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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I have recently restored a template to the above article indicating that I believe it needs to be rewritten given the entirely undue weight the article gives to the theories of Robert Eisenman and James Tabor. Eisenman has been discussed on this page before, several of the surprisingly negative reviews of Tabor's work can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor. The article is currently awaiting mediation from the mediation committee. Two editors are contesting the reduction. In neither case do I see any particular indication from what they have presented that the theories do not qualify clearly as "Fringe" as per [{WP:FT]]. I would welcome any review of the article talk page and the above linked to page of sources by anyone who frequents this board, and a statement from them on the talk page of the article about whether they believe, under the circumstances, the placement of the template is valid. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- The above description of the issue at hand is a textbook example of campaigning. Rather than wasting time on a biased collection of sources, I suggest looking at the article directly and judging for yourself. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would only point out that I believe the two editors who are supporting Eisenman and Tabor are the editors who have the greatest interest in the article, and that others, such as myself, have been basically waiting for the mediation to kick in before making alterations. One might see the indication of 3RR on the article on The Jesus Dynasty's talk page regarding the removal of a SPS as an indication as to how much effort is gone to by some to help ensure the material they want included is included. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that you have still not cleaned up your biased request despite AN/I's clear instruction that you do so here. Ovadyah (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I thought I did remove the offending material, although it is interesting to see that you yourself may once again be engaging in what seems to be a habit of yours, to distract people from the real concerns which you refuse to address by making unfounded statements elsewhere. If you can't abide by WP:TPG and actually address the legitimate concerns raised on the article talk page regarding the weasel words, is it really asking that much of you to cease to make distracting allegations elsewhere? John Carter (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that you have still not cleaned up your biased request despite AN/I's clear instruction that you do so here. Ovadyah (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would only point out that I believe the two editors who are supporting Eisenman and Tabor are the editors who have the greatest interest in the article, and that others, such as myself, have been basically waiting for the mediation to kick in before making alterations. One might see the indication of 3RR on the article on The Jesus Dynasty's talk page regarding the removal of a SPS as an indication as to how much effort is gone to by some to help ensure the material they want included is included. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Some ufology stuff
I finished a clean-up of List of Ufologists, but a lot of the sourcing there needs some fixing.
Whew.
jps (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde
Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Definitely in need of a cleanup. Almost entirely fringe sources and a significant amount of coatracking.
Mentioned in Skepdic, so that source might help.
jps (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Trimmed down to what reliable sources could support. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Paul R. Hill
Here's another issue:
Paul R. Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
jps (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- I could find no sources for this subject other than fringe pubs. Makes me wonder if he actually meets criteria for mainstream notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- You may be right with this one. These articles are sometimes really hard to determine one way or another because the signal-to-noise in many of the attempts to locate sources is so low. I try my best, but anyway. AfD? jps (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, see, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Hill. jps (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- You may be right with this one. These articles are sometimes really hard to determine one way or another because the signal-to-noise in many of the attempts to locate sources is so low. I try my best, but anyway. AfD? jps (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Assorted AfDs
In case you're interested:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvia Simondini
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ademar José Gevaerd
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karla Turner
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Keel
- Cleaned up. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I scrubbed out a ton of "facts" sourced to fringe/conspiracy sites. I'm just The Cleaner. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard H. Hall
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECETI Institute
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas E. Bullard
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Bloecher
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilbert B. Smith
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sereda (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Watson
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Redfern
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Good
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Pinotti
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eng. Sanad Rashed
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Volke
Some of these may actually have external notability, so if you can find some sources for them that would enable us to keep any of them, do help. However, I'm not all that optimistic.
jps (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Another UFO incident
In need of a serious cleansing:
Val Johnson incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article is almost completely cited to proponent materials.
jps (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- The cleaning chores in the UFO department are endless. While looking for sources for Val Johnson I ran across Jerome Clark. Is there no end to it? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jerome Clark is one of the most-used sources we have in this department because a previous editor must have been a huge fan and included a lot of his opinions in our ufology articles. His books are lauded by the ufology community and inclusion in his books has been used as an indicator of notability in some instances. jps (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Re Jerome Clark, sentences that start with "Perhaps his greatest achievement was..." gotta go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- "The article is almost completely cited to proponent materials." It is easy to see why. Proponents will detail objective specifics like time, place, damage, etc.. All critics can say is "not so", "not credible", "prove it", etc. - nothing specific except "he has a strange personality", "he was drunk", "he was making up stories", etc. which would all be likely explanations if it were not for the fact that this was a police officer on duty in the middle of the night who would have no capability to on his own recreate this damage when driving the vehicle at the same time. You would have to assume either that someone else did the damage, or that someone else was driving the vehicle, or that the damage was produced when the vehicle was not moving....Unless if you can fathom that he used some sort of gun to aim stuff at his car precisely when he was driving it! I suppose you will find the first and third explanations convincing enough, but given how little of this information you would trust, you could even believe that Val Johnson wasn't the police officer, or that there wasn't even a police car... or damage.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 12:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer multiple, bylined articles in established news outlets that treat the subject somewhat seriously and not wholly sensationally. As for Val Johnson, I'll take an amalgam of regional "page 7" coverage that at least demonstrates the story was the internet meme of its day. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Using Google News (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Val+Johnson%22+ufo&tbs=nws:1,ar:1) = Good CallKmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 20:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer multiple, bylined articles in established news outlets that treat the subject somewhat seriously and not wholly sensationally. As for Val Johnson, I'll take an amalgam of regional "page 7" coverage that at least demonstrates the story was the internet meme of its day. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Scientific illiteracy is sky high. "In his 1983 book UFOs: The Public Deceived, UFO skeptic Philip Klass argued that the entire event was a hoax, and that Johnson had deliberately damaged his own patrol car. Among the pieces of evidence Klass found suspicious were Johnson's refusal to take a lie-detector test, the fact that the Honeywell engineer had found that dead insect matter still covered the two damaged antennas even after the supposed "impact", and that any ultraviolet light which could have burned Johnson's eyes would have been blocked by the windshield's vinyl layer and Johnson's sunglasses." Apparently Philip Klass forgot to mention that sunglasses should not be used to witness a solar eclipse and that there is nothing unusual or revealing about dead insect matter deposited on an antenna, especially if it is sticky, which is probably why it would stay on there in the first place. Does he think that objects impacting car parts would clean those parts?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 21:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've cleaned up Val Johnson incident. Meanwhile, somebody please help with Mothman, it's in embarrassing shape. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident
1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article slanted toward UFOlogy POV, showcasing "credible reports and hardcore scientific data obtained". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- How, exactly, is the article slanted towards a "Ufology POV". Among the sources are the Washington Post, a CIA report, Curtis Peebles Watch the Skies (he's a noted UFO Skeptic and an aviation historian for the Smithsonian Institution), and numerous references from Edward J. Ruppelt's The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects; Ruppelt was an Air Force officer who had supervised Project Blue Book. All of those seem like rather credible sources to me. The article presents both the pro-and-con aspects of the case and is extensively footnoted from the above sources. Again, it seems like personal opinions are being disguised as Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for at least removing the most onerous material. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I do try to be flexible, and I certainly saw your point and agreed about the offending passage. Also, I noticed that someone has deleted an entire paragraph which supports the Air Force's conclusions that the sightings were indeed explainable as misidentified stars and meteors and temperature inversion, and provides references to prove that point. I will restore that paragraph, as in its current state it is more pro-ufology than it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk • contribs)
Why is the general category of General Relativity relevant to this fringe topic? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- It shouldn't be in that category; this edit summary is accurate. Moreover, the article is mostly a synthesis of sources, with very few third-party reliable sources about the article topic. It is primarily an essay based on the extreme fringe views expressed in this section and this section. The article as it stands is a clear abuse of multiple citations in order to promote fringe. Tim Shuba (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- This section seems to be a synthesis/soapboxing argument promoting a fringe view that antigravity technology is being suppressed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Fringe journal, probably notable enough for its article, maybe needs a note saying published by an unaccredited institution. And can the article claim it's peer reviewed? Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Its a smaller Journal, but reviewing its' Editorial Board and Where its editors are affiliated I wouldn't doubt its Peer reviewed quality. Its not an A-list Journal but its not fringe either. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I was led astray by it's rather odd publisher. I'd be hesitant about using any sources published by the unaccredited Amen-Ra Theological Seminary however. I note that at the moment the article is basically copyvio. And shouldn't it mention the publisher? Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- World Cat shows its by California Institute of Pan African Studies; SPARC (Organization) and Thomson Gale (a top academic publisher). Where is this "Amen-Ra Theological Seminary" coming from? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah found it Amen-Ra Theological Seminary, Hmm that is odd The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Many Theological Seminaries lack outside secular accreditation. Most seminaries are only accredited by denominational bodies like Presbyterian Church (USA)'s "Presbyts" which are only accredited by PCUSA. If its legit enough for its Journal to attract attention from Temple University and Lamar University i dont think its an issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw the board of editors. But where I would have issues is in using its own publications. So seminaries can be self-accredited and give doctorate degrees? And anyone can set up a seminary I presume. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, pretty much any one can. The degree would not necessarily be good every where... outside of Church pastorships or other seminaries or bible colleges it would be worth very little. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw the board of editors. But where I would have issues is in using its own publications. So seminaries can be self-accredited and give doctorate degrees? And anyone can set up a seminary I presume. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Many Theological Seminaries lack outside secular accreditation. Most seminaries are only accredited by denominational bodies like Presbyterian Church (USA)'s "Presbyts" which are only accredited by PCUSA. If its legit enough for its Journal to attract attention from Temple University and Lamar University i dont think its an issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah found it Amen-Ra Theological Seminary, Hmm that is odd The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- World Cat shows its by California Institute of Pan African Studies; SPARC (Organization) and Thomson Gale (a top academic publisher). Where is this "Amen-Ra Theological Seminary" coming from? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I was led astray by it's rather odd publisher. I'd be hesitant about using any sources published by the unaccredited Amen-Ra Theological Seminary however. I note that at the moment the article is basically copyvio. And shouldn't it mention the publisher? Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Extinction of Illyrian languages
Believe it or not, someone is arguing in this day and age that the Illyrian language may not be extinct [1]. In addition to making false claims of consensus, this person is spamming the talkpage with cherry-picked and misinterpreted sources. My view is that even if Albanian descends from Illyrian, which is possible, the two would in any case be considered separate languages, which would mean Illyrian is quite extinct. The analogy is similar to Latin and Italian. Even though Italian descends from Latin, Latin is still considered a dead language. Actually, quite a few people are fluent in Latin even today, in contrast to "Illyrian", about which we know next to nothing. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- That text was added on September 2008 during a debate (in which none of us was involved) whether Albanian can be considered possible as a descendant of Illyrian, or modern form of Illyrian, in the end the Albanian language connection was put in the article. It has remained there unchallenged and stable for more than two years, while a few days ago it was removed claiming it a POV. I restored it while it was removed again by claiming it OR. While on talk page I brought what I think as WP:RS authors which back that claim and tried to explain that was a POV matter rather than a fringe theory. My idea is that there are two POV on that matter, both from respectable sources and they both should be presented in the article. We are here in wiki to collect data and present them here, not impose our opinions.
P.S.Let me notice that the analogy with Latin is a bit forced since Illyrian was not a written language and we have no clue how they spoke. Another best adapted analogy would be that of Celtic languages which today are still spoken in Ireland and Britain. Sure the existing form is very different from that of Roman times,pretty much the same difference would be between Illyrian and Albanian, if Albanian is the modern form of Illyrian. What is a consensus between academics is that we don't have sufficient data on Illyrian languages. It is a matter of personal perception, some called it extinct (while admitting they have no sufficient data) and some (also admitting there are no sufficient data) declaring it is not extinct since it exist in the modern form. There are more than respectable scholars who maintain both views and like I said, this is a matter of POV rather than fringe theories. Aigest (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- On the lighter side, its footnote #8, "Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Albaner - Brife, Hanover, 1705..." must be one of the most verbosely and baroquely incomprehensible footnotes I've ever seen. :) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- For the theory that modern Albanian is the modern form of ancient Illyrian to be fringe, we need to know that the mainstream view is explicitly that it isn't. Are there a few reliable sources for that? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is no mainstream view on that, on the contrary, I would say that Illyrian - Albanian connection has a majority view from its first appearance as hypothesis in 18th century to nowadays. Remember that just I said above there are too few data from Illyrian language to make a proper evaluation, that's why other methods have been used (history, geography, archaeology, toponyms, Albanian language characteristics, loanwords, etc) see Mallory - Adams 1997 (two great scholars on Indoeuropean linguistics ) on the link I provided above. Aigest (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is why infoboxen are a bad idea, round bajillion? They are totally inadequate vehicles to express complex concepts.
- From memory, at any rate, it's roughly clear that Albanian likely descended from Illyrian or something like it, but we have absolutely no idea what. For some reason an extremely strengthened version of this has become a big meme in Albanian nationalist mythology (can't remember why?). No matter: whatever descendants Illyrian has or hasn't, it itself is unquestionably "dead" (like Latin), if not necessarily "extinct", which sort of implies it left no descendants (which it might well have done). I would prefer just to remove the stupid box altogether, but failing that labelling Illyrian as "dead" is totally fair, unlike the stupidly tendentious text currently fouling up the box. Best, Moreschi (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think that by adding that most scholars consider Albanian, a descendant of Illyrian the infobox dispute would be solved.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no, not really. This is the problem with infoboxes. The key words are "Illyrian or something like it". We know basically nothing about Illyrian (see Thraco-Illyrian for an illustration of how little people agree), and therefore it's inaccurate to simply put in the box what you propose. The best solution is to scrap the box, or just call Illyrian dead, which it unquestionably is. Moreschi (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing to put that in the box, but on a separate section with a summary on the lead.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- And what do you propose for the box? Moreschi (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- The purpose of the infobox is to summarize key facts about the article. At the moment there's nothing about either aspect of the dispute on the article itself, so the |extinct shouldn't even be part of the infobox. Incidentally a similar dispute is the Aquitanian-Basque connection. Many scholars consider the Aquitanian language an ancestor of Basque(which would mean that Aquitanian isn't extinct) and there's a section about that issue, which is summarized on the infobox.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- And what do you propose for the box? Moreschi (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing to put that in the box, but on a separate section with a summary on the lead.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no, not really. This is the problem with infoboxes. The key words are "Illyrian or something like it". We know basically nothing about Illyrian (see Thraco-Illyrian for an illustration of how little people agree), and therefore it's inaccurate to simply put in the box what you propose. The best solution is to scrap the box, or just call Illyrian dead, which it unquestionably is. Moreschi (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would propose "probably by the 6th century AD" for the Extinction field of the box, as is done in Dacian language (which may also be the ancestor of Albanian). That should address all the major concerns without being verbose and tendentious. Athenean (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)We should deal with the majority vs. minority views issues that exist. Dacian as an ancestor of Albanian is marginalized and a minor academic view more or less comparable with Basque, as part of the Vasconic substratum, unlike Illyrian and Aquitanian, which are the predominant views.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)It's not an estimation since most scholars who have studied with the Albanian language make the connection with the Illyrian language and not the Dacian one(summary of theories or the Encyclopedia of IE culture). Academically although the Illyrian theory is the predominant one, other theories exist but they are so marginalized that sources like Britannica don't even mention them They are descendants of the ancient Illyrians, who lived in central Europe and migrated southward to the territory of Albania at the beginning of the Bronze Age, about 2000 bce.. Btw Moreschi's edit [2] is a very good solution.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Put down the stick and slowly back from the horse. Athenean (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent)I suggested that edit of Moreschi's, so why did you make that wp:horse edit?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
A side remark. A few days ago, for completely unrelated reasons, I happened to rewrite [3] part of the BLP of Victor Friedman, a professor at the University of Chicago, who is an expert on Balkan linguistics. He has published in Albanian and wrote a book on the language in 2004. On his website various articles are accessible, including this one from 1988. [4] There he writes
The Albanians speak a language which is often claimed to be descended from Illyrian. Recent studies of the evidence of toponymy and vocabulary, however, indicate that Albanian may be descended from a Dacian or Thracian dialect which was being spoken in what is now eastern Serbia up to the time the Slavs crossed the Danube and invaded the Balkans (A.D. 550-630).
There's probably more recent stuff (the 2004 book is not easily accessible). It was just an accident that I happened to make those edits, but that is wikipedia for you. Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- You saved the article so it was a good accident :). Btw he's citing Fine, who has summarized Georgiev's Dacian thesis. His 2004 work is probably why he was made a Member of the Academy of Arts and Sciences of Kosovo(so you can guess it's topic ;))--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:HORSE applies, because though Moreschi's edit resolved the dispute, ZjarriRrethues went on and on about how the Illyrian theory is the "predominant" one and had to have the last word, even though that is a) tendentious (as Mathsci's quote illustrates), b)largely irrelevant to the dispute, and c) after Moreschi's edit, moot. Athenean (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- A dispute was resolved, so please don't continue a discussion only to make edits about how tendetious what I write is.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:HORSE applies, because though Moreschi's edit resolved the dispute, ZjarriRrethues went on and on about how the Illyrian theory is the "predominant" one and had to have the last word, even though that is a) tendentious (as Mathsci's quote illustrates), b)largely irrelevant to the dispute, and c) after Moreschi's edit, moot. Athenean (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
St Ives, Cambridgeshire
Sorry if it is the wrong forum - i am new to this, but there are some strange statements in the "St Ives" article:
In section "Churches":
The only centre of True worship in St Ives is the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in Green Howe. There you will find a non-judgemental welcome and no plate passing! The Congregation numbers around 100 members of all ages. No one is turned away from their public meetings. You will often see their members knocking on doors around the St Ives area. They carry a simple message designed to stimulate interest in the bible. If you want to hear the truth about God's word and not have your 'ears tickled' then this is the place to go.
In section "Protection":
The town of Saint Ives in Cambridge is protected by the hidden force of Careless Army and has a hidden alliance with Germany and Russia. The Careless army is older than Saint Ives and is obsessed with power and money. No one would want to fight the powerful army, which is more than 100 times bigger than the British Army.
br Flo
Books by Koenraad Elst
I see that we have articles on a number of books by the writer Koenraad Elst. He advocates a non-mainstream line on Indian history, chiming with certain themes in Indian nationalism, on the verge at least of extremism. I would not have thought that these books are notable in their own right. They received little or no scholarly attention. I'm thinking of merging them all back into the biography of Elst. Any views? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's either that or AfD. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't think most of them - or any - will pass WP:NBOOK, which seems like a pretty reasonable guideline. One or two might have got enough mainstream or scholarly attention so that the article could be more than just a simple "plot summary", but for the rest, merge away. AFD is a waste of time. Moreschi (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
We have an IP editing this who is inserting details about someone's qualifications which are not only unsourced but irrelevant to the article (the IP seems a bit gung-ho on adding 'biologist' to articles) and although I'd appreciate a watch on this, I've noticed the section the IP edited is sourced only to the Institute of Creation Research, and I'm dubious about that being a good enough source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the IP's edits seem to indicate a COI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd missed that. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Pseudohistorical book being used as a reference in a few articles [5] - I came across this when looking at the edits of an IP some of us will have noticed: [6] is an attempt to add Supery's ideas to an article. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article does not even give the basic info when this book was published. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which is because the article's creator removed it from our Vikings article and put it into a new article as he didn't think it had a place in the Vikings one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Secret des Vikings/ Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't find sources for it either using my reliable sources search engine[7] or Google News[8]. Google News Archive[9] and Google Scholar[10] turn up a couple hits, but nothing really usable for our purposes, I don't think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- A library card, that is all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't find sources for it either using my reliable sources search engine[7] or Google News[8]. Google News Archive[9] and Google Scholar[10] turn up a couple hits, but nothing really usable for our purposes, I don't think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Now being passionately defended by Ossegor (talk · contribs). Not sure what the agenda is, exactly, but seems pretty fun....Moreschi (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Aha: judging by this, it seems like the author himself has graced us with his presence, after having previously visited our francophone counterparts. Hmmm...Moreschi (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated the page for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Le_Secret_des_Vikings_(2nd_nomination).Griswaldo (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Editor adding promotional edit about some unpublished minor fringe idea. Ignores messages on talk page, edit summaries. See also his userpage at User:Arkquest
Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Reverted. Please, good sir Arkquest, do not keep reverting without explaining yourself first, and read our policies on reliable sources, verifiability, and notability before putting this stuff in again (that's WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V). Moreschi (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Created by a now blocked puppet master, claims it " has an unbroken tradition from its roots as a fighting system of the warriors of ancient Israel.". Much of the same material is in Yehoshua Sofer (who does seem notable as a Jamaican Jewish musician). Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hahahaha, does anybody have an email address for the good people at Bullshido? This is setting off alarm bells all over the place. An ancient martial arts system miraculously preserved since biblical times in tiny fragments of the Jewish diaspora? Really? Really? It's actually been spammed elsewhere on the web with...interesting results (check out [11]).
- At any rate, probably redirect this to the guy's biography, and cut his page down to what he's actually notable for, if anything. Moreschi (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, no, it's on bullshido already. Check out the sensational action videos at [12] (scroll down a bit).
sigh, can you say Stav? --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Great, I just noted this and this. So now we keep articles about crappy martial arts hoaxes, but we delete the prime site notable for exposing them? Way to go Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be grateful is some editors could have a look at this. I've got into a dispute with an editor who insists on replacing the longstanding assertion that Hagar is the (supposed) Biblical ancestor of Arabs. He claims that "Muslims" insist that he is the ancestor of Muslims. Of course this is true if you identify Muslims and Arabs, but as expresed it creates the absurd claim that all Muslims are descended from her. The claim that Arabs descend from her dates back at least to Josephus, so it is not a specifically Muslim claim. I provided a citation for this, which the editor argues against with reasoning that just perplexes me. Many other citations for this uncontroversial statement can be found. I previously had a weird debate about divorce on the Talk page, which was not resolved. I can't seem to communicate with this particular editor, so other input would be welcome. Paul B (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- This really could use some more attention. I have no clue if we're dealing with wilful obtuseness, or wilful obtuseness with an agenda. Either way it's pretty baffling. Moreschi (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor is attempting to introduce a new section, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism#Signatories to the Dissent From Darwinism Document into the article, mostly repeating stuff which is already in the article, but adding inaccurate Discovery Institute claims about the 'Dissent' + some WP:OR explaining away the inaccuracy. More eyes might prove useful. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I also noted recently at list of common misconceptions that apparently, there is no single scientific method. Because, would you believe it, paleontology is a science that cannot do experiments. I get the idea, but its presentation as a "common misconception" is at least as misleading as calling this "Dissent From Darwinism" Scientific. --dab (𒁳) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the scientific method would perhaps best be described as a set of methodological principles that get applied differently to different scientific situations (like the inability to replicate the Big Bang under laboratory conditions). (The misrepresentation in and around the 'Dissent' is so pervasive that it is hard to get hot & bothered about their misuse of "Scientific" -- the whole thing would be more accurately renamed A Religious Inarticulate Quibble with a Strawman.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Argues that Hebrew Bible place names actually refer to places in Arabia. Heavy use of his blog. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Forgot to add that I just deleted this] from his article, added by one of our problem editors. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked for 31 hours for trolling. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
New article, what struck me was "In her twenties, Kali Ray a "spontaneous kundalini experience” which lasted over twelve hours. In 1980, while teaching meditation to several students, Kali Ray experienced what is known in ancient yogic texts as kriyavatisiddhi: spontaneous movement manifested in a yogi who has awakened kundalini. " I guess there may be BLP issues as well. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should go to AfD. Looks like it was created by the subject as promotional. I'm not seeing evidence of notability. Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- However, there is the possibility that TriYoga, the style of yoga she is associated with, is an encyclopedic topic. In which case, the focus of the article should be on that style, and her bio should makeup only a small subsection of that topic. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- See also: List of yoga schools. Apparently, one could make an argument for the notability of the bio and the school. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- However, there is the possibility that TriYoga, the style of yoga she is associated with, is an encyclopedic topic. In which case, the focus of the article should be on that style, and her bio should makeup only a small subsection of that topic. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is fringe or not. Anyone know anything about 'tanash'? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Great googly-moogly. Before Robert Graves got dragged into it, this article was 99% smaller. Probably 99% more accurate. I'm highly inclined to wipe the thing and start over, as regardless of the OR involved the thing is painfully incoherent essay. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I meant to say that it was brought up at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Tahash. I see DGG likes it. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Dacian script
Dacian script (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fringe topic (no indication to date that even a acholarly argument over its existence exists), currently at AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Classic Balkans nationalism, two accounts are trying to blow this out of proportion. One even templated me on my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect this has a lot to do with the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia, which the guy is treating as his magic talisman which allows him to own any page with the remotest association with Dacia. I imagine this may soon turn into Wikiproject:Dacomania if we're not careful, although a lot of the members are almost certainly bona fide and not into fringe fantasy. It's the self-appointed leader I have my doubts about.--Folantin (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The significant mainstream idea is not being fairly represented in accordance with WP:FRINGE.
Proposal for Prognosis.
I think this proposal is appropriately weighted to include at the end of Vertebral artery dissection#Prognosis. The relevant but stale discussion is at Talk:Vertebral artery dissection#Ernst-death once more.
The 2010 reference meets WP:MEDRS in that it's recent, secondary, and is a systematic review, published in IJCP. It carries all the authority of the editorial process of the IJCP, and it's not our place to introduce our our analysis of such a source - that's the job of the published literature. It is more relevant Chiropractic than VAD, but relevant nevertheless. It is true that Ernst is the leading researcher on chiropractic related topics, and it is equally true that some chiropractors have a problem with his conclusions. The difference is that Ernst is published in top-quality publications.
The 2010 Ernst specifically examines deaths associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM), while the 2007 review looks at all the adverse effects, so I don't think it adds nothing when it is apparently relevant to the topic. But even then, look at how the 2007 review is used: the review's results are "In the majority of cases, spinal manipulation was deemed to be the probable cause of the adverse effect", and the review is only used in the article to support "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" - in other words, there's nothing in the article drawn from Ernst's actual conclusions! Policy actually mandates the inclusion of the mainstream view per WP:WEIGHT. MEDRS simply sets standards for sources where there are multiple sources available. From a MEDRS perspective, the review shows that chiropractic has probably caused death, VAD being an important mechanism. WEIGHT is a subsection of NPOV, and it does not demand that every viewpoint is included. This applies especially in extreme or marginal views such as the proponents fringe view.
There is relationship between MEDRS & WEIGHT. The relevant section is Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. However, it does say all significant viewpoints, so the base guidance is that if a viewpoint is relevant and published by reliable sources, then it should be included. WP:WEIGHT guides us on how we treat the viewpoints of minorities, and how much prominence we give them (if any). Unless the argument is being made that Ernst's conclusions represent a minority viewpoint in the published, reliable literature, it needs to be fairly represented as the majority viewpoint. The fact is that his conclusions are not of huge relevance to VAD, but that is not what WEIGHT is about. As long as CSM is described as a cause or risk factor for VAD in the reliable literature, the article remains incomplete without mentioning it.
PMID 20642715 is a reference of extremely high quality, and it doesn't matter how often we opine on it. It's published by IJCP with all the authority of their editorial and peer review processes. That's the benchmark of quality here, not personal dislike, amateur analysis, or suggestions of bias of the author. It's not just WP:RS, but MEDRS that guarantees that, because of the quality of the publication process of IJCP, and stating otherwise doesn't make it so. The review has a stated methodology, and it's not up to us to suggest another inclusion criteria.
There is excessive weight for the fringe view while the conclusion of mainstream view is not being represented.
The following represents Ernst's 2007 conclusions: "Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation."[13]
Current fringe view at Traumatic.
Personally, I believe the part "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" under Vertebral artery dissection#Traumatic gives insufficient weight to the majority viewpoint and excess weight to minority viewpoints.
Proposal for Traumatic.
- ^ E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.
- ^ a b Kim YK, Schulman S (2009). "Cervical artery dissection: pathology, epidemiology and management". Thromb. Res. 123 (6): 810–21. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2009.01.013. PMID 19269682.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ a b c d Miley ML, Wellik KE, Wingerchuk DM, Demaerschalk BM (2008). "Does cervical manipulative therapy cause vertebral artery dissection and stroke?". Neurologist. 14 (1): 66–73. doi:10.1097/NRL.0b013e318164e53d. PMID 18195663.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b Rubinstein SM, Peerdeman SM, van Tulder MW, Riphagen I, Haldeman S (2005). "A systematic review of the risk factors for cervical artery dissection". Stroke. 36 (7): 1575–80. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000169919.73219.30. PMID 15933263.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)
IMHO I think the proposal for Prognosis and the proposal for Traumatic both satisfy WEIGHT and FRINGE. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:TLDR ... can you please condense your question a bit. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- This has been discussed ad nauseam on the talkpage, and I really wish not to waste any more time on it. The current version makes it very clear that there is a controversy. The source in question ("Ernst-death") was left out on grounds of WP:WEIGHT, because it does not answer my vital question: whether it actually adds anything to the current content. It enumerates a relatively rare event (death due to chiropractic) and suggests that some of these deaths may have occurred as a result of vertebral artery dissection (which was first reported in 1978, and therefore all case reports prior to this can only be extrapolated). Nobody has been able to tell me if the prognosis of VAD due to chiropractic is worse than other forms. If not, the source is redundant. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The prognosis section in the VAD article should be specific to the prognosis for VAD. The additional reference (Ernst-death) that QG proposes to include under prognosis examines rare outcomes of death following upper cervical manipulation and only speculates about VAD as the cause. The Ernst-death reference does not examine VAD specifically, thus, adds nothing to the discussion of prognosis of VAD. Puhlaa (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- With regard to the traumatic section proposal, I prefer how it currently exists. The section currently acknowledges, but does not give undue weight to the controversial association between upper cervical manipulation and VAD. The section also acknowledges, but does not give undue weight to the fact that causation is disputed. Thus, I think the article as it currently exists already satisfies NPOV, WEIGHT and FRINGE and does not need to be modified until additional research examining causation is available.Puhlaa (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Griswaldo, this proposal is for Prognosis. See Talk:Vertebral artery dissection#Ernst-death once more. This recent systematic review in accodance with WP:MEDRS should be included based on WEIGHT. "Deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection; 26 fatalities have been documented in the medical literature since 1934. There is likely under-reporting in the literature of the true incidence of death associated with VAD due to manipulation, although no reliable data on incidence is available. E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.
- Griswaldo, the 2007 reviews's conclusion is not presented in the article in Traumatic. Rather, the fringe view "and the association is disputed by proponents of these treatment modalities" is included against WP:WEIGHT. To fix the problem, a summary of the conclusion can be included. I propose the following to replace the fringe view: "and spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, can result in serious complications such as VAD followed by stroke."Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - Jfdwolff, it is irrelevant whether the prognosis of VAD due to chiropractic is worse than other forms. The source is not redundant when death due to chiropractic neck manipulation from a systematic review is being left out against MEDRS and WEIGHT.
- Jfdwolff, if you still claim it is redundant then show me where in the article it explains deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection.
- Puhlaa, "Deaths due to chiropractic manipulation to the neck is associated with vertebral artery dissection" is not speculation. It is sourced in accordance with WP:V. Puhlaa, you prefer how it currently exists with regard to traumatic? You have not explained why the fringe view should be included rather than the conclusion. We don't need to wait for additional research when the conclusion is "Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation."[14]
- Puhlaa, please understand you did not give a valid explanation why the conclusion should not be included when the 2007 source is currently being used in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure where to post this, as you have started the same thread is in 2 places, I will thus just post it at both also. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the goal here is just for editors to provide their opinion on the matter. I have given my opinion (based on my knowledge of wikipedia policies, the science in question, and my personal view), your opinion is also very clear (it was after the first post, the others werent necessary). My approach at this point is that if a majority of other editors agree with your view, then my view is perhaps flawed and not worth arguing further. Thus, respectfully, what other editors have to say is more likely to re-shape my opinion than reading your opinion a second or third time. For the same reason, I dont feel obliged to re-post my position on the issue.Puhlaa (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article already states that VAD is associated with a 1-2% mortality after treatment. None of the sources provide a reliable figure about mortality without treatment, so there is no figure about this. It would therefore be correct to state that because VAD can be caused by chiropractic, and VAD occasionally leads to stroke and death, that therefore chiropractic/CSM can cause stroke and death through VAD. As such, "Ernst-death" is therefore unnecessary, because it provides no further information about what I have already said. The study has a number of significant problems, such as the presumption that older case reports were actually about VAD while VAD was only described as a clinical entity in the 1970s by Miller Fisher.
- I get the overwhelming impression that QuackGuru's multiple posts on the same topic (here, on Talk:Vertebral artery dissection, on User talk:Garrondo) all serve to further his cause to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK about CSM/chiropractic. JFW | T@lk 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article already states that VAD is associated with a 1-2% mortality after treatment? Where is this stated in relation to CSM? The "prognosis" section does not specifically state that stroke or death occurs after CSM. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The goal of the "Prognosis" section in the VAD article should not be to discuss the outcomes of CSM, nor to attempt to link CSM to death. The goal of the "prognosis" section in the VAD article is to discuss the outcomes of VAD, which is stated as 1-2% mortality. The article discusses that CSM is associated with VAD under the "Causes" of VAD section, but trying to also link CSM to death in this section adds nothing to the discussion of CAUSES OF VAD. Puhlaa (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article already states that VAD is associated with a 1-2% mortality after treatment? Where is this stated in relation to CSM? The "prognosis" section does not specifically state that stroke or death occurs after CSM. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- A bit of a shame that we have to present this plain and simple fact time and time again. I have now ensured that Ernst2007's original conclusion is well represented. I think that concludes the issue. QuackGuru has been unable to demonstrate clearly why we should specifically mention the conclusions of "Ernst-death". I am done commenting on the issue, because I can only clarify my position so often. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- "In studies of anticoagulants and aspirin, the combined mortality with either treatment is 1.8-2.1%.[1][13]"
- The article states that VAD is associated with a 1-2% mortality after treatment. Stroke and death following CSM is after chiropractic spinal manipulation therepy. So, in fact, it is not redundant to include it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The source says "They suggest that many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation.48,49"[15] The source is being misused and taken out of context. I explained it before on the talk page that the source was taken out of context. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Non-VAD related mortality does not need to be mentioned in this article. Ernst2010 does not provide a actual figure for mortality. Please stop arguing about this study, which is not about vertebral artery dissection but about mortality after CSM.
- The source says that practicioners of CSM have disputed the link. I will happily quote a more biased source from the CSM camp that disputes the link if that serves your agenda. JFW | T@lk 19:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- A more biased source from the CSM camp should meet MEDRS. The current source is obviously being taken out of context when the source says "many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation".[16] The source repeatedly associates CSM with VAD which the outcome or prognosis can be stroke or death.[17] So, in fact, it is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
break 1
- Jfdwolff has ignored that the source says "They suggest that many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation.48,49"[18] So, in fact, you are taking the source out of context.
- Jfdwolff claimed the proposal was redundant but could not back up his claim. Stroke and death due to chiropractic spinal manipulation therepy is associated with VAD is in accordance with MEDRS. I am not arguing about a study. The Ernst2010 source is a highly reliable systematic review that is very relevant to the topic.
- Jfdwolff, do you still believe the text is redudant. If so how is it redundant when there is nothing in the prognosis section that is about CSM is associated with VAD followed by stroke and death.
- See WP:MEDRS: Ideal sources for these aspects include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals; professional and academic books written by experts in a field and from a respected publisher; and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies.
- See WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.
- This MEDRS compliant source does discuss vertebral arterial dissection associated with manipulation of the spine throughout the systematic review. If this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT then we must give the recent systematic review due weight.
- "What’s known Chiropractic upper spinal manipulation has repeatedly been associated with arterial dissection followed by stroke and, in some cases, death."
- "What’s new The article is the first systematic review of all fatalities reported in the medical literature. Twenty-six deaths are on record and many more seem to have remained unpublished."
- "Vascular accidents after upper spinal manipulation are a well-recognised problem (e.g. 1,2). Dissection of a vertebral artery, caused by extension and rotation of the neck beyond the physiological range of motion, is thought to be the underlying mechanism(2)."
- "This systematic review demonstrates that numerous deaths have been associated with chiropractic. Usually high-velocity, short-lever thrusts of the upper spine with rotation are implicated. They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death (1,2,26,30)."
- "Reliable estimates of the frequency of vascular accidents are prevented by the fact that underreporting is known to be substantial."
- E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.
- The systematic review should be included per WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS. A relevant and reliable systematic review must be given its due weight when the source does discuss VAD related outcomes. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- QG, why do you want to see the good article about VAD turned into a debate about the risk of stroke and death from cervical manipulation? It is currently a good NPOV article. The article you propose to add examines death from CSM and then speculates about the association of VAD and CSM, it adds no information specifically about VAD that is not already found in the article. What it does add to the VAD article is the POV of that author. If it is included in the article then it must be balanced by opposing quality research so that the VAD article maintains NPOV. If you indeed want to convert this good article into a debate about cervical manipulation then dont forget what else we 'know'. Which of the following should be used to balance your proposed addition?:
- "the association between chiropractic visits and VBA stroke is similar to the association between physician visits and VBA stroke. This suggests that, on average, patients who seek chiropractic care for neck pain or headaches, and who then developed a VBA stroke may have actually been in the prodromal phase of a stroke when consulting the chiropractor; that is, the neck pain or headaches, which lead them to seek care were early symptoms of a VBA stroke." and "because this increased risk is also seen in those seeking health care from their primary care physician, this association is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke."
- Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, Nordin M, Guzman J, Peloso PM, Holm LW, Côté P, Hogg-Johnson S, Cassidy JD, Haldeman S; Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (2008). "Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders". Spine. 33 (4suppl): S123-52. PMID 18204386.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- "No cause-and-effect relationship has been established between cervical spine manipulation and CAD, but it seems that cervical manipulation may be capable of triggering dissection in a susceptible patient or contributing to the evolution of an already existing CAD. Despite the many risk factors that have been proposed as possible causes of CAD, it is still unknown which of them actually predispose patients to CAD after cervical spine manipulation."
- Hanelinea MT, Rosnerb AL (2007). "The etiology of cervical artery dissection". J Chiropr Med. 6 (3): 110–120. doi:10.1016/j.jcme.2007.04.007.
- "Recent evidence has clarified the relationship considerably, and suggests that the relationship is not causal, but that patients with VADS often have initial symptoms which cause them to seek care from a chiropractic physician and have a stroke some time after, independent of the chiropractic visit."
- Murphy DR (2010). "Current understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulation and stroke: what does it mean for the chiropractic profession?". Chiropr Osteopat. 18 (22). PMID 20682039.
- "...spinal manipulation is associated with frequent, mild and transient adverse effects as well as with serious complications which can lead to permanent disability or death. Yet causal inferences are, of course, problematic. Vascular accidents may happen spontaneously or could have causes other than spinal manipulation. A temporal relationship is insufficient to establish causality, and recall bias can further obscure the truth. Moreover, denominators are rarely available."
- Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7). PMID 17606755.
- Even Ernst in his 2007 review recognizes that causation is still only speculated, his 2010 review adds nothing to the evidence for causation. I would prefer NOT to see the article turn into a discussion of CSM and stroke. You have already done a great job of that at the chiropractic article and the spinal manipulation article, lets let this one remain specifically about VAD. Lets wait until there is new evidence for or against a causational link before we add more discussion about CSM in the VAD article. Puhlaa (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the 2010 Ernst systematic review meets WP:MEDRS. None of those sources you provided meets MEDRS except for the Ernst 2007 review. The MEDRS approved source adds information specifically about VAD that is not already found in the article. I have shown how the proposal is not redundant when the outcome or prognosis from CSM associated with VAD can result in stroke or death is not in the article.
- You wrote "Lets wait until there is new evidence for or against a causational link before we add more discussion about CSM in the VAD article."
- The newer source is the newer evidence. The newer 2010 source does make a claim about the causality.
- Here is a specific proposal for Prognosis using a newer MEDRS compliant source: "The causality between chiropractic neck manipulation and vertebral artery dissection that can result in stroke or death is probable."E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.
- If you require specific text about the causality we can include this proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- First, you said that the newer source does make a claim about causality...here I agree, the author does restates the speculations he has made in previous article on the same topic about causation, however, his speculations are based on the older research already incuded in the article, his 2010 article adds no new evidence on the subject of causation. Second, although 2 of the sources I posted are only general reviews (thus they do indeed meet MEDRS but are not considered the highest level of evidence), the 2008 best evidence synthesis by the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force published in Spine is definitely a secondary source.
- Methods:"We systematically searched Medline and screened for relevance literature published from 1980 through 2006 on the use, effectiveness, and safety of noninvasive interventions for neck pain and associated disorders. Consensus decisions were made about the scientific merit of each article; those judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis."
- Further, the 2008 review is in some respects a better source than Ernst 2010. Ernst 2010 is the production of a single author, whereas the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force Review is a collaborative and heavily vetted publication that can be taken as broadly representative of scientific opinion. Your proposal simply pushes you POV and is not balanced by other research in the area. As I said, if you want to turn this good article on VAD into more of a discussion of CSM, there are plenty of alternate sources that can balance the 2010 review. Why dont we just copy the paragraph from chiropractic-safety and paste it right into the VAD article? This is where you are leading with your proposals.Puhlaa (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The 2008 source is about CAD not VAD. That is a different issue. VAD is more likely to be a result of CSM than CAD. I know a lot about this stuff. Someone has to read the studies before they are published to ensure their accuracy. But our job is not to continue to question the researchers. If you think Ernst is not neutral that is irrelevant according to Wikipedia policy.
- See WP:V: "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Most of your above comment is meaningless to my comment, and I dont think wikipedia cares how much you know about the subject (I know a fair bit myself, but its impossible to compare our knowledge as you veil yourself in mystery :). However, I am amused at your point that the 2008 collaborative and heavily vetted review is about CAD and not VAD, when you are pushing to include a 2010 single author review that is about death and CSM. Since you obviously agree that it is pointless to fill up a VAD article with discussion of sources not specifically about VAD, I think we can agree that Ernst 2010 will add nothing to this article.Puhlaa (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Further, the 2008 review is in some respects a better source than Ernst 2010. Ernst 2010 is the production of a single author, whereas the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force Review is a collaborative and heavily vetted publication that can be taken as broadly representative of scientific opinion. Your proposal simply pushes you POV and is not balanced by other research in the area. As I said, if you want to turn this good article on VAD into more of a discussion of CSM, there are plenty of alternate sources that can balance the 2010 review. Why dont we just copy the paragraph from chiropractic-safety and paste it right into the VAD article? This is where you are leading with your proposals.Puhlaa (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The source is relevant because it specifically discusses VAD. "Chiropractic upper spinal manipulation has repeatedly been associated with arterial dissection followed by stroke and, in some cases, death."[19] You agreed we should wait for newer evidence about the causational link. The newer source is the newer evidence about the link.
- I know a lot about the subject of Wikipedia policy. Obviously, you are ignoring my comments. See WP:IDHT. WP:V is not a meaningless policy. Why do you claim the source is not relevant when the source specifically says "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death".[20] QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- My mistake, I thought you were indicating that you know alot about the issue of stroke and CSM, not wikipedia policy. You have a clear advantage over me in your understanding of policy I admit. However, your link to a policy on disruptive editing seems pretty rich considering your history (need not go into detail). A quick look at my short record will show no complaints (except perhaps from you). Isnt there a policy on accusing other editors of bad faith? especially when it is over a clearly minor misunderstanding? You would know better than I.Puhlaa (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The quote: "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death" adds nothing because this has already been established in the literature and is already described in the VAD article using the earlier sources that determine the causational link. What does Ernst add? "This systematic review demonstrates that numerous deaths have been associated with chiropractic." As quoted from his review, Ernst 2010 adds a count of cases of people who have died after CSM, then simply reiterates the already established association between CSM and VAD, and then simply reiterates the already established speculation that there is a causational link. The VAD article already describes these established associations and speculations. If anything should be added to the VAD article it would be a discussion of how pre-existing conditions, temporal relationships, and biases may be overinflating the issue. The problem is, we dont know! Perhaps the relationship is causational (although the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force suggests not). Until we have more evidence either way, there is no point in expanding the discussion of speculated causational links in the VAD article. Save it for the chiropractic and SM articles. Puhlaa (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- You claim it is "speculated causational links". It is not our job to decide if the source is bias or neutral. See WP:V again. We don't need to wait for more evidence when we do have a reliable systematic review. See WP:MEDRS again. The quote: "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death" does add something to the article becuase the outcome of stroke and death is not found in the article.
- "There is likely under-reporting in the literature of the true incidence of death associated with VAD due to manipulation, although no reliable data on incidence is available.[1]" Under-reporting is also not found in the VAD article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- you claim that Erst 2010 "does add something to the article because the outcome of stroke and death is not found in the article", however, this info is not found in the article because it is not relevent to a discussion specific to VAD. The goal of this article is to discuss VAD, not death and stroke from CSM. Puhlaa (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct QG, under-reporting is not given mention in VAD. However, there is already a source referenced that mentions under-reporting and is specific to VAD (Ernst 2007) "...vertebral artery dissections due to intimal tearing...under-reporting may frequently be high.". Thus, a summary of this may be added to the first sentence dealing with CSM in trauma: "Chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been linked to vertebral artery dissection, and under-reporting of incidents is likely common.[1]" I would be OK with this proposal. I will post the proposal on the talk page for consensus with other involved editors. Puhlaa (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Be both agree that relevant text is missing from the article. But we might disagree exactly what is missing from the article. The source specifically says "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death".[21] When CSM is repeatedly associated with VAD followed by stroke and death it is relevant to the article. It is also clear under-reporting is also missing from the artcle. Both are relevant to the topic. So, the article is incomplete. I'm not the only editor who has proposed text for the article. You can take a look at the different proposals on the talk page and make your own proposal. I suppose anything is better than the current text. A brief mention that chiropractic neck manipulation associated with VAD can result in stroke or death would make the article complete. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your conlusion (we disagree with what is missing). I am ok with adding a mention of under-reporting (it is a major weakness in chiropractic RCT publications and needs to be improved). However, I can see no value to the inclusion of a mention of the potential CSM to cause death. VAD can cause stroke and death no matter what the cause, what value is there in specifically attempting to link CSM to stroke and death in an article about VAD? I think I have made my view clear on this, I have little more to add to this discussion. I would rather see the opinion of other editors than re-hash this further. I will not object to a mention of under-reporting, but will continue to object to trying to link CSM to death in an article about VAD (unless other editors consistently agree that this has value to a VAD article, but this doesnt seem to be the case). I will consider putting together a proposal for the traumatic section on the talk page. Puhlaa (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Under-reporting 'is' important, and I don't know why we wouldn't use the newer source as a reference, but otherwise let's not waste time on Ernst-Death regarding CSM causality at VAD. That systematic review cannot stand by itself unless you want to comment on, as Puhlaa in part has mentioned: i) pre-existing conditions prior to seeking care (spine 2008), ii)temporal association not equaling causation (ernst 2007), iii) Ernst's biased, iv) force required for VAD exceeds spinal manipulation forces (jmpt 2005), v) need for further research to establish causality (neurology 2008 and spine 2009), vi) objections of practitioners (rosner), vii) flaws in Ernst-Death including case reports, before VAD was even recognized, and not exclusively from chiropractors. These complex issues belong at Chiropractic and Spinal Manipulation where they can be handled in detail, and only at VAD if all relevant MEDRS studies are included, not only the systematic review you favor. Ocaasi (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your conlusion (we disagree with what is missing). I am ok with adding a mention of under-reporting (it is a major weakness in chiropractic RCT publications and needs to be improved). However, I can see no value to the inclusion of a mention of the potential CSM to cause death. VAD can cause stroke and death no matter what the cause, what value is there in specifically attempting to link CSM to stroke and death in an article about VAD? I think I have made my view clear on this, I have little more to add to this discussion. I would rather see the opinion of other editors than re-hash this further. I will not object to a mention of under-reporting, but will continue to object to trying to link CSM to death in an article about VAD (unless other editors consistently agree that this has value to a VAD article, but this doesnt seem to be the case). I will consider putting together a proposal for the traumatic section on the talk page. Puhlaa (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Be both agree that relevant text is missing from the article. But we might disagree exactly what is missing from the article. The source specifically says "They are believed to cause vertebral arterial dissection in predisposed individuals which, in turn, can lead to a chain of events including stroke and death".[21] When CSM is repeatedly associated with VAD followed by stroke and death it is relevant to the article. It is also clear under-reporting is also missing from the artcle. Both are relevant to the topic. So, the article is incomplete. I'm not the only editor who has proposed text for the article. You can take a look at the different proposals on the talk page and make your own proposal. I suppose anything is better than the current text. A brief mention that chiropractic neck manipulation associated with VAD can result in stroke or death would make the article complete. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I will start new sections to focus on the remaining problems with the article. The above discussion did help improve the article and did clarify a few points. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Marginal fringe view
Proposal to remove the fringe view from Traumatic.
See WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief.
The other point from the source is "They suggest that many therapists are now becoming aware of the risks of spinal manipulation.48,49"[22] The source is being taken out of context and this is not an important point to cause for the vertebral artery dissection page. The minor fringe view is getting a lot of attention in the article which is a violation of WEIGHT and FRINGE. The tiny minority view should get zero WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- People who challenge that the earth is round are ignoring accepted fact backed by unarguable evidence (thus a Fringe view). Critics of the link between C-manipulation and VAD point out the fact that there is not yet any evidence to prove that cervical manipulation CAUSES VAD, it is still only a temporal association. As this criticism is not against established knowledge, it is hardly a fringe view like QGs example of the flat earth society. It is just good science to question causation without good evidence for it. This is what drives us to do more research! Manipulation has only been associated with VAD in the literature. Critics like Ernst claim it is a probable cause, and chiropractors contend that there is still no good evidence of causation. Ernst clearly describes both of these perspectives in his 2007 review and this is how the VAD article expresses it, citing Ernst's 2007 review. As such, the article currently conforms to Weight, Fringe, NPOV and MEDRS. There is no good reason to alter the article any more than has already been done to try appease the POV of QG. Puhlaa (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- You did mention there is newer evidence from the Ernst 2010. The section in VAD is about Causes. What is this marginal view doing in VAD. The article is about VAD not about the chriopractor's fringe view. The Ernst claim that it is a "probable cause" is newer sourced evidence that you seem to know is sourced. When it is sourced using a recent systematic review it is NPOV. You don't seem to want to use the newer evidence. The term "Critics" is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- People who challenge that the earth is round are ignoring accepted fact backed by unarguable evidence (thus a Fringe view). Critics of the link between C-manipulation and VAD point out the fact that there is not yet any evidence to prove that cervical manipulation CAUSES VAD, it is still only a temporal association. As this criticism is not against established knowledge, it is hardly a fringe view like QGs example of the flat earth society. It is just good science to question causation without good evidence for it. This is what drives us to do more research! Manipulation has only been associated with VAD in the literature. Critics like Ernst claim it is a probable cause, and chiropractors contend that there is still no good evidence of causation. Ernst clearly describes both of these perspectives in his 2007 review and this is how the VAD article expresses it, citing Ernst's 2007 review. As such, the article currently conforms to Weight, Fringe, NPOV and MEDRS. There is no good reason to alter the article any more than has already been done to try appease the POV of QG. Puhlaa (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Incoherent vague sentence
This proposal is to rewrite a vague sentence in Traumatic.
Current vague sentence.
Proposal to improve vague sentence.
It is speculation that chiropractic and other forms of neck manipulation have been 'linked' to VAD. The text does not pass V. This specific proposal is to replace the vague sentence with newer 'sourced' evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is indeed speculation that neck manipulation has been linked to VAD, there is only a temporal assocation as stated by Ernst (2007). In fact, now that QG has pointed this out, it may also be necessary to add further discussion on this subject, such as the fact that "A temporal relationship is insufficient to establish causality" (quoted from Ernst 2007). Thus, QGs proposed changes do not reflect the opposing point of view that Ernst 2007 discusses as valid, making QGs proposal violate NPOV. Thus, the sentence should read:
- This specific proposal with sourced evidence is to replace QGs proposal, which violates NPOV. However, I would also be willing to simply leave the article as it currently exists until research examining causation has been published. The VAD article currently satisfies NPOV, FRINGE, MEDRS, and V and does not necessarily need to be altered. Puhlaa (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.
- This proposal does not violate NPOV when it is sourced. You have not shown how it violates NPOV when there is a newer 2010 Ersnt source. This is newer research examining causation using a newer source from the same author. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- This specific proposal with sourced evidence is to replace QGs proposal, which violates NPOV. However, I would also be willing to simply leave the article as it currently exists until research examining causation has been published. The VAD article currently satisfies NPOV, FRINGE, MEDRS, and V and does not necessarily need to be altered. Puhlaa (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The book of Jasher
I'm not sure if this should be dealt with here or at a religious board, or both but I don't want to forum shop. This is a bit of a mess. We have:
Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher)
Book of Jasher (biblical references) which is virtually the same as:
Book of Jasher (biblical references)
Sefer haYashar which is sort of a list article.
However, this is a lost book and what is being used as sources for articles such as Shem where it's a major sources are considered to be forgeries. [23] You can search this book at Amazon.com but some people still claim there is a genuine copy, see this LDS book [24]. This website discusses the issues. It can be found at Wikisource [25]. You get books claiming other versions are a forgery, eg [26]. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just to add to the confusion, there is Sefer haYashar (midrash), not to be confused with, it says, at least one of the above. The lead says " Among the various texts purporting to be the original "Book of Jasher", this is the version enjoying the widest acceptance, particularly among some members of the Latter-Day Saints.". 'Book of Jasher' appears a number of times in articles and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to which version is being referred to. 15:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any connection with a "fringe theory". A noticeboard for religious topics would be more correct. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think this is fringe. But I DO agree that it does not merit so many articles. I also think that two articles may be warranted. The Midrash, Book of Yashar, is as I understand it a book that was authored (or put to paper) sometime in the seventeenth century, or maybe much earlier, but definitely post Babylonian Exile, perhaps even post Roman Empire period. My point is, this is a very different historical horizon than the context in which the book of Joshua was written. I am not sure whether a second article is warranted. It depends on how much content from reliable sources exists, I guess. But I understand the importance. For modern i.e. critical scholars, references in the Bible to books like the Book of Yashar are the functional equivalent of inline citations today. This is important because, critical historians argue, if God wrote the Hexateuch, or if Moses and Joshua wrote it based on personal experience including dictation from God, there would be no reference to other books. reference to other books, like the Book of Yashar, is evidence that the author of the Hexateuch was using sources - books that do not exist today but existed whenever the hexateuch was written. Critical historians take this as evidence that the hexateuch was written by men, not by God, and that it was written long after the events occured. This argument is NOT to be belittled. This argument is one, but an important, piece of a larger argument that inaugurated a real break in Western history, from people using the Hexateuch as a historically reliable source as to the events descibed therein to being a composite document that was composed at different times by different authors and which tells us more about the authors who wrote it than about Abraham or Noah or Moses. And THIS break was a really important moment in the emergence of modern, academic history. Orthodox Jews of course reject this reading, and must therefore provide competing explanations for the meaning of the phrase in he Hexateuch, so there is a lot at stake for Orthodox Jews (and I guess Christian fundamentalists as well). So this is why I think it is important. But is there enough content to justify an article on the Book of Yashar?
- Offhand I propose that there be one article on the book of Yashar in Rabbinic literature, including the eponymous midrash, and that discussion of the significance of the Book of Yashar as it appears in the Hexateuch for modern historians be incorporated into the articles on Higher criticism or The documentary hypothesis; if it gets so long as to merit spinning off, fine, but I would guess that if any article got spun off, it would be an article about all books mentioned in the Hebrew Bible but that are not part of the Hebrew Bible, or something like that. If anyone thinkns this comment would be constructive on another page, they are welcome to copy it there. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I saw it as possibly fringe because of the forgeries and LDS involvement, but I'd already put a link at Wikiproject Bible [27]. Shall we move this all to there? With links at other wikiprojects? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Jared Lee Loughner
I didn't know where to post this so that's why it's here. I'm sorry if I put it in the wrong place.
I think that the article about Jared Lee Loughner, the Tuscon AZ shooter of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people, along with 6 fatalities, should not be included in Wikipedia.
Though I agree that the shooting is a significant event, this individual is getting more than enough airtime from this shooting, which may be partially what he was looking for, and I don't believe he has done anything of value to have his own Wiki entry.
- If the two of us were anywhere else but here, I'd say "ain't that the truth!" We don't feel it's right to give a criminal more attention, but this is an encyclopedia, and not just any encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a goal that no other encyclopedia has ever had. It aims to document the sum total of all human knowledge. If it's a notable event, good or bad, it gets documented here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- We do not document every scrap of information out there at all. In fact we have several policies that limit what we document quite significantly. In this instance, there may be a WP:BLP1E concern in which case supporting the merge to 2011 Tucson shooting might be a good idea. But that discussion is better had at WP:BLPN than here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not even sure we should have this article - no hits in GBooks or Scholar, some web hits but some of those are about other subjects. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- None of the online sources cited appear to even mention "Cryptomechanics" -- meaning the article would appear to be pervasive WP:Synthesis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptomechanics Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent African origin of modern humans
We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion as we have blanking of refs etc... Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Revert away, already under WP:BRD. "blanking of refs" isn't an issue when somebody goes and rewrites a long-standing well-developed article. --dab (𒁳) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
current status of research on Abiogenic petroleum origin
See here. It is claimed that a 2006 review of the field is outdated because of a 2008 paper and a 2009 letter to a journal. Please comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this fringe? Drmies (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to have received quite a lot of attention from the scientific media, so it at least appears to be notable. The sources do seem to be treating it as a serious hypothesis; not pseudoscientific. It doesn't appear to be distinctly ruled out by WP:FRINGE, although it is marginal. As it stands, the Wikipedia article does not mention the hypothetical nature of the subject, and it does not mention that it is (apparently) the product of a single individual; uncorroborated and untested. At the very least, this would need to be remedied in the article. Wildbear (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone review this article? I have doubt if its passes WP:RS and WP:N. --Neptune 123 (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Reddi and 'biblical science' section in Christendom
Reddi (talk · contribs) is active again editing historical articles. He's very fond of very old sources, and after an IP reverted this: [28] he restored it - I reverted it and he's restored it again. It's copied form the 1903 version of this 1896 source [29], mentioned in our article on the author: Andrew Dickson White#Conflict thesis which may be of historical import but if it belongs in the article at all, which I doubt, it belongs only as a mention. The IP who originally removed it discussed it at Talk:Christendom. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Reddi is always bad news. If in doubt, revert. --dab (𒁳) 18:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not just the fringe stuff, it's his ancient references he uses at times, see [30] which does have some recent ones but also " The New century book of facts. (1911).", "The Academy, Volume 13. J. Murray, 1878. [http://books.google.com/books?id=kVE8AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA339 Pg 339] </ref><ref>The Rotarian Feb 1938. "Rediscovering the Silk Road"," etc. ~~~~
The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ??? (part 2)
I want to apologize in advance for bringing this up again, but we need experts on this noticeboard to interpret the outcome of the above linked discussion, and to revisit it here for clarity and direction. Since October 26, 2010, one user (versus dozens) has claimed that notability is inherited and demands inclusion in our film article on Chaplin's The Circus (1928) because, in his words, of "all the talk about it".[31] The majority of the content has now moved to Time travel urban legends#1928 cell phone user. The user, however, still wants to link to it in the film article "see also" section, but we have no single reliable source about the film that mentions or discusses George Clarke's time travel urban legend, so I don't see how we can include it. Could we get some outside opinions on the repeated introduction of this fringe material? See also sections are generally used to include potential information that has yet to be merged, but George Clarke's "time travel theory" is really no different than the theories of let's say, internet celebrity Time Cube. And, just because TimeCube has had a lot of "talk" about his theories, doesn't mean we are adding him or links to his theories into the see also sections of Wikipedia encyclopedia articles. (see for example, Special:WhatLinksHere/Time Cube) Is this situation any different? Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- A user has started a mediation case about a simple, straightforward application of WP:ONEWAY? Wow. And WOW because it's the same user who, in his defence of a huge, in-universe style advertisement for military "Santa tracking", wrote the following immortal words on Talk:Santa Claus:
- "No one is arguing that Santa is real or not, and no one should. We stay neutral on the topic. We avoid committing to either side of the argument [...] I refuse to believe that we are not so unskilled that we cannot write an article without staying out of the debate." [32]
- Hans Adler 23:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- OTOH, 9/11 terrorist attacks has an entire subsection devoted to a fringe theory. I doubt we have any standard about fringe theories in the See Also section. In fact, I'm not even sure we have a guideline about See Also sections in general (but if anyone can point me to it, I'd love to see it). In any case, if your description is accurate that it's only one editor arguing for its inclusion, then that editor should abide by consensus.
- BTW, I'm not sure that this is really a fringe theory so much as it's an internet meme. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is reliable literature about the 9/11 terrorist attacks that addresses and debunks the fringe theories. However, there is no such literature about the film and George Clarke's time travel theory. That is the difference. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Correct that "meme" is more accurate, as a fringe theory would indicate something people seriously believe in, not something that is obviously false and which only has entertainment value. If an actual fringe theory held that actually an impostor starred in the film, not Chaplin, or that he deliberately burned down the set, that sort of thing, it might deserve to be mentioned if it appeared in the long list of books that have discussed this movie. What troubles me is that we've gone over this time and again, and yet, no matter how clear the consensus, we keep beating the same dead horse over and over again. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is reliable literature about the 9/11 terrorist attacks that addresses and debunks the fringe theories. However, there is no such literature about the film and George Clarke's time travel theory. That is the difference. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see/receive any notification of this new discussion (the fourth or fifth venue sought for new input), which I find kind of ironic, considering the charges of forum-shopping that have been leveled at me by the submitting editor. Pot, meet kettle. It beared pointing out.
Anyhoo, some slight corrections and some major ones. First of all, there have been at least two editors who think that some mention of the material should be in the article. Not using the article as a COATRACK, not offering UNDUE perspective. Not offering any opinion as the legitimacy of the claim (though there are citations for that). All that we are suggesting is a simple, cited notation about an event covered by dozens of reliable, notable news sources.
Additionally, it bears pointing out that the reasoning for keeping this material in the article is simple fact: prior to the YouTube video and subsequent reporting my major media outlets, the page statistics indicated maybe a dozen people visited the article on a busy day. When the story broke, the page stats for the article went through the roof, and one day featured over 17,000 hits. Even after the story died down, the page statistics have not returned to their previous levels. As well, there are over a million web hits for this particular topic. Conservatively (ie. removing blogs and other non-rs crap), the numbers for the the internet/news story mightily exceed the number of hits for simply the movie itself.
IMHO, these are indicative of one thing: our readers connect the two. The manufacturers of the DVD collection, the Chaplin website itself all connect the two. Even the news sources and the subsequent debunking articles connect the two - when speaking of the internet thing, they mention it as being a DVD extra of the film. The filming of the premiere (wherein the woman is apparently chatting with her ear trumpet) was created (presumably) to act as marketing for the film, 1920's style. They are inextricably linked. IT could easily be argued that the internet thing, with all its news coverage, actually increased interest in the actual film.
The last time I checked, we don't get to superimpose our personal opinions as to the factual nature of the articles we edit. I am not stating that I think the claim of either cell phones or time travelers is anything but silly, but neither I nor anyone else here is allowed - as wiki editors - to judge. We simply state the information given us by reliable, verifiable citation and move on. We don't push the reporting as real or as a hoax (which is about the dumbest thing in the world to suggest); we note that the matter came up, what the claims were and how these claims were addressed. Period. It's the most neutral way to proceed. Not try to hide the mention first through a tiny link, and then through an outright removal.
If there are any dead horses being pummeled here, it is this: we aren't citable; our opinions regarding the claims of citable references have no value in Wikipedia. I find it very disconcerting that other editors are failing to remain neutral, using their judgements of a theory as basis for exclusion.
Lastly, I think its great that Time travel urban legends was created to cover these sorts of matters, but it doesn't really replace the need to at least mention the incident in the film article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is no connection between sources about the film and this time travel nonsense. Consensus is against inclusion at this time. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise, but you will have to accept it and move on. You've been pushing this issue since October 2010, and you've wasted a great deal of time better spent editing. Please feel free to continue your campaign on your personal blog or some other offwiki site, but not here. Thanks for your understanding. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Unfortunately page view statistics on wikipedia are not the criterion used for including material in wikipedia articles. If Jack Sebastian wants to write articles in this way, that could be done on his own personal blog on YouTube. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Er, I have a blog on YouTube? News to me. Mattsci. Perhaps Viriditas might be thinking of yet another person with a YouTube blog or whatever.
- You should take note that I didn't utilize wiki page statistics as the sole criteria for inclusion, but instead as a simple indicator of interest amongst our readers. Perhaps a bit of AGF wouldn't hurt on your part - I have no stake whatsoever in the legitimacy of Clarke's claim, or its mentioning in this article. I am strongly in advocacy of its inclusion because - and only because - the only criterion being used (cloaked in various inaccurate interpretations of policy and guidelines) for its removal is 'I just don't like it'. Please, offer a better reasoning than that that actually follows policy and guidelines. Convince me; that's all I'm asking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- All of this has been repeatedly pointed and the user. Th user actualy is asking on the mediation case that this is even included on the lede. This is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had to go to the mediation page and see it for myself, and indeed, he is there calling for it to be placed in the lead section. We're through the looking glass here, people. Isn't this blockable at this point? Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would add that Mr Clarke has also sadi that the operson in the DVD extra may have just been a loony, thus its not the only explantion he offers but it is the only explanation that the text has ever given.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- All of this has been repeatedly pointed and the user. Th user actualy is asking on the mediation case that this is even included on the lede. This is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- As noted before, the truth, falsehood or looniness of the claim is immaterial; the citability and criteria for inclusion have been met. Pretending it never happened in unencyclopedic. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC
- I agree with Viriditas. We need to wrap this up conclusively. One of the contributors to this article has already been driven away [33]. Agree that the "enough already" point has long since been reached. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
With respect, I didn't forum shop this topic to yet another noticeboard - Viriditas did. I was content to resolve the matter via informal mediation. You and others appear to not be interested in using DR to resolve problems but rather by ganging up on one of the two dissenting editors. Is that how we resolve disagreements now? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It seems clear that this is not a question for this board. There is no fringe theory under discussion here. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I concur. It never was a matter for the Fringe noticeboard; instead, it would appear to have been an attempt to forum-shop and reframe the issue at hand. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- You can concur all you want, but this is the correct noticeboard to discuss the POV pushing of popular time travel "theories", Internet memes or not. And asking for clarification of the previous consensus reached by this board is not "forum shopping" of any kind, nor could it be, as I am in agreement with the consensus reached on this issue. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree that this is the correct noticeboard. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Time travel backwards is definitely a fringe topic. Wikipedia has no policy of neutrality on such matters. Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No one is pushing any time travel theories. I keep stating that the reason for inclusion is coverage by notable sources and reader interest. Please feel free to point out any advocacy of the time travel theories by myself or the other editor favoring inclusion. This means you have to provide DIFFs indicating such advocacy. Failing that, you cannot claim POV pushing. So, produce diffs of advocacy or withdraw the claim. Period.
- It occurs to me that this is yet another attempt to re-frame the discussion from dealing with the material to one wherein the editor himself is attacked for "POV-pushing". Splendid. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- None of this is reported in anything close to a WP:RS. That is the problem. In the case of claims like that, a report from the United States National Academy of Sciences might provide such a source. Up until now, no scientific body has made any comment, whence the extreme fringey nature of this highly questionable material. There seems to be no point in continuing to repeat invalid circular arguments ad nauseam. Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Time travel backwards is definitely a fringe topic. Wikipedia has no policy of neutrality on such matters. Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree that this is the correct noticeboard. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- You can concur all you want, but this is the correct noticeboard to discuss the POV pushing of popular time travel "theories", Internet memes or not. And asking for clarification of the previous consensus reached by this board is not "forum shopping" of any kind, nor could it be, as I am in agreement with the consensus reached on this issue. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I concur. It never was a matter for the Fringe noticeboard; instead, it would appear to have been an attempt to forum-shop and reframe the issue at hand. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Jack Sebastian's comments about page hits makes me wonder if we are all being trolled. His arguments for inclusion, spread across all of the noticeboards, accomplish only two things: the promotion of independent filmmaker George Clarke and interest in Chaplin's 1928 film, which many fans are trying to bring back to the attention of the public. In other words, it looks like Jack is culture jamming Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Respectfully, that one of the asinine things I have ever heard, Viriditas, and that's saying a lot, having edited in Wikipedia for some time now. You should feel 100% to point out where I have ever advocated Clarke's theories regarding time travelers using cell phones as legitimate. It's an exhibition of extraordinary bad faith, and a rather ham-fisted way of trying to re-frame the discussion. If you think I am culture jamming, take it to AN/I. Please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly cited page hits as a reason for inclusion of the fringe meme, even after it was pointed out to you separately by different editors that page hits are not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion of content from an article. You are the only editor who has cited page hits, and you have stubbornly repeated that specious reasoning. You just did, once again, in your post above.[34] So yes, your conduct is legitimately being questioned here. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since there is no assertion that this film clip actually portrayed a case of time travel (which would indeed be a fringe claim) as opposed to the verifiable assertion that many people were interested in this film clip, there seems nothing to discuss here. The appropriateness of the link in some article is properly discussed at the talk page for that article -- the appropriateness of various editors' behaviour is a matter for dispute resolution. In short, please take this discussion elsewhere. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, this discussion is within the scope of this noticeboard and is appropriate. DR is ongoing in other places and various claims have been made and continue to be made about time travel and its inclusion in encyclopedia articles by a single solitary editor against consensus. If you have nothing helpful to offer you are welcome to ignore this thread and focus your efforts on something more constructive. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually Viriditas, it's not - it's an attempt to reframe the discussion, using various straw man arguments (ie. making the argument about an editor, and not the actual issue on point). As well, asking anyone who disagrees with you to simply move on and stop contributing is contrary to the idea of a vollabrative encyclopedia. This is why we have talk pages, and DR in the first place. His opinion is just as valid as yours (actually more, as your reasons for involving yourself in this matter are highly suspect to begin with).
- As has been stated before, you should feel completely free to point out where the single editor in question (me, I presume) has made any claims about time travel. I know you have been looking, considering your creation of a subpage on the subject; I'm farily certain you aren't going to find any such comments from me pushing a fringe concept.
- The matter on point here is a claim that the subject of reliable, verifiable and neutral sources have reported on that relate to this film. As has already been pointed out (rather concretely), the film of the premiere and the film are related. Cited? Check. Related? Check. We don't get to evaluate the claims made by notable sources. It's part of Who We Are as Wikipedia editors. Cites always rtrump our personal opinions. If you dont like it, "you are welcome to ignore this thread and focus your efforts on something more constructive." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your personal beliefs have no bearing on this issue. The facts show that you are pushing a fringe concept contrary to WP:ONEWAY into film articles where it doesn't belong against consensus. This discussion was started to revisit the initial discussion, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22#The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ??? and to request an interpretation and outcome of that previous discussion for clarity and direction. You and your friend Kenilworth Terrace are not required to participate, and judging by the above discussion, we have once again come to the conclusion that you are editing against consensus in a tendentious, disruptive manner. If that isn't clear, feel free to ask an administrator for guidance. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to waste time on a pointless discussion then I won't stop you. As your were kind enough to point out, I do have better things to do, even if you do not. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Kenilworth Terrace, I would like to see some closure. To bring us to that point, could you give us all a summary, in your own words, describing the outcome of this and the previous discussion linked above in Archive 22? What conclusions were reached by consensus? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus can and usually does change, Viriditas. As well, your ONEWAY argument is fatally flawed; to bring us to that point, please provide numerous citations as to when and where the matter was treated - using any of the 2 dozen solidly reliable and verifiable sources (ie, ABC News, NYT, Washington Post, etc.) - wherein the matter was treated as a less than "serious or prominent way". Thanks, we'll wait. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Im can only recall seeing about 5 sources, could you provide a full list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not doing your homework for you, head on back to Circus and view the article history. As an aside, can you note what sorts of article you have worked on that require quintupled references for inclusion? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Source 1[[35]]
- Trivial coverage that clearly treats it in a humorous way.
- Source 2 [[36]] Again not an in-depth analyse that discuses the matter just reports some one has claimed something. Trivial reporting(also is WGN regarded as a major news outlet?).
- Source 3 [[37]] Again trivial coverage that does not analyse the subject.
- Source 4 [[38]] Again trivial coverage (about two paragraphs like most of these).
- Source 4 [[39]] At last a proper news story that actually analyses the clip and claim. Calls it a ‘fun’ explanation. Thus clearly does not regard it as a serious claim.
- Source 5 [[40]] is a pretty good article for this, but its just one. Also it pretty much dismisses the claim she is a time traveller. So the claim she is a time traveller is fringe, according to this source. So we are left with an internet meme about misidentification. Not a genuinely accepted theory about time travel. Also I would point it its language hardly treats the mater as a serious story (like most of these sources).
- Source 6 [[41]] calls it a fun theory, again.
- Source 7 [[42]] Also includes the claim (by Clarke) that she may be (in his words) a loony. Even he does not appear to treat it that seriously. Also again reports that it’s a fun theory.
- Source 8 [[43]] is pretty much the same as source 6 (it looks in fact like an abbreviated article by the same publisher). Also again calls it a fun theory. And links it to the 1940’s T-shirt story.
- I count 8 sources (one of which may be a duplicate), I make that about half a dozen sources, not a dozen. Many little more then a paragraph or two. All treating it as a bit of fun. We require multiple sources that treat a story in a serious way (and in depth), not as a bit of fun. If we only include the unquestioned major news outlets (ignoring local papers and local radio stations), we are in fact left with 6 (and I am assuming that livescience.com is a high quality source).Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not doing your homework for you, head on back to Circus and view the article history. As an aside, can you note what sorts of article you have worked on that require quintupled references for inclusion? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Im can only recall seeing about 5 sources, could you provide a full list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus can and usually does change, Viriditas. As well, your ONEWAY argument is fatally flawed; to bring us to that point, please provide numerous citations as to when and where the matter was treated - using any of the 2 dozen solidly reliable and verifiable sources (ie, ABC News, NYT, Washington Post, etc.) - wherein the matter was treated as a less than "serious or prominent way". Thanks, we'll wait. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Kenilworth Terrace, I would like to see some closure. To bring us to that point, could you give us all a summary, in your own words, describing the outcome of this and the previous discussion linked above in Archive 22? What conclusions were reached by consensus? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to waste time on a pointless discussion then I won't stop you. As your were kind enough to point out, I do have better things to do, even if you do not. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your personal beliefs have no bearing on this issue. The facts show that you are pushing a fringe concept contrary to WP:ONEWAY into film articles where it doesn't belong against consensus. This discussion was started to revisit the initial discussion, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 22#The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ??? and to request an interpretation and outcome of that previous discussion for clarity and direction. You and your friend Kenilworth Terrace are not required to participate, and judging by the above discussion, we have once again come to the conclusion that you are editing against consensus in a tendentious, disruptive manner. If that isn't clear, feel free to ask an administrator for guidance. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, this discussion is within the scope of this noticeboard and is appropriate. DR is ongoing in other places and various claims have been made and continue to be made about time travel and its inclusion in encyclopedia articles by a single solitary editor against consensus. If you have nothing helpful to offer you are welcome to ignore this thread and focus your efforts on something more constructive. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since there is no assertion that this film clip actually portrayed a case of time travel (which would indeed be a fringe claim) as opposed to the verifiable assertion that many people were interested in this film clip, there seems nothing to discuss here. The appropriateness of the link in some article is properly discussed at the talk page for that article -- the appropriateness of various editors' behaviour is a matter for dispute resolution. In short, please take this discussion elsewhere. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly cited page hits as a reason for inclusion of the fringe meme, even after it was pointed out to you separately by different editors that page hits are not a criteria for inclusion or exclusion of content from an article. You are the only editor who has cited page hits, and you have stubbornly repeated that specious reasoning. You just did, once again, in your post above.[34] So yes, your conduct is legitimately being questioned here. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Respectfully, that one of the asinine things I have ever heard, Viriditas, and that's saying a lot, having edited in Wikipedia for some time now. You should feel 100% to point out where I have ever advocated Clarke's theories regarding time travelers using cell phones as legitimate. It's an exhibition of extraordinary bad faith, and a rather ham-fisted way of trying to re-frame the discussion. If you think I am culture jamming, take it to AN/I. Please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I would also argue fringe because it does not appear on all DVD releases, as such it is not automaticly associated with the film, but only with a specific release of the film (not indead does this footage appear in all versions of the premier footage). Thus we have a single instance of one persons claim, that it not visable everywhere, that has been dismissed by every expert (and news repport as a 'funh' story), that the propser himself is not sure is true (and for which hew has another explanation), that there are alternative therories (that obey Ocams razor far more then a Time traveller). In an article that is not about Mr Clarke (or time travel), not the premier of the film, not the DVD realise the clip appears on but about the film itself. As has been pointed out by antler user this has no more relevance to the film then liz Hurley’s knockers has to Four weddings and a funeral.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Languages of Slovenia
I'm asking for more input in the dispute on whether to include 'Prekmurian' as a language in the article Languages of Slovenia. --Eleassar my talk 10:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've had a quick glance and my basic problem is I really can't understand anything User:Doncsecz is saying. Example: "In turn is simple: the slovene questings more often care for the Prekmurian. The Prekmurian the most interested, notorious dialect." That's just not intelligible English. Maybe he's trying to communicate via translation software. Not a good idea. --Folantin (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a question of fringe. Demarcation between languages and dialect groups does not have generally accepted clear, objective criteria. Most disputes about such matters are really about politics, not linguistics, and should result in some form of compromise unless the situation is very clear.
- If the article Prekmurian dialect is not very misleading, then it is justified to discuss it in Languages of Slovenia, while stating explicitly that it is not necessarily a language.Hans Adler 11:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- So Prekmurian is a dialect of Slovenian. I hardly think we needed the input from an authentic native born and raised in a remote Prekmurian village and communicating via babelfish to figure this out. --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- For info, Prekmurians is in need of attention. It was brought to Pages in need of translation as being written in incomprehensible, probably machine-translated, English. I tinkered with it a little then got bogged down. Would it make sense to merge it with Prekmurian dialect? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- So Prekmurian is a dialect of Slovenian. I hardly think we needed the input from an authentic native born and raised in a remote Prekmurian village and communicating via babelfish to figure this out. --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, there seems to be a particular user arguing forcefully that enneagrams of personality are not pseudoscience and that, moreover they have scientific validity! Help would be appreciated. jps (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
And now the user has come back in calling me a "militant activist" with specious claims that "doctorates are okay". Help would be nice. jps (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Still at it. Edit warring for promoting this fringe view seems to be the going thing for Afterwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). jps (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- And, in classic fashion, the character assassination of Robert Todd Carroll is attempted on the talk page. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- See also Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ. jps (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have some assertions about the "pseudoscientific claim"? The assertion is vague and lacks specific measurements for reproducibility or falsifiability. It fails to apply operational definitions, so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them. It fails to reasonably apply the parsimony principle because the assumptions are not clearly identified. Pseudoscientific is obscurantist language, and apparently technical jargon in an effort to give the claim a superficially scientific trapping. The absence of boundary conditions to the claim, is most concerning, because there are well-articulated scientific evidence building about the subjects, limitations under which the predicted claims do and do not apply. In short the "pseudoscientific" claim is pseudoscientific rubbish based on subjective opinions themselves. It's essentially meaningless distraction to the article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Riiiiight. Back in the real world, we've got some issues with people hilariously claiming scientific basis for enneagrams of personality including some pretty outlandish descriptions of "studies" that "show" a "scientific basis" for this nonsense. What these articles need is a thorough scrubbing by the incredulous. That's not possible right now due to some rather petulant advocacy. jps (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
From a cursory look at this group of articles, it's no surprise they are written in an in universe style since the majority of text is cited to primary sources. We'd have to locate objective secondary sources to avoid having an article about a spiritual concept written from the POV of proponents/followers. Also, I'm not sure all the various sub-articles are really required. Assuming that a lack of mainstream attention has been given these concepts, one main article that succinctly summarizes them might be more appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hm. OK, I see the problems there. Well, if I were to go in and clean the article of all primary-sourced claims, the result would be an article consisting of a mere sentence or two. Which would cause the people guarding the article to go nuts accusing "censorship" etc. and lead to all kinds of behavioral problems. The best way to avoid that is to rewrite the article using good quality objective sources. That usually calms things down, since the guardians get to see their basic "messaging" still in the article, albeit objectively reported by a 3rd party. Unfortunately that process takes a lot of time. Sometimes I wish such pick and shovel work could be outsourced ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well there are at least a dozen authors in this subject with many books and economic commerce (means people, in their ignorance, demand it), there is mainstream coverage and related scientific research. For something this new, and apparently growing fast, how fringe is that? Why attack an article, when there isn't really an issue with fringe. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Textbook defense. Also, seen way too often here to be believable. If you could start listing some sources, LuckyLouie, I'd help you. jps (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- So simply, it's a fringe theory because you (and no weight of reliable sources) say it is? There is no witness, no case, no harm. Let it go. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The claims of scientific validity to enneagram-types are most definitely fringe, yes. Just as the claims for scientific validity of MBTI, astrological signs, or neuro-linguistic programming. jps (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- So simply, it's a fringe theory because you (and no weight of reliable sources) say it is? There is no witness, no case, no harm. Let it go. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Textbook defense. Also, seen way too often here to be believable. If you could start listing some sources, LuckyLouie, I'd help you. jps (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well there are at least a dozen authors in this subject with many books and economic commerce (means people, in their ignorance, demand it), there is mainstream coverage and related scientific research. For something this new, and apparently growing fast, how fringe is that? Why attack an article, when there isn't really an issue with fringe. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- @jps. The sources are all over the map; some embroider the subject with funky mysticism, others package it as a pop culture "how to get along with people" self-help method. However I found a surprisingly objective overview in Yoga Journal. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on article issues regarding needed improvement and better sourcing, we seem to be witnessing a case where several things may apply to Zulu Papa 5's involvement here: likely a pusher of fringe theories; making point violations; disruptive editing; and definitely baiting jps. Just stating what seems obvious. Can Zulu Papa 5 be reigned in and cautioned per PSI ArbCom sanctions? This amount of disruption from one editor is a bit much. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is asking for sources and clarification disruptive? If you aim to escalate this over exaggerated issue, please provide some diffs (from all involved parties). Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of itself that's often a good idea, it's more the manner of your doing it in a baiting manner, seeming to pretend that ennegrams aren't a pseudoscientific idea and also going to JPS's talk page and accusing him of being a pusher of pseudoscience. That's totally ludicrous. JPS is a renowned expert on dealing with pseudoscience and pushers of fringe POV. It appears you've got a lot of fingers pointing back at yourself. You should just stick to asking for sources without revealing what appears to be a fringe POV pushing agenda. If there are issues related to sourcing, then just seek to improve that situation. That is always a good idea. Trying to defend pseudoscience at the same time only muddles the waters. I suggest you retract your personal attacks on JPS. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Soruces? That what I am seeking here friend. You appear to be pointing to JPS as a reliable source, is that how wiki works for you? Please, what do the sources say? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about you guys drop the sarcasm and belittling of a fellow editor and address the issues here. There is nothing wrong with having a Wikipedia article written in a way that describes the belief, discipline, ideology, or theory as its followers see it or themselves. Primary sources are appropriate in this case to help build the article. After that, if there are any reliable sources which take issue with the theory or those beliefs, this can be added. Wikipedia, however, cannot declare it to be "pseudoscience". Only the sources can and in the right context. Now, are there any reliable sources calling this a "pseudoscience"? Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cla68, asking for sources which say ennegrams are pseudoscience (or using synonyms to that effect) is the proper thing to do. Attacking and baiting JPS isn't okay. That's my point. Zulu Papa 5 should do the first without doing the second.
- Presenting the believers' POV is necessary if there are RS that do it. If not, then follow the FRINGE guideline. Presenting the mainstream scientific POV is mandatory per FRINGE and UNDUE, if there are RS that comment on it. Note that our fringe guideline governs how we deal with the subject of ennegrams. That means the sourcing and presentation requirements differ from other articles. Note that there may be some aspects of the subject that are not pseudoscientific and others that are. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Who is baiting JPS? The way ZuluPapa is being treated over this article is reprehensible. Anyway, "we" don't know what the "mainstream scientific POV" is. Only the reliable sources do. If you try to use sources that aren't about Enneagram to show that it's fringe, then that is synthesis and not allowed. Now, I believe JPS has found a single source which gives its author's opinion that Enneagram is not real science. So, add that single opinion to the bottom of the article under the section-heading "Contrary opinion" or something like that and move on. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Presenting the believers' POV is necessary if there are RS that do it. If not, then follow the FRINGE guideline. Presenting the mainstream scientific POV is mandatory per FRINGE and UNDUE, if there are RS that comment on it. Note that our fringe guideline governs how we deal with the subject of ennegrams. That means the sourcing and presentation requirements differ from other articles. Note that there may be some aspects of the subject that are not pseudoscientific and others that are. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- What is the criteria for applying fringe guidelines? Is it based on some editors (non-scientific) opinions on the subject? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Cla68: I'd worry more about an entire article sourced to websites selling enneagram products or people selling enneagram books or counseling services. Material not originated by reliable and independent third-party sources can be rightfully removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
And now: Wikipedia:RFARB#Joshua_P._Schroeder. I must have hit a nerve! jps (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This is based almost entirely on the works of Fringe theorists. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's part of the 3HO / Yogi Bhajan group promotion. We just deleted Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan via AfD, this one should probably go the same route soon. Also see Kundalini Yoga as that one is also frequented by the Bhajan community. —SpacemanSpiff 10:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Symptomology and DSM-IV sections seem to be straying into ALT MED territory as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- It appears there may be some COI and promotion issues here, but also much valuable content, so outright deletion might not be the way to go. A good cleanup would be better. I know that in Denmark there have been cases of people who experienced a Kundalini rising reaction (translation) ending up in closed wards of mental hospitals. They simply become psychotic for a period of time. (It's simply unsafe to take Yoga into the deeply spiritual realm and go this far. Stick to the exercises.) I'm not an expert, but colleagues said it was possible to help them. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- What is this "Kundalini rising reaction"? What is the mainstream academic view about it? 14.139.128.14 (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- It appears there may be some COI and promotion issues here, but also much valuable content, so outright deletion might not be the way to go. A good cleanup would be better. I know that in Denmark there have been cases of people who experienced a Kundalini rising reaction (translation) ending up in closed wards of mental hospitals. They simply become psychotic for a period of time. (It's simply unsafe to take Yoga into the deeply spiritual realm and go this far. Stick to the exercises.) I'm not an expert, but colleagues said it was possible to help them. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- ^ a b c d Ernst E (2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med. 100 (7): 330–8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases". Int J Clinical Practice. 64 (8): 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715.