, calling it "extremely unlikely", "bull shit" and "fraud" and suggesting that their investors are fools and dupes, while IEEE Spectrum magazine listed BlackLight as a "loser" technology."
- demonstrates a careful use of words and the adoption of a disinterested tone AND that this version does not do that:
- Several prominent physicists have been critical of BLP's claims and IEEE magazine listed BlackLight as a "loser" technology.
- And while you're at it, please explain when prominent physicists opinion about investors ever mattered? Are you willing to change anything??? Perhaps you could offer up a version that would address the tripartate concerns of i) maintaining a neutral tone, ii) not confusing personal views of physicists outside their area of expertise with their professional publications inside their fields of expertise, and iii) accounting for the fact that there has been considerable activity in recent months - from the article as it stands a new reader reader would have absolutely no idea about the claims relating to validation etc. NOTE that I AM NOT saying the validation claims are published, true, valid, or anything else - however if someone was to be informed about BLP purely from this article they would come away missing a HUGE part of the story. Suggestions? (other than "let's leave it exactly as it is") 110.32.79.50 (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- So who are the 'experts here then? The "investors with deep pockets and shallow brains"? 'Blacklight Power' is bullshit, and Wikipedia isn't going to suggest otherwise just to enable more pocket-mining. WP:FRINGE is entirely clear on this - if someone comes up with a bullshit theory, we will say it is bullshit as long as science does, regardless of how much money the bullshit is raking in. Find somewhere else to publicise this scam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Have a look at WP:ITA and explain how this version:
- The Blacklight article has a LONG history of being attacked by proven COI editors from the company itself and various paid shills. They are desperate to get a less critical article posted here on Wikipedia so that they can continue to pull in gullible investors before it becomes clear that they can't deliver on their claims and the bubble bursts. It is our responsibility to prevent them from doing that and to express only the pure, unvarnished truth - which WP:RS's demonstrate is that their theory is bullshit and that they are actively defrauding investors. We can't repeatedly dilute the message here. We're an encyclopedia for chrissakes. This kind of behavior is precisely why the WP:FRINGE policy exists. SteveBaker (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I get it, you're protecting the gullible and the hapless. Terrific. Great. Now, how about we abandon the conspiracy theories and self styled investment advice and get back to the very simple issues I have raised. How EXACTLY does the version I am suggesting - of the lede mind you, not the entire article - how can you claim that is NOT a disinterested tone and the version you are defending IS??? How about a bit of honesty here - I'm not advocating any kind of whitewash or beat up, I'm just trying to make this article better and more encyclopaedic. WP isn't about protecting people, it's about providing accurate information so that people can protect themselves. And while some of you seem to have some sort of inside quasi-divine knowledge about BLP, I don't. I'm just trying to use WP:RS's to make the article better. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given nobody seems overly concerned about such a poor quality lede, perhaps someone is at least willing to entertain the idea of making some of the body accurate and up to date. The Patents section is currently devoted to BLP failing to secure a patent for the power production process, however this is no longer the case and should be rectified. Does anyone object to such a change? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- What 'power production process'? Given the complete lack of verifiable evidence that BLP does anything other than extract money from the gullible, we certainly aren't going to allow any patents that may have been granted (source?) to be misrepresented as evidence that anything works - this isn't what patents are for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Given nobody seems overly concerned about such a poor quality lede, perhaps someone is at least willing to entertain the idea of making some of the body accurate and up to date. The Patents section is currently devoted to BLP failing to secure a patent for the power production process, however this is no longer the case and should be rectified. Does anyone object to such a change? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I get it, you're protecting the gullible and the hapless. Terrific. Great. Now, how about we abandon the conspiracy theories and self styled investment advice and get back to the very simple issues I have raised. How EXACTLY does the version I am suggesting - of the lede mind you, not the entire article - how can you claim that is NOT a disinterested tone and the version you are defending IS??? How about a bit of honesty here - I'm not advocating any kind of whitewash or beat up, I'm just trying to make this article better and more encyclopaedic. WP isn't about protecting people, it's about providing accurate information so that people can protect themselves. And while some of you seem to have some sort of inside quasi-divine knowledge about BLP, I don't. I'm just trying to use WP:RS's to make the article better. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, could I suggest we just stick to the basic facts rather than getting into a debate about verifiable evidence, money extraction, and what WP is/isn't for. I'm asking a simple question. The current section on patents is factually in error. The bulk of the writing talks about a failure of BLP to obtain a patent for the alleged energy production. This is out of date - or at least only of historical interest now. Here [[8]] is the patent. So my question is, would anyone object to updating the Patents section to include this fact? Thanks. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- The link seems to be to a patent application. It is also a primary source. Even if the patent has been granted, we'd need a reliable third-party source to tell us whether it was of any significance. A patent is no indication whatsoever that the invention claimed either works, or is of any commercial utility. Without any indication of the patent's relevance, there are no grounds for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm somehow not making myself clear. There is already a section in the article about Patents. Much of it talks about how BLP did not get one. There appears to be a consensus that this is of some significance. If it is significant that they did not have a Patent, then it is at least as significant that, now, they have one. So the article ought to be updated accordingly. That's all I'm saying. I'm not suggesting any of the things you then have gone on about - I'm not suggesting it isn't a primary source, or that it is in some way significant beyond the significance already attributed to the lack of a patent in the article, or that the invention works, or that it has utility. It is a simple point that Patents are already there, so current Patent information is relevant. How controversial is that? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- The patents section currently uses secondary sources to indicate the significance of the applications. You have neither provided a source which states that a patent has been granted, nor one indicating that this patent is seen as having any significance by anyone other than BLP, who may very well wish to imply that it does. Find such sources, and inclusion can be considered - we aren't going to make such assumptions for ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm somehow not making myself clear. There is already a section in the article about Patents. Much of it talks about how BLP did not get one. There appears to be a consensus that this is of some significance. If it is significant that they did not have a Patent, then it is at least as significant that, now, they have one. So the article ought to be updated accordingly. That's all I'm saying. I'm not suggesting any of the things you then have gone on about - I'm not suggesting it isn't a primary source, or that it is in some way significant beyond the significance already attributed to the lack of a patent in the article, or that the invention works, or that it has utility. It is a simple point that Patents are already there, so current Patent information is relevant. How controversial is that? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's look at the big picture here. Energy is a big deal. We drill down miles for it, we expend a huge effort splitting atoms for it, we move mountains to get at it. And sometimes we go to war over it. There are literally thousands of individuals and corporations that all claim to have something that can sit on a tabletop and produce large amount of energy without needing any pesky oil wells, coal mines or nuclear reactors. If any of them could actually demonstrate such a thing, we would know about it from it being on the front page of every media outlet, followed by a Nobel Prize, the collapse of the Saudi Arabian economy, and Japan shutting down all of its reactors. And we would have no problem finding citations to reliable sources. Also see: [ http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/free_energy.html ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good GOD!!! I had no idea I'd stumbled into such a moral panic!! I am amazed that so many people seem to think that making an article more accurate and encyclopaedic would be seen as akin to trying to set up some kind of paedophile ring! I get it. Protect the innocent. If it were true we'd all be in hover-cars. Randall Mills is probably evil. Currently accepted scientific theories are TRUE and INVIOLABLE!! Ok, ok, I promise to repeat this litany of faith each and every night before I go to sleep. NOW can we get back to making the article better? And by better I just mean two simple things: as accurate as we can, and as encyclopaedic as we can. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A few questions on sources in Dental amalgam controversy and Amalgam (dentistry)
Each of these articles focus in several places on reviews or comments by J. Mutter and collaborators, who have argued [9] [10] [11] that dental amalgams are not safe. Several large scale studies and national health groups have came to the opposite conclusion, FDA World dental federation ADA Life sciences research office, although their use is currently banned in some nordic countries. Does the current version of the article give undue weight to the Mutter studies? Similarly, there's a few other outstanding issues such as questionable primary sources [12] and they could just use some general cleanup. Would appreciate more eyes. Cheers a13ean (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- If a bunch of serious scientists say that they believe it to be true - then even if the majority think it's not - then it's hardly a fringe matter. Controversial, yes - but I don't think this is fringe. Mercury is a nasty poison - but not in it's pure, elemental form. However, toxicity from small amounts of mercury compounds builds up in the body over time. Elemental mercury is what is held in a silver amalgam in a tooth filling - not a mercury compound - so on the face of it, it's safe. However, there are a large (and rapidly increasing) range of chemicals passing through people's mouths all the time - and if any one of them happens to react with mercury to form some kind of compound - then amalgam fillings could very well leach toxic mercury compounds and would be dangerous. So it's not at all unreasonable to at least suspect them of causing problems. I don't think this is a fringe matter. SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unaware of the specifics, as far as I am aware it was a fairly fringe view. The problem is in quantifying the size of the "bunch of serious scientists". YI suggest asking at Wikiproject medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is a bizarre mess. I've tried to clean it up a bit, but it needs more work. It reads like a fan page. As far as I can gather this guy is an engineer who in his retirement wrote a bunch of "Jesus bloodline" books arguing that there was some sort of conflict between competing Jesus Dynasties that played out in medieval Europe. Or something. He seems to have died, but I can't locate any obits giving birth and death dates. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
PS. I think he died very very recently. The article is apparently written by someone who knows him personally. User:Paul Barlow (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- That someone would of course be the King of Fringe. Perhaps I should change my name to Paul Ulvungar to disambiguate us if we are to be working in similar fields, or possibly Sigismundus. Thanks for your help on this article in any case. You are correct in that I did share a dinner conversation or two with Hugh in 2007 and have all his wonderful books, history and genealogies in my head if you need any factual specifics. I have heard through a friend that he died (as well as noting his absence from the Fleur de Lys charity board) and will try to make some enquiries to get better biography specifics now the page is made. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- But why is his page called "historian" given that it was by and large a late life hobby for him? The page title already 'telegrams a credential he never had'. The page should say Hugh Montgomery (engineer) in any case. His book is published by "The Book Tree" - not exactly Oxford Univ Press. Does he even pass WP:NOTE? If he passes NOTE then at least the page should make it clear he was an engineer, not a historian. History2007 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, as a side note to Paul Barlow, the "King of Fringe" joke may just ring true now that Brucie is no longer with us. That position is now open, but let us hope it remains as such. Who knows, by combining this with the thread above on dental fillings, Bruce would have had a field day, and proposed a new theory... But seriously the less fringe, the better. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't so sure on the engineer subtitle, I judged his work as a historian to be his primary reason for notablilty according to the sources, even if he trained in engineering. Alexander Thom is notable for work in Archaeoastronomy rather than in engineering, and that's what most sources would likely say too. Sources also say he lectured in history and was a professor and former president at the Megatrend University, so I would argue it is the primary reason for notability. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, as a side note to Paul Barlow, the "King of Fringe" joke may just ring true now that Brucie is no longer with us. That position is now open, but let us hope it remains as such. Who knows, by combining this with the thread above on dental fillings, Bruce would have had a field day, and proposed a new theory... But seriously the less fringe, the better. History2007 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, call him Hugh Montgomery (author) then to avoid the debate. Historian is certainly no qualification for him, given that he never trained in that field, and is an honorary title bestowed by this article. And the article has statements like "advanced the scholarship of the likes of Dan Brown" Since when is Dan Brown a scholar? He was a singer/songwriter and taught high school before becoming a novelist. Did Brown's Wiki-page miss his tenure at Stanford or somewhere? These are popular writers with no claim to scholarship in these fields. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, deal. But Hugh Montgomery (historian) should redirect there until a better historian by his name comes along. I thought he was an awesome historian. You could throw anyone in medieval history at him and he'd know who their mom was. And well noticed, I'll change "scholarship" to theories. I thought I'd blasted them enough with Hugh's "vehement debunking". Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the "You could throw anyone in medieval history at him and he'd know who their mom was" seems based on your single dinner conversation with him, and as such is original research as an over dinner assessment of him, not a WP:RS situation. History2007 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- As a historian, genealogist (and author in those fields), he utterly fails notability - his works are all self-published, and for the history and genealogy section, most of the references are to his own books. The only three exceptions are a page of a charity documenting his involvement, a newspaper story about a visiting princess that contains none of the quotes it is being cited to support, and an on-line newsletter of a private society of no great note that contained a review of his work (which, by the way, was not written by the person given credit for it in the footnote). In the scholarly historical community, he has received no notice whatsoever outside of the insular 'everyone descends from Jesus' fringe crowd, and the majority of his works are so fringe as to fail to even merit comment. As to his career as an engineer or academician, I see nothing to support notability. The only possible claim would be as a local politician, but I don't see him meeting the notability standards for that either. He is being given a page to memorialize his fringe genealogy, and that is utterly non-notable. Agricolae (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've fixed the Cambridge University reference. As for notability, I count multiple (5) reliable newspaper sources along with that and the charity. Plus the Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia said he is "well known" and I don't argue with princesses. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- A local interest write-up in the hometown newspaper, circulation, what? 500? No. What determines notability for a historian is recognition by historians. As to the 'princess', Yugoslavia doesn't have any royalty, nor has it for over half-a-century, while 'her highness' has to go back to 1858 to find an ancestor who ruled any part of Yugoslavia. A dynast who doesn't recognize the last 150 years of history and who has a clear conflict of interest is hardly a judge of historical notability. Agricolae (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've fixed the Cambridge University reference. As for notability, I count multiple (5) reliable newspaper sources along with that and the charity. Plus the Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia said he is "well known" and I don't argue with princesses. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Agricolae's analysis now. If you want to Afd it, I would support it. History2007 (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that Mangoe did the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Montgomery (historian) Afd for it. History2007 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are over 30 local and regional notable, reliable sources on there now after a lot of expansion. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
'The Plasma Universe'
An editor, Iantresman (before anyone asks, he recently had topic ban removed), is arguing that a book on the plasma universe is not fringe at Talk:Dusty_plasma#Reference_restoration and that it should be listed in a non-fringe article. More opinions welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think it would be a "fringe suggestion" to call that a non-fringe item. It is what WP:FRINGE was designed for. And you can quote me on that. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I've taken things to arbitration enforcement since this civil POV pushing has occured so soon after his topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think requesting arbitration enforcement is exceedingly premature. Additionally, I think the failure to alert Iantresman that his conduct has been mentioned here is rather telling. Give the user a chance to participate in the discussion before assuming bad faith is at core. My76Strat (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Coelbren Rhodd again
Note that Coelbren Rhodd and Saint Paul in Britain were immediately recreated following the discussion here and AfD. I've put it up for AfD again; as I don't get what has changed in the interim. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the "King of Fringe" statement made by Paul above may have indeed been a valid proclamation. Even if you Afd this one, it may come back again... But experience tells us that these reigns have a 6-12 month cycle. So long live the king, for the next N-months... ... (N < 12).... We all know where this will lead in the end. It will take time, but the destination is clear. This is much less of a content issue that a user activity issue. History2007 (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note that it was Mangoe's (the proposer's) suggestion to create and merge the page that way after a result of a very narrow 4 to 3 vote. Now if you'll excuse me, N is probably < 32, so I have to get back to the Temples of the Beqaa Valley for now. Will be back soon after. ;-) Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I believe you have misunderstood me. It would be nice to lump all the bardic/druidic catechism stuff into a single article which ties it all together. I don't see how we can do that, though, without getting Hutton or someone else with creds to write that book or those journal articles first. I have obtained Hutton's book, and it treats the subject at too high a level to help us: it discusses both our two fictionalizing authors, but it doesn't tie specific works to each other. Personally at this point I'm inclined to merge this stuff back to Richard Williams Morgan and specifically state him as the author of these texts. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- I read Hutton's book too, agree and get your point. However, I think it would be in breach of Wikipedia notability guidelines to do that as the book was a major work in the development of Neo-Celtic Christianity and the Ancient British Church, which needs it's own article and I will create to expand these discussions. The consideration of reincarnation as one of their central doctines is notable somehow, and that's what I really care about keeping. The reference to the Coelbren Rhodd is to encourage the Welsh to dig it out of the original text where it was mentioned and start studying it again as I am sure this debate has inspired some curiosity into a fascinating subject. I am not too bothered where it fits, as long as somewhere. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has no role to play in encouraging the Welsh to do anything. As I pointed out in an edit summary, this is not a major part of Morgan's book on St. Paul and British Christianity, and does it receive any significant attention in mainstream sources (and little elsewhere). And looking at an AfD discussion and deciding that there was a vote which was narrow and thus can be ignored is wrong in at least two ways. There could be more keep !votes than deletes and a decision to delete could still be valid if the policy issues pointed towards delete and the keep !votes didn't have policy on their side. When you can find some significant discussions of this "Coelbren Rhodd" it might have a place in an article, either Morgan's or some other article. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- In light of that info, it will be interesting to see how that decision goes on the Hugh Montgomery (historian) page after the new Serbian sources added tonight. Thanks (again) for all your guidance and help Doug. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has no role to play in encouraging the Welsh to do anything. As I pointed out in an edit summary, this is not a major part of Morgan's book on St. Paul and British Christianity, and does it receive any significant attention in mainstream sources (and little elsewhere). And looking at an AfD discussion and deciding that there was a vote which was narrow and thus can be ignored is wrong in at least two ways. There could be more keep !votes than deletes and a decision to delete could still be valid if the policy issues pointed towards delete and the keep !votes didn't have policy on their side. When you can find some significant discussions of this "Coelbren Rhodd" it might have a place in an article, either Morgan's or some other article. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Rejuvenation research
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience, someone at Rejuvenation Research appears to be removing sourced explanation of its fringey nature. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is a WP:SPA for that article. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)