Salimfadhley (talk | contribs) |
Salimfadhley (talk | contribs) →Ehrman 2012 book on existence of Jesus: Reply Comment |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:Ehrman is the opposite of fringe - James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one book after the other published by Harper Collins, Oxford University Press, prize -winner, so on and on, it is hard to be any less fringe than that. Some may disagree with some of his views of course, but that does not make him fringe. I dispute Mangoe's statement that he went "off the rails some years back" and that the mainstream roundly rejects his views. His most recent book "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" was published last year by Oxford University Press, it is not possible to get much more mainstream that that.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
:Ehrman is the opposite of fringe - James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one book after the other published by Harper Collins, Oxford University Press, prize -winner, so on and on, it is hard to be any less fringe than that. Some may disagree with some of his views of course, but that does not make him fringe. I dispute Mangoe's statement that he went "off the rails some years back" and that the mainstream roundly rejects his views. His most recent book "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" was published last year by Oxford University Press, it is not possible to get much more mainstream that that.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Fundamentalist Christianity considers Ehrman to be fringe. I'm not aware that outside this (large) fringe-group anybody else consider's Ehrman's scholarship to be dubious. --[[User:Salimfadhley|Salimfadhley]] ([[User talk:Salimfadhley|talk]]) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Eliyahu Comay]] == |
== [[Eliyahu Comay]] == |
Revision as of 09:12, 29 April 2013
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. |
Ehrman 2012 book on existence of Jesus
Hello, there is a question about whether Bart Ehrman's recent book "Did Jesus Exist?" is sufficiently acceptable (i.e. not fringe) for inclusion in the article on Oral gospel traditions. Below is the complete citation:
- Ehrman (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-0622-0460-8.
May we have independent verification of its acceptance or a lack thereof? Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ehrman is mainstream from what I have seen of him, and his work appears mainstream (with regards to history etc). What's the specific claim? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the diff of how the source was used to support article content before it was deleted. And here is the talk page discussion associated with its deletion. Ignocrates (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ehrman went off the rails some years back when he started claiming that there were heinous transmission problems with scripture, a position which the mainstream roundly rejected. I would be hesitant to include his recent work at all, and certainly would never represent it as anything but his own position. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I understand that, but my question relates to this specific book in the context of how it is being used as a source to support the article content that was deleted. The claims that are being advanced are (1) Christian oral traditions likely preceded and were concurrent with the written gospels, and (2) some of those oral traditions were transmitted in Aramaic. Hope this helps. Ignocrates (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ehrman went off the rails some years back when he started claiming that there were heinous transmission problems with scripture, a position which the mainstream roundly rejected. I would be hesitant to include his recent work at all, and certainly would never represent it as anything but his own position. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the diff of how the source was used to support article content before it was deleted. And here is the talk page discussion associated with its deletion. Ignocrates (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to restate the question now that all the relevant facts are on the page: Is this specific source acceptable (i.e. not fringe) in the specific context it is being used in the article to support the content I detailed in the example? General statements aren't much help for resolving specific issues. Ignocrates (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, yes, this specific source is acceptable in this specific context. I say this not having read the book but having read probably four of Ehrman's other books and having some familiarity with his standing as a scholar. As he's writing well within his area of expertise, as he has a solid publisher behind him, and as the paragraphs summarizing the work do not appear to be making unusual claims or fall outside of what I understand Ehrman to believe, I don't see where there is a problem. I expect others might disagree, but that's how we get to consensus.... Garamond Lethet
c 00:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)- Thank you for taking the time to respond. I would think the view that Jesus did not exist would be the more controversial position, whereas Ehrman is advancing arguments to show that he did exist, based on a combination of oral and written sources. In any case, the relevant point within the context of this article is whether oral sources of tradition were used in early Christianity. Ignocrates (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that Ehrman has taken to making claims which the rest of the field does not accept. He's a good expositor, so if someone else corroborated his thesis I would be OK with him; but I would be wary of using him as a sole source without checking him against others. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- If the points sourced are, as Ignocrates claims "(1) Christian oral traditions likely preceded and were concurrent with the written gospels, and (2) some of those oral traditions were transmitted in Aramaic", then I don't see how these are even controversial. If he is also making more idiosyncratic claims, it should not be difficult to identify what they are as thety will have been noted by reviewers etc. Paul B (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I read the page, which at the moment is an almost utterly useless stub. The discussion on the talk pages seems quite bizarre. The paragraphs that were deleted diff were clumsy, for sure. They managed to combine banal truisms with uninformative generalities, but they could easily be improved. I realise that Erhman's "proto-orthodox" arguments have been challenged, but he is still a reliable source. I know of no evidence that any of his views enter WP:FRINGE territory. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that Ehrman has taken to making claims which the rest of the field does not accept. He's a good expositor, so if someone else corroborated his thesis I would be OK with him; but I would be wary of using him as a sole source without checking him against others. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond. I would think the view that Jesus did not exist would be the more controversial position, whereas Ehrman is advancing arguments to show that he did exist, based on a combination of oral and written sources. In any case, the relevant point within the context of this article is whether oral sources of tradition were used in early Christianity. Ignocrates (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ehrman is the opposite of fringe - James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one book after the other published by Harper Collins, Oxford University Press, prize -winner, so on and on, it is hard to be any less fringe than that. Some may disagree with some of his views of course, but that does not make him fringe. I dispute Mangoe's statement that he went "off the rails some years back" and that the mainstream roundly rejects his views. His most recent book "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" was published last year by Oxford University Press, it is not possible to get much more mainstream that that.Smeat75 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fundamentalist Christianity considers Ehrman to be fringe. I'm not aware that outside this (large) fringe-group anybody else consider's Ehrman's scholarship to be dubious. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The article describes mainly the subject's alternate to the Standard Model of particle physics - in a most unbalanced tone. Associated articles seem to have been tampered with to give Comay's theories more credence: see vector meson dominance.
הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've cross-posted to WikiProject Physics. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- See also Proton spin crisis, vs. Nucleon spin structure. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 03:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
These articles need eyes after recent editing. I've worked on Barrett's article but not on Jonathan Wright (physician) where besides a lot of tags I'm not happy about I also find some pov language, eg "Jonathan Wright (physician) eg "In August of the same year, Wright was fined $850 for court costs and fees," bceomes "Later that same year in August, Wright was only fined $850 to cover court costs" A quick link to the changes for Wright's article is [1]. I note that Neuropsychiatry, which was already in need of attention, has had some changes also[2] but I'm not sure that article is under the purview of this board. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I went ahead and reverted most of the changes that Pixie made, they were a disimprovement and had several independent issues (mistaken tags, removing details, editorializing etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Lengthy and highly detailed article just keeps getting bigger. Subject is a man considered by a majority of Brazilians as having the power to to talk to the dead. Lead is within policy, but the rest of the article is written from a highly sympathetic POV and citing only four sources (one of them Rottentomatoes.com). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the article is in a bad shape, and much of it is unsourced. I have worked on many of the mediumship articles recently. If I have time I may help out on that one. Much of the unsourced original research should be deleted on that article IMO. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Melissa Farley is quoted in many articles as a accredited psychologist but is no longer is no longer accredited member of APA following Ethics violations over fraudulent fabricated research and there are many editors guarding article about her pet theories that quote her. This needs sorting out before these subject become laughing stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk • contribs)
- The proper place for this notice is the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. At any rate, you will have to cite a notice from the APA, or a news item, saying that Farley has been dropped from APA's list. You cannot simply make the statement without supporting cite. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- As posted on the talk page of that article, please provide a citation quickly or this will be taken to Wikipedia:Oversight. Incidentally, the APA is not a regulatory agency or organization and does not "accredit" psychologists. Location (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is to justify the claim that she is accredited by the APA, especially given she does not show on the member list: http://search.apa.org/search?limited=true§ion=membership&query=Farley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk • contribs) 9:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- While some people clearly believe her views to be extreme, this is not an issue for the Fringe theories board. She is a published academic. If her research is considered to be fraudulent that's soimething that only relevant academics and professional bodies can determine. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure this should have its own article but if it does then this one is pretty POV. Til has fixed a bit but more work is needed. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- "They only came out at night to do their food gathering activities, as the sunlight of day time blinded them." Clearly they must have been Welsh. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the article was about Madoc, the editor's favorite subject, with sources that were poor through to rubbish. Academic sources are available, but it seems that this is another name for the Adena culture.[[3]. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Seems to all go back to a dubious 18th century source, see my comments on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- This seems to be a gross WP:SYNTH violation. It's positing (without reliable sources) that the moon-eyed people are the same people as the ancient white tribe. There's no evidence that this is a culturally important myth - I suggest we just nominate this article for deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Cherokee
And unfortunately it's now in our article on the Cherokee. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I added it to the Cherokee article because it's patently obvious that it concerns the Cherokee, and you improved on it and expanded it. So what is unfortunate about it in your viewpoint, and why bring this up on a canvassing board? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Barton relays an extremely short communication from an Army officer - "The Cheerake tell us, that when they first arrived in the country which they inhabit, they found it possessed by certain "moon-eyed-people," who could not see in the day-time. These wretches they expelled." That's all that we are told about this group. Others added skin color, etc but those are just embellishments with no sources. Out of all the other things we could add to our Cherokee article, why add this one? It seems to me that WP:UNDUE covers this. It isn't as though it's clearly a genuine Cherokee legend - it's certainly not part of their folklore. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just brought this up on Talk:Moon-eyed people. We've got literally hundreds of published sources on the Cherokee stating that it IS a Cherokee legend, up against ZERO published sources, but one wikipedian, arguing that it's NOT a Cherokee legend. So once again we will see if one wikipedian can defeat every source that's out there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is more of the usual mythos of "white people were here before Columbus" sort of "ancient Injun legend say" nonsense that plagues many Native American articles. If you can provide peer-reviewed scholarship from respected historians who have thoroughly studied this, then discuss it at the talk page of the Cherokee article. Otherwise, leave it out. Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- And now it's in Cherokee mythology. "According to one Cherokee legend first attested in 1797, a "Moon-eyed people" had lived in the Cherokee regions when they arrived.<ref>Russell Thornton, 1992, ''The Cherokees: A Population History'', p. 9.</ref><ref>Barbara Mann, 2004, "The Greenville Treaty of 1795", in ''Enduring legacies: Native American treaties'', Bruce Johansen, ed., p. 137.</ref><ref>Vicki Rozema, 2007, ''Footsteps of the Cherokees'', p. 308.</ref><ref>''Southern anthropological society proceedings'' 1990, Issue 23, p. 197</ref><ref>Vincent H Gaddis, 1992, ''American Indian Myths'' p. 107.</ref><ref>''Encyclopedia of American Indian History'', 2008, p. 444.</ref>" Note 'first attested' but no clarification that it was only a a brief mention by an Army officer. Let's see some other 'attestations'. Let's see who actually calls it a legend - it isn't called a legend in 1797, so that bit is flat-out wrong, it's a label attached by Til. Let's see the quotes from these sources. For instance, "Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, 1990" - what does it say? I can find mention of moon-eyed people but no secure basis that it's a legend, nor any other source than the Army officer. Til, you've got to show us what these sources say if you want to keep them. Dougweller (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- This is more of the usual mythos of "white people were here before Columbus" sort of "ancient Injun legend say" nonsense that plagues many Native American articles. If you can provide peer-reviewed scholarship from respected historians who have thoroughly studied this, then discuss it at the talk page of the Cherokee article. Otherwise, leave it out. Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just brought this up on Talk:Moon-eyed people. We've got literally hundreds of published sources on the Cherokee stating that it IS a Cherokee legend, up against ZERO published sources, but one wikipedian, arguing that it's NOT a Cherokee legend. So once again we will see if one wikipedian can defeat every source that's out there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Barton relays an extremely short communication from an Army officer - "The Cheerake tell us, that when they first arrived in the country which they inhabit, they found it possessed by certain "moon-eyed-people," who could not see in the day-time. These wretches they expelled." That's all that we are told about this group. Others added skin color, etc but those are just embellishments with no sources. Out of all the other things we could add to our Cherokee article, why add this one? It seems to me that WP:UNDUE covers this. It isn't as though it's clearly a genuine Cherokee legend - it's certainly not part of their folklore. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not a label attached by Til, every last one of those scholars refers it as either a "Cherokee legend" or a "Cherokee tradition". The best place to reproduce direct quotes for proof will be at Talk:Moon-eyed people. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Is this the Vincent Gaddis source?[4] Why in the world is this being used as an RS by Til? Til, it's up to you to show that your sources back your claim and that you've actually read them. And you added that to Cherokee mythology where I've reverted you. That you think Gaddis is a reliable source says a lot. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- And it is not called a legend in 1797, which is where this all seems to originate. Can anyone find any other sources that discuss it as a legend explaining where it is found among the Cherokee? Cherokee sources for it? Anything that directly traces it to the Cherokee? Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Doug, every source that's ever been written on Cherokee legends mentions the Moon-eyed people as a Cherokee legend, and you and a couple of your fellow editors are the only ones who consider this illegitimate because of your novel argument that you are debuting on wikipedia, stigmatizing the earliest source as illegitimate, which no scholar has ever been foolish enough to do because every expert on the Cherokee knows it as a Cherokee legend. Unless you are going to stigmatize all Cherokee sources as equally suspect. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Again this impossible claim about every source on Cherokee legends. You may be right Til about the Cherokee calling it a legend or a myth of their people, but you haven't shown that yet and it certainly doesn't belong in Cherokee mythology so far as I can see. Let's see your Cherokee sources. It still looks to me as though Barton's informant is the source of this and he doesn't call it a legend. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- I will show you what the scholarly sources say, one after the other after the other, but not on this page. Fringe theory is not the page for this, there has to be some restriction on just any random person saying "That's a fringe theory because I don't like it and therefore all the hundreds of scholarly sources discussing it are declared illegitimate by me." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- It started out as a fringe bit about Welsh/white Indians, remember? And I note that the source you quoted at Talk:Moon-eyed people does not call the moon-eyed people a legend or myth, and is as you say just a passing mention. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- And at the talk page he's added a state park plaque saying that they have legends about Madoc buiding forts, and says this was written by park historians and certainly implied it's a reliable source. That's clearly fringe. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- It started out as a fringe bit about Welsh/white Indians, remember? And I note that the source you quoted at Talk:Moon-eyed people does not call the moon-eyed people a legend or myth, and is as you say just a passing mention. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- I will show you what the scholarly sources say, one after the other after the other, but not on this page. Fringe theory is not the page for this, there has to be some restriction on just any random person saying "That's a fringe theory because I don't like it and therefore all the hundreds of scholarly sources discussing it are declared illegitimate by me." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Again this impossible claim about every source on Cherokee legends. You may be right Til about the Cherokee calling it a legend or a myth of their people, but you haven't shown that yet and it certainly doesn't belong in Cherokee mythology so far as I can see. Let's see your Cherokee sources. It still looks to me as though Barton's informant is the source of this and he doesn't call it a legend. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Doug, every source that's ever been written on Cherokee legends mentions the Moon-eyed people as a Cherokee legend, and you and a couple of your fellow editors are the only ones who consider this illegitimate because of your novel argument that you are debuting on wikipedia, stigmatizing the earliest source as illegitimate, which no scholar has ever been foolish enough to do because every expert on the Cherokee knows it as a Cherokee legend. Unless you are going to stigmatize all Cherokee sources as equally suspect. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- And it is not called a legend in 1797, which is where this all seems to originate. Can anyone find any other sources that discuss it as a legend explaining where it is found among the Cherokee? Cherokee sources for it? Anything that directly traces it to the Cherokee? Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Is this the Vincent Gaddis source?[4] Why in the world is this being used as an RS by Til? Til, it's up to you to show that your sources back your claim and that you've actually read them. And you added that to Cherokee mythology where I've reverted you. That you think Gaddis is a reliable source says a lot. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The Sun and the Serpent
- The Sun and the Serpent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hamish Miller (dowser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just thought I'd drop this here so you folks can have a look if merited. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also edits to ley line by the same editor. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Those articles should be deleted they are not notable and contain no reliable references, by the looks of it the user who created them is also a troll using the words "groovy" and "dude" to describe the author/s in his articles. I think he is creating these articles for a joke. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- The citations are good, but there's not enough depth of coverage to support separate articles for Paul A. Broadhurst, Hamish Miller (dowser) and The Sun and the Serpent. I'd redirect all those articles to Ley lines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Miller was notable enough to get an obituary in the Times, but that's about all I can get on him outside of Ley Land. I'm inclined to point the stuff back in the ley lines article as well. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
But now being reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
And based on this, the reverting editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hey man, I think you need to take a chill pill and mellow out a bit. Some of us think greedy capitalism is bogus and being groovy, funky dudes is right on. What's to discuss? I ain't gonna disrupt nothing, and bum out your religion. That's called religious hatred man, which is really uncool and the reason the world's such a mess right now. Peace out. :) ۞TrippingHippy۞talk 14:49, 15:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Obvious spoof/parody troll. Sent to AN/I. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Has now started a new page: St. Michael and St. Mary ley lines. Agricolae (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- And I'm not convinced this is this editor's first rodeo. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- The new article assumes one can "dowse" for ley lines, and ley lines were positively identified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I already toned it down a little but I don't know what to do with a complete article based on a (notable ?) concept admitted to be arrived at by "some process independent of the rational mind". Given that dowsing is nonsense and ley lines are nonsense, I don't see why one shouldn't be able to dowse for ley lines and I certainly don't expect there to be non-fringe criticism of this approach - what are they going to say, that you can't find ley lines by dowsing? That leaves it difficult to balance. Agricolae (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well it's a bit more neutral after some copyedits, although I'm still not sure the ley lines described are actually notable enough to have their own article. This seems like just another attempt to publicize the accomplishments of Hamish Miller. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Moot, since TrippingHippy has been blocked as a sock. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, they're nuked. If anyone wants to recreate any of them they are welcome to do so if they follow our policies and guidelines. Feel free to revert any edits he (Bedson almost certainly) made. to existing articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
History of spiritism
I suggest a redirect of this article History of spiritism to spiritism. The history of spiritism article contains no references and is mostly original research/fringe claims or some duplicate stuff of what is on the spiritism article. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Appears to be a "history of" article split off from the main article, which is not an unusual practice. However this particular fork article seems to be rather skimpy on actual "history" and heavy on uncited original research -- such as speculation about spiritism's differences with Christianity and other religions. You might want to trim out anything that's not "history" and see what's left that can be cited. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know whether this issue belongs here or at the NOR or NPOV boards. Essentially an editor is claiming that there is a "feminist" viewpoint on the Taj Mahal that should be represented. I can't see any evidence that this feminist viewpoint exists outside of one non-notable piece of journalism. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Erotic target location error
Erotic target location error (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm going through the contributions of James Cantor (talk · contribs) after the closure of Sexology, and, in defiance of his pledge on his talk page to not edit in areas relating to the fringe theory of autogynephilia due to allegations of CoI, I have identified at least three articles of which he is the primary contributor, created in the last year:
- Gynandromorphophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Autoandrophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Erotic target location error (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One is at AfD, one was redirected, and the third is here. I'm rather concerned that Cantor created an article about a theory that was coined by his friend and colleague Ray Blanchard (who he says he is a "fan" of at Talk:Shemale/Archive 5), which appears partially to be a coatrack to push autogynephilia. I also note that Cantor also seems to be engaging in editing to attack opponents of theories he supports, which was brought up (but not actioned through deadlock) at the arbitration case. I'm unsure what to do here, as the arbitration case complicates things. However, I do think that the article could do with some combing through. Sceptre (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Speaking purely personally, I have very little sympathy with these theories, but I'm not any kind of an expert. The people who propose them and publish them are, as far as I am aware, scholars with legitimate publications, though their views are highly contested. The outcome of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology was that Jokestress, James Cantor's principal antagonist, was topic banned, not James Cantor. The way you present this, you seem to be suggesting the opposite was the outcome. I know of no determination that these views fit the definition of WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of how the case ended, and I believe it was a massive error on the part of ArbCom. Sceptre (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Gynandromorphophilia has 11 sources, all quite reliable scholarly books and articles; more seem to be available.
- Autoandrophilia has 5 sources, 4 of which are scholarly books or articles (and again, more exist) - but could definitely be merged as a section into androphilia or other pages.
- Erotic target location error has 17 sources, 15 of which are scholarly and the remaining two are quite mainstream news publications (ditto).
- I don't see how this meets the definition of WP:FRINGE. All of these are discussed seriously within mainstream publication outlets. I'm not sure why this is at the FTN. Are any of the sources misrepresented or otherwise inappropriate? These may not be widely-accepted concepts, they may not be popularly liked, but there does appear to be scholarly interest.
- My position on the outcome of the arbitration hearing is quite obvious given my initial position and (now blanked) activity on the evidence pages. That being said, I don't know what action or comment is expected here. I don't know what policy or guideline is being breached. The redirected article was redirected by Sceptre, and gyandromorphophilia was nominated by Sceptre. I normally see the FTN as a place to address content, not behaviour, but these complaints seem to be primarily aimed at identifying a behavioural problem. Arbitration, which does focus more on behaviour, just concluded and essentially produced no restrictions on James Cantor's editing activities. The only policy I see being really relevant may be Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- When we're talking about a search engine where "gender identity disorder" and "gender dysphoria" have about 37,000 results, 190 for "autoandrophilia" is not really a convincing argument. Many of the results given for the latter seem to be tangential, not-focused on gender identity, or actually give scant evidence for its existence. From Cantor's expansion of Autoandrophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), this is even admitted; the article says that "the concept has received much less attention than autogynephilia, its counterpart". Also, the citing of J. Michael Bailey, who is as reliable as Blanchard (i.e. not) on the subject of transgender pathology, is indeed worrying.
- From what I can tell from doi:10.1080/15532739.2010.550766, Blanchard's preferred diagnostic criteria for transvestic fetishism (itself a controversial diagnosis) did not match those of WPATH, the accepted authority on transgender healthcare. Indeed, from what I can tell (from Conway), Blanchard isn't even a WPATH member, after he resigned in a huff over the TMWWBQ controversy. This also pushes towards seeing such concepts as fringe.
- And on the subject of erotic target location error and gynandromorphophilia, the Google Books results for those are even scanter. Interestingly, makes very little mention of autogynephilia or gynandromorphophilia, and indeed, it seems he sees it as not part of transsexualism at all, but a different concept: a far cry from Blanchard. Also interesting is part of Lawrence's (a proponent of the typology) new book in which she pretty much confirms that "non-homosexual MtF"s (i.e. bisexual and lesbian trans women) are autogynephilic unless proved otherwise, which gives credence to the popular theory that autogynephilia as a homo/transphobic quackery masquerading as science. The same, IMO, can be also extended to Cantor's own theories on their face; I mean, really, "shemales"? Google Scholar results, by the way, don't give support to autogynephilia either.
- For the sake of not opening old wounds, I've tried not to cite from the TMWWBQ-era sources. However, we can't isolate them entirely. I would like to point out, however, SPLC's report on Bailey, which raises worrying questions about the theory being artificially inflated in stature, mostly by a small cabal of unsavoury people (including the co-author of The Bell Curve and a far-right columnist).
- I posted this here because I wanted the articles to be checked over by someone who has more journal access than I, although now I can see a good case for an ANI report too. Not only does WP:FRINGE seem to be violated in a systematic way over several years (and it's something that could take some time to correct), worse is that Cantor's personal pledge has been broken. I'm not privy to the details of why he made it, but I'm assuming that it's due to the fact he recognises his own conflict of interest, and also recognises the accusations of fringe editing in this area. In my mind, the second is worse, as it does seem to have been his only restraint from violating the first. Sceptre (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- But what do you want done? James Cantor didn't get topic banned by arbcom, so you want to try FTN instead? Or ANI? Or you want someone else to read and verify the sources apply? I find the former distasteful and indicative of personal distaste that I find irritating, but the latter reasonable. I get that lots of trans* persons find Cantor's, and many sexologists/psychologist/psychiatrists' views offensive or harmful - but the standard is whether there are reliable sources discussing the topic. Not personal offence. For instance, J. Michael Bailey is controversial and disliked - but still reliable. Wikipedia's readers are served by having discussions of controversy, not excision. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of how the case ended, and I believe it was a massive error on the part of ArbCom. Sceptre (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hoax article?
Could someone check on the historical existence of Rome, Maryland. I think this article may be perpetuating a conspiracy theory myth. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- The current pope is doing an effective job of concealing all searches for anyone named "Francis Pope", but one of the cited sources does provide a key to unlock this. The Ovason book, which is otherwise a farrago of Masono-astrological, um, stuff, very helpful transcribes part of the original deed, which I repeat here: "Do hereby grant unto him the sd Francis Pope, a parcell of Land called Rome, lying on the East side of the Anacostine River Beginning at a marked Oak; standing by the River side, the bound Tree of Robert Troop, and running North up the River to breadth Two hundred perches to a bounded Oak standing at the mouth of a Bay or Inlett called Tiber[...]" Two things may be noticed by local residents: first, that this a grant of property for a farm and not the establishing of a town. It is pretty typical for these properties to be named, and no doubt someone thought it fitting that Mr. Pope would reside at Rome. Second, and more importantly, this is the wrong side of the Anacostia River. But in fact the locations of all these old properties are very uncertain. The aforementioned Tiber Creek is actually located west of the Anacostia's mouth, roughly at the west end of Washington Channel, and this page claims that the creek was also east of Pope's property. In any case I have not found his land on the accompanying map.
- The upshot, though, is that none of these sources says anything about a settlement or town named Rome. It looks to me as though the original author misconstrued the sources. I notice her talk page is almost entirely occupied with complaints about misuse of sources and questionable articles. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome, Maryland is open for business. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- So we have an unreliable conspiracy theory source, supposedly quoting from what it says is the original deed... and then an editor taking what might have been the name of a farm and turning it into the name of a settlement or town? Do we have reliable corroboration that any of this is genuine? Is the farm, settlement, deed (etc) mentioned in any reliable history of Washington DC?
- I have to admit that at first glance, the existence of a "Rome, Maryland" in the late 1600s seems plausible (given Maryland's Catholic origins)... however, the fact that the only verification for its existance comes from such an unreliable source (one that pushes an Anti-Masonic/Anti-Catholic conspiracy theory), I have to question it. Thanks for nominating it for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome, Maryland is open for business. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Muhammad in the Bible redux
This came up a few weeks ago. Checking back, it seems the small amount of good RS material in the article has now disappeared and a lot of new stuff added some of which seems distinctly ORish, though at least there now appears to be some sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Distinctly ORish is an understatement. I just deleted the whole lot as OR and synth based on unreliable and primary sources. But it got reverted back. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)