Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:08, 29 January 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

voice to skull

This new article, which unfortunately was approved at AfC, contains about 10% valid information and 90% fringe theory, by my estimate. I'm reluctant to take it on single-handed. Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup - I've removed the most glaringly-obvious hogwash, though I suspect that AfD is probably the best solution. The whole thing looks like synthesis to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It also seems to me that whoever approved this at AfC should be asked to explain how this got passed. I'll look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a POV FORK of psychotronics recycling much of the same material but with an emphasis on tinfoil hattery. Someone please send it to AfD. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominated: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull. Alexbrn 02:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The result was deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Microwave auditory effect - another AfD candidate, probably ...
• (Add) Allan H. Frey - "he microwaved cats and found that it had a huge effect on emotions". Alexbrn 10:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the article has been deleted (and I then redirected it), Synsepalum2013 (talk · contribs) continues to add links to it. He is also failing to get the point on auditory hallucination if anyone else wants to try to explain it to him. I was done with him during the AFD discussion. Also, I'm about to redirect Allan H. Frey to Microwave auditory effect as Frey is only known for that one piece of work. GDallimore (Talk) 15:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Robin Heath

Described as "a British historian, astronomer, archaeoastronomer, astro-archaeologist and author", he actually seems to have an academic career teaching Mathematics and Engineering which he left to become an author and astrologist. He has no qualifications in history, astronomy, archaeology, etc although he writes about the subject. His website says he "teaches astronomy at an Oxford University FAS summer school but our article on the FAS Faculty of Astrological Studies doesn't suggest it is part of the university - they simply use Oxford University facilities, eg Exeter College, to hold their summer school, so that's a bit economical with the truth. Since I've just reverted an edit by his brother, I'd like other eyes so it doesn't look personal. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking through some of the web pages listed in the Robin Heath article, I found several fringe historical interpretations. The real giveaway, however,was Heath's assertion that "Archaeologists have in general closed their minds to this approach to prehistoric sites." This both ignores the publication of reliable archaeoastronomical studies in the mainstream archaeological literature and smacks of the common claim of fringe scholarship that the mainstream ignore my interpretations.

The article itself falls under the problem of Misplaced Pages:Notability, and seems a reasonable candidate for an AfD. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not an astronomer, historian, archaeoastronomer, or astro-archaologist. I also cannot find any independent sources and think that deletion may be in order. jps (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

BlackLight Power

There's a lot of editing currently on BlackLight Power. I don't have the time to check all the changes. The article has just come out of a three day protection. Bhny (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Again?

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Blacklight Power

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Blacklight Power

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Blacklight Power

Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Blacklight Power#Published material

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Eric mit 1992 Blacklight Power

Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 22#User:TStolper1W

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive191#User:Eric mit 1992 reported by User:Bhny (Result: 24 hours)

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk archive/Science/February 1-7 2006#Black light power, Nuclear fission or Nuclear fusion

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scalar field theory (pseudoscience)

ARBCOM user notification #1

ARBCOM user notification #2

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Helios

I'd appreciate input on the Alexander Helios page. I'm the (previously) anonymous editor who removed a small section from that page, which has been reinstated by user Til_Eulenspiegel. The relevant section alleged that Helios, who was born in 40 BC as the son of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, may have sailed to the US state of Illinois where he "ruled over a secret colony" and left artifacts in a cave.

This claim has two citations: 1) an episode of America Unearthed, a mystery investigation show on cable TV, and 2) an article in the peer-reviewed journal Public Archaeology. A peer-reviewed article might be a decent source, but in fact the abstract seems to indicate that the article is only a discussion of mainstream archaeology's dismissal of these Illinois claims, and not a source backing the claims themselves.

I removed this section, writing: An episode of a cable TV mystery investigation show is not a reliable source. The Illinois cave thing is a textbook fringe theory. Not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. The user Til_Eulenspiegel reinstated the section, writing: Undid revision 591083228 by 174.70.43.85 (talk) rvv anonymous editor removing cited information basically because they disagree with it and DONTLIKEIT

I don't often edit on Misplaced Pages, and don't know the procedure for handing these issues. I look to the community for advice. Thank you. IbisNext (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if the rebuttal is a legitimate academic rebuttal, the claim it is rebutting is so fringe it should not be given any light of day in the article to begin with. I have removed it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"so fringe it should not be given any light of day in the article" -- Just how exactly do you arrive at these determinations??? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, are any credible archaeologists supporting the theory? --NeilN 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

by the fact that it is complete and utter nonsense for starters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Trpod, That would be a subjective pov of yours since clearly some people disagree, including A&E Networks. NeilN, no, that is what makes it fringe, but my understanding of wp:fringe is that this was correctly covered without undue weight as being of relevance to the article topic Alexander Helios. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ROFLMAO - reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. A&E sent their reputation out the window long ago. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit about Til's "reliable source". And the specific episode. Garbage reality TV. --NeilN 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't believe that this really is a theory, check out one of the main sources, the appropriately named Alexanderhelios.com, which not only demonstrates that this is a theory but that there are hundreds of photographed artifacts with inscriptions. Many (perhaps not all) say it is a hoax, but if so it is a genuine hoax and of enough relevance to an article about the historical Alexander Helios for a brief mention in line with WP:FRINGE such as we had. If this is such blatant hogwash, I don't see what there is to fear from letting more finding out about its existence here, since otherwise they will elsewhere anyway. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever thought about a career as a stand up? HIL-arious! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Where would that response fit in on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement I wonder? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

on the scale point: "the proposition is too ridiculous to merit a serious response" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

From the link, "Harry Hubbard, is co-owner of Alexander Helios (formerly called Ptolemy Productions), an organization set up in the 1990s to financially exploit the Burrows Cave “mystery” (and that of competing nearby caves) across a series of media properties, including books, DVDs, on-demand video, etc., in which Hubbard claims that Alexander Helios, son of Cleopatra VII, brought Egyptian treasure to Illinois. He also the body of Alexander the Great rests in the caves. This financial conflict of interest really ought to have been disclosed since Hubbard stands to gain massively from national television exposure. But don’t take my word for it. Alexander Helios put out a press release directing viewers to its online shop and the variety of products available for purchase. At one point, Alexander Helios was attempting to sell allegedly “authentic” Illinois Caves Egyptian and Roman artifacts for prices ranging from $45,000 to $2.5 million. If the artifacts were genuine and retrieved after 1989, sale would be illegal under Illinois law (20 ILCS 3440) because the state forbids the removal of grave goods without a permit and Alexander Helios claims that the cave is Alexander Helios’ tomb, complete with skeleton. Today the company settles for selling Hubbard’s books for $10 a pop. Obviously, Hubbard can be relied upon to declare any Burrows Cave or “Egyptian” material authentic since it goes directly to his bottom line."

All that (for starters) and all you want to put is, "The existence of this cave is disputed"? Seriously? Why not put an ad out on the Main Page inviting every huckster to add a sentence or two to articles about what they're shilling? --NeilN 21:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The mention was perfectly in line with WP:FRINGE since this is also a theory relevant to the article topic (not just espoused by Hubbard but there are others who do so as well), and no advertisement or sales contact point was ever in the content in question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Note -I just revisited AlexanderHelios.com and it is now a related marketing site; the site with more info that used to be there that I was referring to, may now be found at http://www.illinoiscaves.com Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, your application of WP:FRINGE is incorrect. "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." One sentence at the end of the paragraph does not come close to showing the theory is regarded as hogwash. --NeilN 21:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Which evidently not everyone agrees is hogwash, see http://www.illinoiscaves.com Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Owned by the company promoting the theory and shilling "artifacts" from it. Are you being serious? --NeilN 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like trolling to me - and if it isn't, Til probably needs blocking per WP:COMPETENCE. As fringe as the Time Cube, though not nearly as entertaining... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a fringe theory about Alexander Helios that exists, like it or not. It has been covered on A&E recently. Consumers will be forced to conduct their research about this elsewhere if it is ignored here because in your subjective opinion it is nonsense. As usual, you know what this makes wikipedia look like in the eyes of the consumer. Whereas having a simple line explaining that there is such a fringe theory in connection with Alexander Helios doesn't make us look bad at all. Who the fuck do you think you are to threaten me with a block, you can't block me for expressing my opinion just as you have a right to express yours. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't making a threat - it was an observation. Which seems to be borne out by your suggestion that Misplaced Pages should be promoting websites flogging bogus 'artifacts' to 'consumers'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, there was nothing whatsoever about that sales website in the offending material, sherlock... The content was mainly about the recent attention this has been getting in the media. Also that's not the only website trying to profit from the story of this sudden horde of gold said to be worth millions, there are competing websites squabbling over who gets to do that, and a sizable amount of evidence of this being considered significant, at least enough for a line acknowledging it here. Hubbard didn't originate this story, he is one of the profiteers, there is also the guys who claimed they know where the cave is, the guy who published his analysis of the script used in the Latin inscriptions, Greek, etc. The fringe archaeology magazines that ran stories on it, etc Do you often make "observations" that editors who dare disagree with you be blocked? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Also when I say consumers I mean consumers of wikipedia - our readership. I was not referring consumers of internet bullcrap. Consumers of wikipedia cannot find any mention of it here and are forced to get their info from elsewhere, because of your attitude, basically is what I'm saying. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup. My 'attitude', and that of Misplaced Pages (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That the loony fringe theory exists is completely irrelevant to anything under discussion here - and no on has said there are not idiots who may believe or shysters who may be trying to profit from it. The question is whether or not the theory has enough academic adherents to make it a relevant addition to this or any article. To claim that the answer to that is anything other than a thunderous NO is tendentious or incompetence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

On the article of the historical figure, I would have to agree that this topic is so WP:FRINGE that it should not be mentioned. However, I could see a potential article on the hoax/tourist attraction/person , as there does appear to be coverage of the guy/place (A&E, and then meta coverage thereof) http://thesouthern.com/news/caves-to-appear-on-america-unearthed/article_3a59ed62-66df-11e3-bbb9-0019bb2963f4.html, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=707411015945461&set=pcb.707422965944266&type=1&relevant_count=1. If the academic article is debunking the hoax, then it of course should be used in that context as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A few more sources indicating notability of the guy/hoax (but certainly not that should indicate support for inclusion in the historical article)

• http://books.google.com/books?id=LDxgE6EpE8EC&pg=PA131&dq=Russell+Burrows+Hoax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eqbdUvGtLaa52wXNrYHYAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Russell%20Burrows%20Hoax&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=gE4P1bhDCB4C&pg=PA38&dq=Russell+Burrows+Hoax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eqbdUvGtLaa52wXNrYHYAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Russell%20Burrows%20Hoax&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=xmDnhPNLwYwC&pg=PA49&dq=Russell+Burrows+Hoax&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eqbdUvGtLaa52wXNrYHYAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Russell%20Burrows%20Hoax&f=false

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this has got plenty of attention in the real world outside wikipedialand for sure. But suppose you did write a "persuasive" style article debunking the concept. Then you are supposed to look for other articles to link it from so it won't be an WP:ORPHAN, and surely it would end up on the historical article as at least a see also. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have created a stub Burrows_Cave. The article may be orphaned, but there may be ways to link to it from other related fringe theories, as most of the Pseudoarchology category articles I assume are linked together. . WP:ONEWAY I think can handle keeping it out of the Helios historical article. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

America Unearthed, while we're at it

Looking at the article on the TV series, I see nothing that indicates a reaction from the archaeological community, though a quick read through the list of episodes suggests that such reaction would be profoundly negative. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

its been discussed before - its right up there with the ancient astronauts and "real ghostbusters" shows. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there sources we can use to tell the truth about it? All I could find was Colavito; I don't know that we could use him as the sole but authoritative critic. Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

New Chronology (Rohl)

Would anyone else care to take a look at New Chronology (Rohl)? In reading through the article it seems to me that it has serious problems with WP:Balance. Particularly the section on “In Egyptology” which contains six quoted paragraphs, five of which of are favorable to Rohl. I was under the impression that a pseudoarchaeologist doesn’t generally get to “have the last word” on Misplaced Pages, yet even the radiocarbon dating (which scientifically refutes Rohl) receives a “rebuttal”. Thoughts? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

On Voltaire

Referring to Voltaire#Islam, there are some quotes, claimed by Inayity that Voltaire's "view seriously changed to one of praise once he realized possible the Islamic Golden Age", however it seems to be contradictory to the tons of sources, where he is only criticizing them. The given sources by Inayity are as follows:-

"{{cite web|url=http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23044965?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103367361423%7Ctitle=The Enlightenment Qur'an: The Politics of Translation and the Construction of Islam|accessdate=27 June 2009|author= Ziad Elmarsafy|quote="Of all the legislators and conquerors, there are none whose life was written with greater authenticity and in more detail by their contemporaries than was than of Mahomet." EM, vol 1, page 255."

And:-

"According to René Pomeau, in the Essay on the Manners, Voltaire "carries almost entirely favorable judgment" about Muhammad and "shows full of praise for the Muslim civilization and Islam as a rule of life"(ref)René Pomeau, Voltaire en son temps, Fayard, 1995, Template:T., p. 407.

Yet there are no results of any of these qoutes/comments, either in high amount or presented by any reliable sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are unlkely to find those quotations by google searching, as they are a) from a French book b) translations from the original French. Paul B (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you reviewed any of ref given? B/c I think that would be the best place to start. Also you are commenting on a remark by another user, none of those comments appear in the actual article. I also do not think Malise Ruthven article is in conflict with what you are now calling Fringe because it does not align with your previous held belief that he absolutely hated Islam.--Inayity (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we need a French Translator.--Inayity (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't refute whole argument, neither changes the point that there's only one source that seems to be claiming so. Malise Ruthven makes a unpopular claim here, which is obviously not backed by anyone, other than himself. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there another scholar making a claim which clashes with Malise? Because that would be something. If you had 20 scholars saying No and only 1 saying yes. It is not unpopular then, it is just unique. And If you read the antisemitism section you will see an identical argument by another scholar-- but for Judaism this time. So Malise argument is hardly fringe. And he is an expert on Islam in the Western world so that is some serious weight to make these statements. oh did i mention Malise is the person writing the foreword to the book in question?--Inayity (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's written in book, it's not enough, now because Malise posts something on his website, it makes him reliable source? You realize its over 200 years of his death, and yet it is hard to even find one source that regards Voltaire having "revised views", i dont know if any contradict. But this seems enough, there are some sources that site his letter to King of prussia, but nothing more than that. Malise writes that on his website, but not on the book, , he cited those quotations by Voltaire, that are critical in form. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear me, this certainly is one of those cases in which what Voltaire would call religious "enthusiasm" does not help Misplaced Pages. We get a messed up section on Voltaire and Islam, which is less about illuminating his view and more about cherry-picking bits of sources by pro and anti-Islamic editors. We have the line "according to René Pomeau, in the Essay on the Manners, Voltaire "carries almost entirely favorable judgment."" Right, that would be a favourable judgement of what exactly? The Essay on the Manners is not about religion as such, and it does not discuss Islam as a religion, but rather the courts of some Islamic rulers, about which he has some favourable things to say. But the way the quotation is used does not illuminate the reader. It's cut to create a vague idea of a "favorable judgment" without telling us anything of substance. But on the other side, we have a letter to the Pope, clearly an egregious piece of flattery, quoted to represent his anti-Islamic views. I doubt that any of this is fringe, just that it tells us next to nothing useful about Voltaire's actual views, and a lot about the weaknesses of Misplaced Pages in this aspect of the coverage of history. Paul B (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

THis is what I am struggling to tell BladeMulti, whatever the issue is (and there are issues) FRINGE does not capture the problem. BladeMulti also has no problem finding favorable quotes to show Voltaire LOVED Hinduism. The sentence on "favorable" has been removed. Blademulti is randomly picking things to throw at the section which do not apply. I think representing his negative and positive views per RS is the only way forward. After all he was a polemic.--Inayity (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations from Pomeau without page numbers are worthless. It's 1934 pages long. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul, I posted 2-3 attributed quotes, they seems to be "fringed", actually, since there are no sources for any of them. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ruthven is a reliable scholar on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The talk page on French wikipedia mentions a book: "Voltaire et l'Islam de Magdy Gabriel Badir publiés aux SVEC". This would be worth looking up to see if it is scholarly. I read French well enough to do this and I think Paul may do as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ruthven is not even the point here, the other named 2 issues on the main post are. The quote Ruthven referred, it is not even his own research either, and the quote remains unpopular(not even one source other than his own webpage), only Christopher Todd(not ruthven) has claimed. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Studies on Voltaire in the Eighteenth Century is where the Badir article is. This appears to be one of the major scholarly works on Voltaire and should be used throughout the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The source has anything similar to these contents? I hope you describe on the talk page better. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's well worth looking at the fr.wiki article, which is FA, and much longer (too long to my mind). The section on Islam is tagged as possibly non-neutral, nevertheless it is much better than ours, and sourced. I will bring most of it in translated. It has a page reference (p157) for Pomeau. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Link it here? I just found what he had wrote to King of prussia, he writes that;-

"But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book, each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not extinguished all natural light in him."

Published in Oeuvres complètes de Voltaire, Vol. 7 (1869), Author is Georges d'Avenel, there are few more sources than this one, rather than other claims, that are backed by not even 2 sources. And the play, to which this user is referring to, Voltaire defended the play by telling that "I tried to show in it into what horrible excesses fanaticism, led by an impostor, can plunge weak minds", (noted in "Voltaire,Lettres inédites de Voltaire", Didier, 1856, t.1, Lettre à M. César De Missy, 1er septembre 1743, p.450) He wrote to King of prussia again, he writes that:-

Muhammad is "whatever trickery can invent that most atrocious and whatever fanaticism can accomplish that is most horrifying. Mahomet here is nothing other than Tartuffe with armies at his command", on 20 january 1742. Tells enough that his view for Islam, or Muhammad, never changed. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

We are not interested in whatever you can pull up on Google. See here for SVEC and its scholarly importance. This whole discussion is out of the scope of the board. There are no fringe theories being discussed. As I said, I will pull the version from fr.wiki into our article and then we can discuss on the talk page whether it is an improvement or not. WikiProject Philosophy may be able to help. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theories includes these unknown quotes and section of Voltaire#Islam, since you have presented 0 sources. Read WP:REDFLAG, you can't add any information which is not covered by multiple reliable sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you going to have to learn more about the tools of Misplaced Pages, b/c I also told you, this is not the right place for your dispute. It is not Fringe at all. Just like those Dispute labels you misused. If you use tags wrong they will be removed fast. Fringe is for like Egypt was built by aliens.--Inayity (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably you are right here. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect actually, because you are promoting and edit warring over some quotes that never existed, and what you and Itsmejudith have presented till now, except primary sources, with no page numbers. Since the timelines of Voltaire's commentary tells enough that he never said any of these quotes, it confirms your claims to be Obviously WP:FRINGE. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Another point, though: if Pomeau is all we have to work with on this, then Voltaire's opinions on Islam are probably not worth noting in the article. It isn't as though lots of stuff hasn't been written about the man in English. Most of the passages I came across lumped Islam in with religious belief in general, suggesting that a particular focus on Islam in the article is a little WP:UNDUE. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There are loads of sources in the French text that I am bringing in. Let me finish that. The section will end up rather long, possibly imbalanced that way, but the solution is to bring material for other sections in from French Misplaced Pages. I was mistaken, the article is an FA candidate rather than FA at the moment. It's more developed than ours, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory

I've just reported an editor there to AN3, the article could use some eyes. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't link Chemtrail conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editor blocked but I imagine will be back. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the guy who emailed OTRS (ticket:2014012110017638). Guy (Help!) 09:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. The current editor was blocked after those emails to OTRS, and other details don't match. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell what it is yet?

Someone is complaining about the article on Rolfing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), on the basis that it is reality based. Among their arguments, they threw in the fact that we have essentially uncritical articles on Myotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Myofascial release (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Since these appear to be credited to Andrew Taylor Still, back in the days before osteopathy morphed into something a k-soundinlg, I suspect they may contain merda bubula mother tincture that could do with some dilution and twerking to achieve the homeopathic level of nonsense which is generally preferred.

Sorry about the Rolf Harris reference. I couldn't resist. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Myofascial release and some other OMT-related articles are in need of attention, it's true. As for your reference: ROFL! Alexbrn 15:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw what you did there ;-) Guy (Help!) 17:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Puhlaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pleasant person, an advocate of the school of Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which rejects most of the blatant pseudoscience. Unfortunately, Puhlaa keeps trying to reframe the article in terms that describe an idealised form of chiropractic to whihc this school aspires, rather than the wretched nest of quackery that it usually is in practice. I have proposed, following the most recent set of edits and reverts, that Puhlaa propose changes n the talk page and achieves consensus before making them; if this does not hapen then unfortunately I tink we're going to need to ask for pseudoscience arbitration sanctions.

On which subject, I am advocating reinstating chiropractic in template:pseudoscience, see discussion. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

‪Maury Island incident‬

Huge blocks of unsourced narrative, alleging…I'm not sure what. Includes a bonus section of WP:OR that attempts to tie the history of UFOlogy with a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I've tried once to clean this mess up but was shortly reverted . LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is a largely unsourced wreck. It desperately needs clean up, it is regrettable that LuckyLouie was reverted. I placed the refimprove tag. Much of the article is subject to deletion as unsourced. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential

Article could use some more eyes, a couple of brand new accounts have come in adding dubious sources and removing material critical of this fringe program. Yobol (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 25#Pseudohistorians

This could use attention. I think JPL has a point about neutrality and suggestions for renaming would be welcome. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Rosen Method Bodywork

... what there is of it ... needs eyes ... Alexbrn 20:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Terence McKenna

What do you get when you combine Numerology, 2012 Eschatology, and tripping on 'shrooms? You get Terence McKenna's "novelty theory", something so absurd that few have bothered to criticize it. Fortunately there is a source stating, "It is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community." A couple critiques with sourcing via WP:PARITY are also provided. Incredibly, there is pushback at Talk:Terence_McKenna#Scientific_community, where editors wish to say that "some" members of the scientific community regard it as pseudoscience, as if some do not. They have found a physicist and a mathematician who are sympathetic to 2012 eschatology/numerology voodoo.

I may need to find a reliable source stating that 2012 has passed and the world has not ended. vzaak 03:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For those of you who don't keep track, this list survived an AfD in no small part because it has a large number of fans. While I do not understand the motivation of these fans, it is clear the list of people (if not the framing material) is in stark violation of WP:FRINGE including a number of completely unreliable sources being used (World Net Daily, Newsmax.com, and any number of blogs) because "they're only demonstrating the opinion of the person, not promoting the view". This is a classic coatrack situation. When I tried to move the list to only include peer-reviewed opinions (it is, after all, a list of scientists), I got a rather absurd result which was reverted by one of the fans of the list. Consensus on the talkpage is almost impossible to come by, mostly because the fans of the list are experts at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Help would be greatly appreciated.

jps (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution