Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:01, 13 September 2009

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 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

Homeopathy is/isn't FRINGE

Some debate on the homeopathy page talk here as to whether homeopathy is covered by WP:FRINGE. Clearly relevant to this noticeboard. Also, several other interesting discussions, if you can cope with the feeling of déjà vu. Verbal chat 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That talkpage has never been a thing of beauty or an attractor of purely saner heads, but after reading it, abandon all hope ye who enter there. You have both my sympathies for your participation and my apologies for the lack of mine. I am admitting to this not because I believe my attitude is healthy (it most certainly isn't) but rather to demonstrate what a dire need of reform this project has to issues that befuddle such articles. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In case somebody doesn't understand this remark and is afraid of looking: It's about FAQ Question 4: "Should the article call homeopathy a fringe belief?" The FAQ's answer is "yes", but the article doesn't actually do it. An editor changed the answer to "no" and started a discussion. I introduced the aspect whether for the purpose of this question (note the word belief in the question) homeopathy should be evaluated as something that wants to be a science, as CAM, or as a belief system. Personally I don't think a 200-year-old belief system with homeopathy's number of followers (in some key countries) is a fringe belief, even if it has a strong pseudoscience component and attempts to justify it scientifically are without a doubt fringe science or worse. Of course not everybody is happy with treating this topic as anything but a failed science, though. In particular homeopaths generally want it accepted as a science. I think this should give a general impression. ;-) Hans Adler 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the yes-or-no answers in the FAQ. A sockpuppet of a permabanned user ran around messing with a bunch of FAQs, including the ones for Evolution and Global warming as well as homeopathy. In the global warming one I got rid of all the yes/no answers on the grounds that we should present readers with the facts but shouldn't tell them what to conclude. (The guy fought this, but eventually it stuck after he was blocked.) The Homeopathy FAQ may benefit from a similar approach; at the least, it would obviate the wrangling over whether the answer should be "yes" or "no."

I admit I've given up regular monitoring of the talk page. It's a mess in the best of times, and lately has degenerated into a free for all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) As one of the few who almost always answer "it depends" when these polarising questions are asked, I totally agree with this idea, of course. In the current form there is no chance that it convinces anybody in the targeted group, anyway. But perhaps we should give people a few weeks to calm down first.

Yes, it's the same for me. Too much polarisation recently. Hans Adler 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing SBHS's comments leaves me less with a feeling of validation for my own cowardice but rather more with one of inevitable resignation.

To partially repent for my original lame comment above, I will add that Hans' summary appears reasonably accurate, although the problems there go far beyond and before that particular section. As a silver lining, one extraordinarily disruptive (by being naive to the goals and principles of the project, not by necessarily meaning poorly) editor recently got topic-banned from there, which should be a (very) small step in the right direction. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents - Homeopathy = fringe.Simonm223 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent) I can see how some people might get the impression of Homeopathy not being fringed when presented with the following in support of it:

• K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843
• Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323
• Archives of Family Medicine, 1998, 7, 537-40
• Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61, 12:1197-1204. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015
• Archives of Internal Medicine, 159, 17, September 27, 1999

The problem with all these is either the study doesn't say why the person citing it claims or it was refuted by a later study such as the following:

• Linde, K, et al. "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy." J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6
• Ernst E, et al. "Meta-analysis of homoeopathy trials". Lancet 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366)
• "Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study". J Psychosomatic Res 1993; 37(8): 851-860)
• "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005)
• "Clinical Trials (2003-2007)" Clinical Trials on Homeopathy Published from 2003 to 2006: Jacobs (2007; 2006; 2005), Robertson (2007), Bull, (2007), Fisher (2006) La Pine (2006), Brinkhaus (2006), Steinsbekk (2005), Thompson (2005); Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysesk of Clinical Trials of Homeopathy: Thachil (2007), Vickers and Smith (2006), McCarney (2004), Smith, (2003).

That in a nushell is the problem with Homeopathy--even scholarly journals drop the ball on it from time to time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Christ myth theory and Historicity of Jesus

There is ongoing debate on the Talk:Historicity of Jesus page regarding how much space in that article should be given to the possibility of Jesus being a myth. Much of the material seems to be based on the Journal for the Study of the New Testament, which is apparently described as being a "cutting-edge" journal on the subject of the New Testament. I'm not sure what "cutting-edge" scholarship relating to documents that are, at least on average, about 1500 or more years old would be, but that's what the journal is about. I have a personal feeling, based on my own lack of any familiarity with the journal, that it might well include a good deal of fringey material.
Anyway, two questions for the esteemed frequenters of this board:

• 1) Is, at this time, the belief that Jesus never existed "fringey"?
• 2) Are there such things as "fringey" academic journals, and, considering how you all are probably better at determining it than I or many of the other editors on that page are, might the journal in question qualify as one such "fringey" journal? John Carter (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely a fringe theory, and it's been discussed many times already on this board. The theory had a brief period of notoriety in the early 20th century, and faded from scholarly discourse thereafter; now it's a dead issue in scholarship (as several sources cited at Historicity of Jesus and Christ myth theory say). I would be very surprised if any articles in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament espouse the theory; what User:BruceGrubb seems to be saying in the discussion at Talk:Historicity of Jesus is that Robert M. Price, a noted advocate of the theory, has published articles in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament and is therefore a bona fide academic. (From a quick Google Scholar search, it seems that most of what Price has published in JSNT are book reviews, not articles.) In this effort to establish Price's legitimacy, BruceGrubb doesn't mention that Price teaches at the Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary, which is an unaccredited theological seminary. Price is the most prominent "scholarly" proponent of the theory, and this is good evidence of its fringiness--the most prominent advocate doesn't even teach at an accredited institution.

There definitely are "fringey" academic journals, but the Journal for the Study of the New Testament doesn't look like one. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's published by SAGE. Most of their journals are outside the fields I know, but the one I recognize (Progress in Physical Geography) is definitely a respected mainstream journal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I explained over at the Talk:Multi-level marketing page Google is limited in what it can show and have shown that Akhilleus ability to use Google in an effective manner is less than stellar. Also Akhilleus fails to mention that he has tried to keep James Charlesworth's "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..." statement even though there is no evidence the man has any expertise in the field of archeology simply on the merits that director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton Theological Seminary even though the man is a Professor of New Testament Language and Literature. Akhilleus also argued for months on a "quote" by Michael Grant which was actually Grant quoting two other authors who statements could not be proven and who had published in questionable publishers (Penguin and SCM). The consensus was to throw the quote out but Akhilleus kept defending until it finally disappeared and despite his very long claim it was valid Akhilleus has not put it back in.

Then you have Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 stating in the abstract "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." and in the main body there is this: "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." Despite Drews himself saying "The Gospels are no historical sources in the ordinary sense of the word, but writings of believers, edifying books, literary sources of the community's Christian consciousness." this reference was not allowed in on what IMHO was a bunch of OR tap dancing.

To recape we have nothing even resembling a consensus of what Christ Myth theory even is, a bunch of WP:SYN regarding the definition we have, questionable sources on both sides of the issue, and one statement in a peer review publication tangentially connected to Drews' idea saying the theory isn't fringe. What a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely NOT a fringe theory, and labeling it as such is just an active campaign by POV pushers to repress legitimate minority academic views. Poor sources can be foiund advancing the theories, but poor sources can be found advancing all sorts of respected theories. You'll note that the sources used in such article to try to claim that supporters of the myth theory are fringe are theologians and pop history authors and others who in no way speak for the entire field of history (or, for some of them, even any part of it at all). It's an institutional bias, and an example of where people can use a consensus to violate policies, most likely just out of ignorance of the thoroughness of their bias in the matter. We see the same thing in articles talking about Christian myths where people their decide that we cannot use the scholarly terms of "myth" and "mythology" for fear of offending believers (while they do not object to such terms for the myths of cultures likes Hinduism, Norse, Shintoism, etc. that they do not personally follow) and in anything dealing with alleged historical basis for Bible/Biblical archeology. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks... It does not matter whether it is Fringe or not... what matters is whether it is notable, determined by whether it has been discussed in mainstream sources (even if those sources say it is rubbish).

Please read the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, this is beside the point. The point is that Christ myth theory is a fringy content fork of Historicity of Jesus. The topic does have notability. The article on the topic is at Historicity of Jesus. You cannot use the (undisputed) notability of the scholarly discussion on the historicity of Jesus to defend the creation of an article dedicated to various selected fringe approaches to that same topic. Please have a glance at the talk archives. I have made this very point about six times over the past few years, and I never got more than hand-waving. The article cannot even delineate its scope wrt Historicity of Jesus for, ahem, chrissakes. Apparently, if a book disputes the historicity of Jesus and if it is dumbed down sensationalism (as opposed to contributing to the academic discussion), apparently it then belongs in the "Christ myth" article. If it's serious, it belongs in the "historicity" article. This isn't acceptable. --dab (𒁳) 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that the historicity of Jesus would be the "parent" article. It should discuss the full spectrum from the historical Jesus to the Christ myth, including the many views in between. The most broadly inclusive and mainstream view in reputable literature is that there was a real Jesus and mythology was later added, or attributed, to the historical figure. The "children" articles would be about the Christ myth theories and historical Jesus theories. Neither should be focused purely on a fringe theory.

The former article should be about what portions of the figure of Christ are embellishments, later additions, and other mythological developments. The idea that Jesus Christ did not exist at all or is pure mythology is a small minority view and should only receive a small portion of mention in a broader Christ mythology article. However, its proponents are not entirely fringe in the Misplaced Pages sense. The latter article should focus on defining the historical person Jesus son of Joseph, proof of his existence, and discussion of what sort of person or teacher he was. The view that the figure of Jesus Christ is identical, or almost so, to the historical Jesus is like the "pure myth" view as a small of the three articles should be dominated by the small minority views (and certainly not their superficially related fringe counterparts). Just as much religious apologetics, pop pseudoscience, traditionalist pseudohistory, and fringe conspiracy theories should be handled as such and should not dominate the article or its discussion. --Vassyana (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dab... You say: "You cannot use the (undisputed) notability of the scholarly discussion on the historicity of Jesus to defend the creation of an article dedicated to various selected fringe approaches to that same topic." I agree with that... but if the various selected fringe approaches are notable in their own right you can create seperate articles. That was my only point. I have no idea whether the Christ Myth theory qualifies as notable or not... but if it is, then we can have a seperate article on it.

Vassyana... your take on this sounds very logical and reasonable to me ... assuming the Christ Myth article can be written (as per my comment to dab). Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

you can, and we do. Or why, do you think, do we keep the Earl Doherty or Robert M. Price articles? The articles on the notable fringe contributions to the question are in the articles on the individual authors, or in some instances individual books. The article on the topic in general, where academic literature gets all the weight is at historicity of Jesus. Now where, do you argue, does the Jesus myth hypothesis article fit into this picture?

to compare this to a recent case, keeping a "Jesus myth article" alongside the "serious" "Historicity of Jesus" article would be like keeping an article on minority views on Egyptian chronology besides the article on Egyptian chronology, i.e. an article dedicated to discuss an (original) compilation of fringe views connected only by their being not scholarly and thus failing WP:DUE in the main article. We have articles on the various, mutually incompatible, alternative chronologies, such as New Chronology (Rohl) or Glasgow Chronology. But collating these into a panorama article discussing "an overview of chronologies, but not the mainstream views, just the various fringe views" is not acceptable practice, and violates WP:SYNTH.

I would be obliged if you could familiarize yourself with the issue, Blueboar. The point is that there is no identifiable concept corresponding to the "Christ myth theory". The term is just a popular way of referring to views that there was no historical Jesus. Am I putting this clearly enough? "Christ myth theory" isn't a concept in its own right. It is a phrase popular in unacademic fringe literature used to refer to a class of positions within the historicity of Jesus debate.

I am somewhat annoyed at having to spell this out yet another time. This very point is buried in the article talkpage, oh, about a dozen times over. I really cannot see what is so difficult about this. Some people would like to give credibility to fringe views on an academic topic. What else is new? They do so by creating a content fork under a popular title and develop the exact same topic discussed in the main article, but unburdened by the need to respect academic literature, they can, in their cozy counter-article, just discuss their favourite pop culture accounts of the matter. This is exactly the kind of situation this noticeboard is supposed to sniff out and fix. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have followed the Christ myth theory talk page for a while, rather loosely, and somehow I managed never to get this important aspect. But based on the discussions I have seen there, I think you are right. It seems to be a bit of a disparaging term for everything from "most of the stories about the historical Jesus are true, but they have been embellished a bit and now they are a myth in the technical sense of the word" to "no such person ever lived, and it was all made up centuries later by copying from other, earlier myths", although various authors use it in different ways.

This makes the article unnecessary as such, and I agree that the effect of the article's existence may well be undue promotion of the less notable theories. Again, all this is not based on actual familiarity but on what I gathered (unsystematically) from the article talk page. Hans Adler 10:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The key problem as I found out is the material both pro and con is a mess. There is no consistent use of the term "Christ myth theory", and the terms "Christ myth" and "Jesus myth" are even more inconstant in their use. Too much in the Christ myth theory article depends on WP:SYN as to who is a supporter and the like with little consistency. As much as I wanted to believe otherwise I have to agree with Dbachmann that there is nothing to support the Christ myth theory article as it currently stands--simply put there is no there there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As Dbachmann says, the "Christ myth theory" is the idea that there was no historical Jesus. This is an identifiable concept! What's more, there exists academic literature that treats this concept and the writers who have advocated it. Albert Schweitzer devoted two chapters of Quest of the Historical Jesus to it, and at least three recent books have covered the history of the theory in some detail: Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, William Weaver The historical Jesus in the twentieth century , and Clinton Bennett in Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images . Each of these books devotes at least a chapter or substantial section to the idea that there was no historical Jesus, and they focus on the authors who have espoused the theory over the last century and a half (or so). You can see a list of the authors each source covers near the end of this section in the talk archives, and see that Schweitzer, Van Voorst, Weaver, and Bennett largely focus on the same authors, with Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, and William Benjamin Smith being the most important.

So there's an identifiable topic here, and it's notable--it receives substantial coverage in a variety of academic sources. The problem is, as Dbachmann says, that in its current state the article presents itself as an alternative version of Historicity of Jesus. But that simply means that the article should be fixed so that it's not a content fork, but a sub-article of Historicity of Jesus (or perhaps Quest for the Historical Jesus), which gives more detail about one aspect of thinking on the historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely the burden of proof is upon those who assert that there was a preacher named Jesus in the early 1st century CE. I have seen no evidence that such a person existed. This section should simply be headed the Christ myth. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus is reading his own views into the material and engaging in WP:SYN, again. He has yet to produce any source that shows how Bromiley's International Standard Bible Encyclopedia "story of" with examples of Lucian, Wells, and Bertrand Russell of similar ideas fits with Dodd's "Or alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him" all the while agreeing with Horbury's "Jesus had never existed" statement.

The reality is as I have proved time and time with actual citations is that "Christ Myth Theory" does not have a consistent definition--it can refer to the Jesus of the Bible being a myth while at the same time admitting there was likely a preacher possibly named Jesus going through Galilee in the 1st century CE) ie Historicity of Jesus) or it can hold that the entire story was made up. Worse there is nothing other than WP:SYN that ties "Christ Myth Theory", "Christ Myth", and "Jesus Myth" together.

For example, Weaver, Walter P. (1999) The historical Jesus in the twentieth century, 1900-1950 uses "Jesus Myth" in talking about Drews' hypthotehtical pre-Christian Jesus cult rather than it being Drews' idea of an non historical Jesus. (pg 51) Even more interestingly, Weaver soft plays Drews' position: "In the first and second editions of his work Drews noted that his purpose was to show that everything about the historical Jesus has a mythical character and thus it was not necessary to presuppose that a historical figure ever existed." pg 50. Further along Weaver says "A second part of the book took up the Christian Jesus. "The Jesus myth" had been in existence a very long time in one form or another, but it was only in the appearance of the tentmaker of Tarsus, Paul, that Jesus community separated from Judaism took root." pg 52. So how can "Jesus myth" be the "Christ Myth" (ie non historial Jesus theory) if Drews said the former predated Paul? Clearly it can't and the article is full of that type of nonsense to POV push the view that "Christ Myth Theory"/"Christ myth"/"Jesus myth" says Jesus never existed when even the literature doesn't say that (see Dodd for example)

To put is a bluntly as possible the literature on what the "Christ Myth Theory" even is is a total train wreck. "Reuben Clark: Selected Papers on Americanism and National Affairs‎" 1987 (University of California and Brigham Young University) from pg 129 on looks like it might help but I haven't been able to get a copy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sense About Science

There has been a recent edit war on the page of this anti-fringe group, with one editor reverting any changes made to address issues they raised to a version with less information, and now there are accusations of POV and OR. It is claimed that the article is unbalanced, that describing positive coverage without an RS that the coverage is positive is OR, and that the article gives undue credibility to SaS. I would like more editors to review the arguments from both sides and add your own if you like. Please watchlist and join the talk page discussion. Verbal chat 08:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now been accused of having a WP:COI because I do not support a users edits - despite having supplied references, etc. Please have a look. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that editor is making a storm-in-a-tea-cup over this article. It's pretty balanced, certainly compared to the earlier whitewash by SaS, and the sourcing is good. Fences&Windows 22:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, declaring COI, rule 76 in the fringe-pusher handbook. I'll add it to my watchlist in case it quickly deteriorates, and take a look after work. Awickert (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Awickert, I do hope you're not suggesting I'm a "fringe-pusher". Someone employed by Sense About Science had earlier edit warred and removed all criticism, so the article was in a terrible shape. A "Reception" section was added in a few months ago, giving a balanced and well-sourced overview of the positive and negative coverage, and it has been pretty stable since then, until Blippy started declaring that it was too favourable to SaS, which I don't think is true.

My personal opinion of SaS is that I don't like any of the organisations founded by people associated with Frank Furedi's Revolutionary Communist Party and Living Marxism magazine, of which SaS is one. They've got an undeclared political agenda of pro-technology anti-environmental libertarianism. I'm pro-science, just not pro-SaS. Fences&Windows 22:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blippy (talk · contribs) is editwarring a POV tag into the article without justification, despite several requests on the talk page (unless "I dispute the neutrality" can be taken as a justification) Verbal chat 08:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ra (channeled entity)

This article is about a fringe book that I believe isn't even notable. I prodded it 9 months ago when it was still fresh. Since then it survived an AfD, based on references from other fringe publications, got a peer review and failed (unsurprisingly) a GA nomination. Some statements of fact are protected with qualifications such as "purported", but the overall treatment is completely in-universe. No wonder, since the only author himself evidently lives in this "infinite universe in which the core element is vibration", as described by an "extraterrestrial group of supernatural entities purportedly contacted by Don Elkins" and others. Comments on the talk page suggest to me that the article may not even represent the mainstream among the fringe group of believers in this stuff.

I am not sure what's the best way to deal with this cancerous article (it grows and grows). Any ideas? Hans Adler 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Merge into Don Elkins with prejudice. I mean, even Ramtha was merged into J. Z. Knight, and notability was rather more arguable there. --dab (𒁳) 18:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the article and associated talk page I agree with dab's suggestion. Merge with Don Elkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs)

I can tell you the counter-argument, because I have heard it before: "The Ra entity was channeled by Carla Rueckert making a merge with Don Elkins a bad idea." The problem is that this series of books has three authors, weakening the merge argument only slightly, but just enough to guarantee victory to the extreme inclusionists. Hans Adler 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for advanced warning but I was busy proposing the merge and didn't get it until after I finished. LOL Oh well, it was my first merge proposal, at least I know how to do it now.Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn't really anything to say about the topic because there are no mainstream sources discussing it. Except one strange book about New Age, called "Strange Weather", which doesn't so much discuss as describe it, and possibly the following. Perhaps someone has free access to this paper and can check if it's any use:

A short history of bad acoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 120, Issue 4, pp. 1807-1815 (October 2006)

Hans Adler 19:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, wow. That's an hilarious example of a cargo cult Misplaced Pages entry. It has all the resemblance of a proper encyclopedia article, but it's actually full of nonsense. If it is kept as a solo article, it needs the "in universe" material slashing back considerably. What was Stifle doing closing that AfD as "Keep"? That's a "No consensus" if I ever saw one. Fences&Windows 23:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

9 months of patience and now the same discussions again.. You should study first, the relevant wikipedia policies, rules and arbcom rulings. To summarize: 1-a fringe topic can exist in wikipedia when it is backed with reliable secondary sources; 2-when tagged with proper tags (paranormal etc.) and styled with proper qualifiers (like purported) the statements become facts and conforms to wikipedia policies and guidelines. The article does not throw any theory before the "scientific community" nor it tries to imply having any scientific basis. Paranormal tag and certain "qualifiers" (purported, claim, etc.) are enough to achieve this, according to an arbcom ruling. Do not misunderstand & overinterpret "reliability", "verifiability" and some other wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to game the system WP:GAME. This noticeboard is not a place for a delete/merge discussion. If you have any problem with any arbcom ruling, that article and this noticeboard are not proper playgrounds. Logos5557 (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Interested parties can find past arbcom rulings here .Logos5557 (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article. Missed something about the 6th band (what happened to the other five?); a little more attention to detail and it's a straight win at WP:GAN. Growth is a natural condition of a healthy wikipedia article; articles are more like children than tumors. NVO (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but in a thread in which someone posts who obviously believes in this nonsense, it's not appropriate to use sarcasm. See WP:SARCASM. Hans Adler 06:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler; after 9 months of suffering, you are still not civil in this issue. If you have any proofs against notability and verifiability of the material in the article, please provide & share with the community. You very well know that, the material does not need to be discussed in mainstream sources, in order for it to exist in wikipedia. Why don't you first try to change the relevant wikipedia policies and rules, instead of "attacking" this article by gaming the system? My beliefs has nothing to do with this issue. Why do you still use the same fallacious arguments again & again in these nonsense discussions? Should I use the similar approach? For instance, how come a person like you can believe in homeopathy, which is a total nonsense. Logos5557 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Several points:

• Yes, it was 9 months of suffering. Each time the article appeared on my watchlist I had to decide whether to look at your latest exploits or simply ignore what you were doing there. Or did you suffer? Nobody forces you to edit non-notable topics here.
• It's notability that must be proved, not non-notability. Otherwise we would have no chance to get rid of joke articles such as User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house if someone put them into the mainspace. You have not proved notability, although I am sure you believe you have done that.
• "the material does not need to be discussed in mainstream sources" – Wrong. To quote WP:N and WP:RS selectively:

• "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
• reliable sources: "may be used so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources."
• reliable sources: "An individual fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe sources must not be used to obscure the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance."
• independent of the subject: "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc."
• and in any case: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Misplaced Pages is not." Under the link, we find that "content hosted in Misplaced Pages is not: 1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."

• Homeopathy is much less absurd than the bullshit about "octaves", "densities", "social memory complexes" and dozens of other totally undefined pseudoscientific terms, but even so homeopathy is absurd enough for me not to believe in it. I am merely working for it to be treated in an NPOV way. Which is exactly what I am doing here as well. Your belief just happens to be much more marginal. Hans Adler 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination) Verbal chat 09:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That was me, my reasoning is on the AfD page. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You could just remove the article from your watchlist, so that you would relieve yourself from that tough decision process whether to look at my exploit or blah blah.. This topic is definitely notable, even it does not need to be covered by academics in order to be able to exist in wikipedia, there are two academics who cover the topic more than enough. I have proved the notability and if any person claims otherwise then he/she should present his/her arguments. Without bringing any argument, you can't just claim that the references presented are not reliable and third-party. You should first read this arbcom ruling here before structuring any claim on reliability, mainstream coverage and similar nonsense which apparently is gaming the system. I am picking the most important ones for you:

• Basis for inclusion

3) In addition to firmly established scientific truth, Misplaced Pages contains many other types of information. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" (from Misplaced Pages:Verifiability).

Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Adequate framing

6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling", or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Cultural artifacts

5) "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist.

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Popular culture

8) Misplaced Pages includes many articles regarding matters that are of notable popular interest such as alien abductions, animal mutilations and crop circles. Often there exists little scientific interest or analysis of such purported events.

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Paranormal as an effective tag

12) The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose.

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Logos5557 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• And let me comment on that brilliant "I am merely working for it to be treated in an NPOV way" whopper.. I checked homeopathy discussions and saw that you are trying to prevent the inclusion of a very important warning from some academics, which is based on some comments from WHO, here into the article. Logos5557 (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the direct link to a letter that someone found after I wrote the comments to which you are referring. I had to go by the BBC news report. I agree that use of homeopathy in the way described in this letter is dangerous. However, the WHO is perfectly able to publish its opinions on its own. As far as I know it is not in the habit of publishing its official opinions indirectly by telling it to scientists who then write letters to politicians in which they also advertise the dodgy organisation called Sense About Science. (This organisation is connected with pro-GM advertising and denial of global warming, and is said to have been formed by a group around a former extrimist magazine called Living Marxism.) Therefore it seems appropriate to mention the WHO's warning if and when we find it in a publication or press report by the WHO itself or a WHO official.
• Let's continue discussing my character, if it's important to you. Hans Adler 11:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, you might have objected the inclusion of a warning in the article as if it was coming from WHO. However, it is crystal clear now that the letter comes from a, what you call dodgy, organisation, which is formed by some academics & notable, and now the warning can be included by correctly stating the name of the organisation. Even it is not from WHO, the letter has enough notability & reliability. Logos5557 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good distraction technique. This thread is about Ra, not about homeopathy. It'd be better to take discussion of homeopathy to the Homeopathy article talk page. By the way, my opinion of Sense About Science is about the same as Hans', and I give no credence to homeopathy whatsoever. Fences&Windows 22:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ok, at least it is now crystal clear where the problem lies. I am glad we had this discussion. It looks like we're going to delete Ra (channeled entity) and then recreate it as a protected redirect to Don Elkins. I think this pretty much sums up this thread. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

you may now relax, the article is userfied, I moved it to my userspace. I will try the last resort, arbcom. We will see then which users' conduct should be fixed. Logos5557 (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please consider carefully before going to ArbCom; going to ArbCom can backfire. I fail to see the grounds. The article is probably going to be deleted on the grounds of insufficient notability due to a lack of independent reliable sources covering it in detail, which isn't the sort of thing ArbCom normally rules on. Fences&Windows 22:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

excellent. I believe this case is so obvious, it will be difficult even for the arbcom to botch it. What we now need to do is review the Don Elkins article with regard to WP:BIO. THis is an article on a WP:FRINGE author and it does not present any evidence of notability. --dab (𒁳) 15:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Thiering

Was ok until a few days ago. No one takes her 'Pesher' (which it isn't really) seriously, no one can reproduce it, etc, but it's being edited by a fan. It could use some help esp. as I'm busy this weekend. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look.Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Little people (mythology)

This seems to be caught between worlds, as it were. It also has some significant WP:SYN issues. Mangoe (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean... Actually, I think the only potential WP:FRINGE problem was with the "evidence" section. (I have removed it.) It didn't really fit the scope of the article, as it was about archeological remains and not myths (I am guessing that the idea was that there is some connection between the remains and the myths... but without a source, stating what that connection is, it is hard to tell for sure. Also, without a source, stating any connection would be OR).

As for the rest of the article, the title indicates that the article is about little people in mythology... I am not sure you can call the various modern fictional little people (such as Hobbits and Kinder) "mythology"... but I am willing to give the article's scope a little bit of slack in that direction. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's still a significant WP:SYN issue in that it's not clear that anyone whose opinion matters groups all these varied things into the same class. Mangoe (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Herschel

A relatively new article about a fringe writer which could use some attention, I came across this today when its creator tried to add the author's website and sps book to Archaeoastronomy. Another attempt to publicise Herschel is here. Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My word but this page is a mess. I've made a few starter changes but this will probably need more than one editor to go through this and figure out whether this article is notable. An attempt has been made to establish notability by referencing mention in local news sources. Anybody able to confirm these? What were the references about?Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Three new users have logged on since I proposed deletion crying that Herschel is a legitimate scientist that must not be deleted while entirely failing to grasp the underlying Misplaced Pages policies governing notability criteria. Help always appreciated trying to keep the debate on-topic.Simonm223 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Quake everyone, Herschel write on Dan Brown's Facebook page that "I have writen to some top wikipedia personel and made my case asking for simple coverage within equal rules as other authors like me have been treated. (11 letters written)". He's now editing here as AstronomerPHD (talk · contribs) - although he has no PhD (perhaps no degree at all as he doesn't claim one), and is not an astronomer. He's annoyed about my asking about his name, he's mentioned that on Facebook. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody else think it hillarious that his main avenue of commuication with his friends seems to be poorly spelled missives on Dan Brown's facebook wall?Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow... eleven letters? And no action? Yet more proof that all the "top wikipedia personel" are crypto-illuminati-Freemasons who are conspiring to silence "the truth". (rumored to be the subject of Dan Brown's next book "The Lost Wiki of Solomon's Secret Code"... Robert Langdon uncovers the hidden agenda behind the statement "Verifiability, not Truth", which leads him to a death defying race through Article space in search of clues as to the shocking contents of the original "deleted article"). Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMFAO, that just made my day.Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Herschel has not taken the deletion well, "WIKIPEDIA UK AUTHORITY DEMAND REMOVAL OF AUTHOR AND SOLOMON KEY FINDING

I have been told by the UK Misplaced Pages authority Joseph Seddon Re:Ticket#2009090210032671 that I must be removed. Other authors with less status than my own have the right to be on wikipedia but due to the material concerned, I have absolutely no right to be there. All that is left there is the image that I rendered on a separate page... and even my copyrights as the artist have been removed too for the Solomon Key cipher now to be public property. They are out right lying that it has expired. (it was only there two months and copyright text on it now removed) I am releasing all documentation to the media for next week with the other attacks to try and stop my book project that are underway right now. I presented all the third party references they asked for, TV coverage, Coast to Coast radio, many newspapers covering my findings as discoveries, not just an author, two periodicals on the Solomon key and more.

Authors like David Ike that self published, had no media covered historical discoveries, and claims the Queen of England is an alien has a full page spread."

And one of his fans replies "I hope you are able to resolve the above matter as soon as possible Wayne.It appears that a lot of underhanded goings on are taking place presently.Something needs to be done."

So sad. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You can see why he needed a 'co-writer'. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In the writing biz we usually call them "ghost writers" it appears the "co-writer" got an "as told to" contract.Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And I figured out why he's ranting about copyright finally. They are using an image of Herschel's re-drawing of circles from the hebrew edition of the Solomon's Key on Solomon's KeySimonm223 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Key of Solomon you mean. But he gave it to Misplaced Pages, so what's he complaining about? One more thing he doesn't understand? Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding this truth there is also a good question as to whether he could copyright a facsimile of a public domain image just because he did the copying by hand. If I draw the golden arches do I have copyright over the McDonalds logo?Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

this image -- if it's a manual redrawing, we should delete the image as unencyclopedic. I was under the impression that it is a facsimile directly from the BM manuscript. If it isn't, we don't have any use for it, we should acquire an actual facsimile instead. If Herschel copied this by hand I must admit he did a pretty convincing job with the Hebrew cursive. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, here is an actual facsimile of the page in question. I am convinced that Herschel did not redraw this but simply used photographic reproduction. What he apparently did do, though, was adding a cheesy "parchment-style" background (the actual manuscript is on paper). I will replace the cheesy image with the more encyclopedic one at commons. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Gary Schwartz

This article is an absolute mess. The quality of the writing is poor, it is credulous, it venerates the subject, and is very very poorly sourced. Some help would be appreciated as I am having huge co;puter proble;s, and I've already been called "suspicious" and had ;y editing generally called into auestion by a brand new editor on the talk page... Thanks Verbal chat 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

After spending some time I've changed my opinion from deleting the "Universal whatchamathinger theory" section and leaving the page intact to deleting the page. Gary Schwartz does not appear to meet the notability criteria laid out in WP:PROF. Article PRODded.Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Article now AfD. Voice your opinion.Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1

The article on Parapsychology is up for a featured article review, due to many problems. Please participate. Shoemaker's Holiday 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology

Should this article exist? The surveys were not run by any major polling company, they were by and large published in a fairly fringe journal, and it's hard to see such a tiny part of the topic as notable, even if the surveys were considered reliable. Shoemaker's Holiday 22:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yakub

Yakub, as we all know, was an ancient Saudi scientist who created the white race on the isle of Patmos. A new editor has recently radically re-edited the article on this, er, historical individual as if he were real, and he repeatedly restores this truth. The dates also suggest that Yakub died 150 years before he was born. Paul B (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

you mean, of course, an ancient Ubaidi scientist. After all, he lived in 4684 BCE. --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you need to take this up with Elijah Muhammad. I suggest channeling. See Yakub (Elijah Muhammad) for the most recent. Looks like vandalism all around. Unless anyone thinks this is as clever as the vandal does.PelleSmith (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The new editor has been given a three-hour block to cool down due to edit warring. We'll see what happens when the block expires. Singularity42 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical Mind (talk · contribs) has not resumed edit-warring after their block expired. They have vented some spleen at Talk:Melanin theory, but no further article space edits. --dab (𒁳) 10:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

New Revelation of Jesus Christ

Does anyone know anything about this? A new editor is going around adding his own essays to various entries from Swedenborgianism to Cult. S/he also created New Revelation of Jesus Christ. It seems like an Evangelical polemic against "false prophets". Googling the term turns up all kinds of things, including to some extent various criticisms of prophesy "outside the bible" labeled as such by conservative christian groups (e.g. against Mormon prophesy). I can't find any reliable sources on this, but I have to admit not looking too hard. Any thoughts?PelleSmith (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't go out of your way to find reliable sources... make the editor who wishes to add material supply them. And if he/she can not... then it is probably original research (per WP:NOR) and should be removed... I would start by tagging anything that seems iffy with {{fact}} tags. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so that's what's going on at Cult... I wondered.Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Seaborgiumism? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Swedenborgianism is the belief system developed from the writings of the Swedish theologian Emanuel Swedenborg (1688 – 1772). William Blake hated it.Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but August Strindberg didn't. I agree with Dab below. Keep a look out.PelleSmith (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it upon myself to "encyclopedicize" this article. More references are still needed though. But Torchrunner (talk · contribs) needs watching, editor is apparently here to make articles "more neutral" by rewriting them from an evangelical viewpoint, mostly going on about how things they disagree with are "cults". --dab (𒁳) 16:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

If anyone is interested, the AAH page is getting more discussion and traffic, with disagreement on how to represent its status in the scientific community. Extra input is appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a soft spot for this theory when I studied human evolution at uni. It's a lovely just-so-story. It's very much fringe, but it is largely respected as a good but wrong theory. Much like the multiregional hypothesis, some supporters won't let it die without a fight. I will take a look. Fences&Windows 02:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same way about it. It is a respectable, 'good but wrong' theory, clearly notable, but clearly far from mainstream opinion. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Exopolitics and Michael Salla

Proposing merge of Exopolitics into Michael Salla.Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Key of Solomon pictogram cipher

At the moment this article seems to exist only to give publicity to Wayne Herschel (eyes on that please also). Any suggestions as to what to do with it? A redirect to Dan Brown's forthcoming book? Does the statement that it's also in another book affect what we do? A Google search only suggests it will be in Brown's book. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not another Dan Brown book. This must be the worst author ever to meddle with these topics. His commercial success is a sad testimony for the intellectual state of the USA. Seriously, I am not a jealous person, but when I see that a boring, clueless hack gets the publicity and the millions that would properly belong to the many authors that are clearly his betters, I feel angry.

On topic though, this article obviously needs to be done away with by diligent merging. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The real problem article is Wayne Herschel. I was against deleting the Elkins/Rueckert one, but by the same standards, the Herschel article should also go: this is just yet another guy who wrote a book on pyramids and ancient astronauts. Orion Correlation Theory also bears looking into ("Egyptology" ineed). --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would start by cutting the "In polular culture" section (ie the Trivia section). This will resolve the problem of giving publicity to Herschel and Dan Brown. Of course that leaves the issue that the rest of the article is woefully under sourced. I would expect that there must be at lease semi-academic published sources, written by amature historians of symbology, that discuss this cipher in a serious manner. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

this "cipher" isn't in any way notable. It is one of literaly dozens of similar diagrams which you find in each of the dozens of manuscripts pertaining to the Clavicula tradition. It is just one random occult diagram out of a huge tradition of verz simlar diagrams. It just so happened to catch Mr. Herschel's fancy, but there is probably no objective reason to discuss this diagram in particular. --dab (𒁳) 17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

please indulge my typos. I'm on a netbook. --dab (𒁳) 17:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... I am not well versed in occult symbology (I am more versed in Masonic symbolism, which is not the same thing, although there is sometimes an overlap) ... if this particuar "cipher" is nothing special in the occult world, is there a more general article on "Clavicula" (or some other topic) we could merge it into? Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody redirected to the Key of Solomon page. That was a perfect solution to this fallout from Wayne Herschel.Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Desperately need eyes on Key of Solomon I've been blocking a persistent spammer from editing the page but I am now getting accused of vandalism for my reverts. History of reverts visible on article page. Lend a hand please.Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

sigh, it appears Mr. Herschel is not the only one infatuated with this pictogram. --dab (𒁳) 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well that was a... fun... morning.Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Astral projection

Could someone with more experience in the application of NPOV to fringe theories and pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages please drop by Talk:Astral projection. There is an edit war brewing over the appropriate way to address mainstream psychological interpretations of the perception of out-of-body experiences, and the outcome does not seem consistent with WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. In attempting to frame the lead in a manner consistent with a reasonably mainstream account, I have been rather incivilly acused of attempting to "vandalize" the article. Since I do not feel that I personally can remain constructive in such a hostile environment (indeed, I think I would only make things worse at this point), I would ask that a disinterested party please examine the matter. I will recuse myself from editing the article and its talk page for a period of one week, or until the matter has reached a resolution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The complainant removed detail of scientific studies and substituted crass generalisations of his own devising with (let us say) "inadequate" citations, noting that he found himself unable to understand the language of those studies and found it "weird" to go into detail. "Reasonably mainstream" is presumably his term for the opinions of someone who does not know much. I noted that insisting upon these changes and refusing discussion would be getting close to vandalism - certainly nobody else has been so "hostile". The complainants still reverts and, as he notes above, refuses to discuss. Redheylin (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

After being attacked by you as a vandal on the talk page, and bearing the (continued and repeated) insinuation that I am somehow too dense to understand what was intended by the term "veridical" in the context, I decided not to engage in discussion. I am under no obligation to discuss anything with someone who personalizes things against me in this manner, and I have voluntarily recused myself from further discussion there precisely to prevent an escalation. I sense that I am being baited into anger, and I will not allow that to happen. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain point to the suggestion that "veridical" is inferior in an encyclopedia to a synonym such as "true". Seriously, the Sławomir Biały version of the lede was more effective. Don't take stuff too personally.Simonm223 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "verifiable"? (see WP:V) Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the debate centers around the inclusion of the word "veridical". Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Black mass (paranormal entity)

Funky sources. Clean or AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would see if there are any better sources that discuss the topic (even to riducule it). If not, AfD. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are scattered mentions of black clouds in the paranormal literature, but they don't seem particularly notable. Merge somewhere? Fences&Windows 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merging into Ghost.Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought of that as an option too. Trim and merge into Ghost#Typology? Fences&Windows 18:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly.Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In other news, Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked. Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL.Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face murder theory

I need more eyes on this article. The overwhelming view is that these people died of accidental drownings in completely unrelated cases due to being drunk etc., but some minor self-declared profilers for hire have decided that this must be a bunch of interconnected murders, and of course because it sounds cooler some edutainment shows (like Larry King Live) have given some of these people air time. I maintain that by WP:UNDUEWEIGHT that the primary view presented must be what the police and FBI say (no murders) and that other views obviously can be mentioned but not everyone with a theory on it and not just because Larry King talked to them. There's very little input on the talk page, and what is there is usually people out to promote the view. Some outside opinions on the matter would be helpful and appreciated. DreamGuy (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Colloidal silver and tinpot studies from Botswana

Colloidal silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is sort of a perennial trouble spot. "Conventional" authorities like the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the FDA, and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration tend to uniformly agree that it is ineffective and potentially toxic. However, a positive view of colloidal silver is represented by editors active on the page well in excess of its actual representation among experts in the field. Arguments put forth on the talk page tend to include personal websites, editorial testimonials (colloidal-silver-cured-my-dog-without-all-the-side-effects-of-conventional-antibiotics - seriously), medical treatises published in 1913, and the ever-popular conventional-medicine-was-wrong-about-leeches-too argument. Most recently, a negative study of Internet-marketed colloidal silver (PMID 15114827) was excised as "a tinpot study from Botswana". I would appreciate additional input. MastCell  16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That colloidal silver has ineffective and potentially toxic is an accurate statement regarding the above sources, and the general consensus of the scientific community. The tinpot study from Botswana (PMID 15114827) appears to be a standard application of microbiology techniques to demonstrate the utility of a substance as an antiseptic. In addition to testing an internet source, they also tested two home-made solutions at concentrations substantially exceeding those in the purchased one, and likewise found no demonstration of efficacy. While nanoscale particles are an area of active exploration in materials science, an observation of what is happening at Colloidal Silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is nothing short of advocacy, primarily one user. DHawker is a WP:SPA who has for the past two years apparently made edits to colloidal silver of any significance. 70.171.202.96 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

On wikipedia, anyone editor of fringe theories that doesn't side on the "Its a bunch of bullshit" side is immediately labeled an advocate. Colloidal silver is FAR FAR FAR less toxic than acetaminophen and ibuprofen (Which are known to cause harmful side effects beginning as low as a few hundred milligrams). Niether of those are labeled toxic in their lead. Argyria is not toxic, and neither is silver. If you think otherwise, please prove it on the talk page of Colloidal silver, or go change the silver article to say it is toxic and watch your change be reverted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I had written a short paragraph on colloidal silver for the article alternative medicine over a year ago, but it was removed there quite soon and I didn't bother with fighting the fringe advocates back then, I already had enough of that. Here is that paragraph, I think it could be quite useful.

Colloidal silver was used before 1938 as an antibiotic, resulting in an "alarming increase"<ref:Gaul&Staud, 1935, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, quoted after Rosemary Jacobs My Story page/ref> of Argyria. Since latest 1995 is has been promoted as an alternative medicine, sparking heavy critique from a victim from the 1940s: "Colloidal silver (CSP) is not a new alternative remedy. It is an old, discarded traditional one that homeopaths and other people calling themselves "alternative health-care practitioners" have pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies, things mainstream medicine threw away decades ago."<ref:Rosemary Jacobs My Story page/ref> diff

I'm going to see whether I can get the articles from the medicine journals from the 1940s that are mentioned on the homepage, and if I'll get some support with that, I'll expand the article. Zara1709 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This shouldn't be discussed here, but that ref is clearly biased based on the wording. I guess the endless supply of antibiotics prescribed to patient by doctors now are the holy grail, clearly safe, with no danger, ever.

Argyria is just argyria. Is is cosmetic, and harmless. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bennington Triangle

While getting rid of ufoarea.com from Misplaced Pages because you have to pay to see the content, I ran into this article which anyone interested in UFOs, etc might want to look at. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I went in, did some edits, realized there were no verifiable references and have prodded.Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this qualify? (I'd lean towards "no", but it might show that the term has some currency... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on... looking at the article, I see a bullet point list of references. The problem is that the article is missing inline citations, not that it is completely unreferenced. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of those references in the bullet points are for magazines more than 3 decades old. I would count that as pushing the boundaries of verifiability. Still some of the material can be checked.Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction. Of the references that are not more than 3 decades old 2 out of 3 are primary source material. I will check the ONE remaining reference (a magazine a mere 17 years old) and see if I can dig up anything on it.Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All listed references assessed excepting ones greater than 50 years of age. AfD up.Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah... now I see the issue. The listed sources support the existance of the individual "mysterious weird stuff" stories, but not the existance of something called the "Bennington Triangle" that connects them all together. So the question is whether anyone except Joseph A. Citro (the author who coined the term "Bennington Triangle") has noted the term, and connects it to the stories. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely.Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have posted a comment clarifying this at the AfD. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The references (all but one) aren't actually cited within the article so it's hard to see what they are referencing. I put a note on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Gospel of John

Things are getting surreal at Jakob Lorber (Austrian mystic) and Great Gospel of John (his magnum opus). We have two users, and neither of them can write tuppence worth of content, and neither of them will condescend to spend five minutes to learn what Misplaced Pages is even trying to do.

• Torchrunner (talk · contribs) (featured here before) is intent on denouncing Lorber as the instigator of an ungodly "cult" who is "criticised by Evangelical Christians"
• NRtruth (talk · contribs) (where NR = "New Revelation" and truth = WP:TRUTH) is intent on showing how Lorber in the 1850s predicted the internet, satellite communication and what have you.

Between themselves they make a fair mess of things, as they aren't even reverting each other but simply pile on their own material "referenced" with random urls. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems at Jakob Lorber too. Trying to keep page stable pending cohesive discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted a huge chunk of stuff on predictions from the Great Gospel article, it all came from one self-published book (nothing on Google Books or Scholar about it) from an anonymous author. I imagine an attempt will be made to put it back, but as there is no reliable source... Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If I spend any more time talking to Torchrunner (talk · contribs) today I'm going to break WP:CIVIL so could somebody else please keep an eye on the page for major changes until tomorrow when I've had the opportunity to get the invective out of my system?Simonm223 (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

2012

For anyone interested, there's a discussion currently in play over at talk:2012 millenarianism (recently renamed from 2012 doomsday prediction) about what should be the most appropriate name for this article, with its scope covering various 2012-related speculations/predictions/theorising/phenomena. Arguments for/against various current title proposals are at Talk:2012_millenarianism#Definition_of_Millenarianism and Talk:2012_millenarianism#Formal_discussion_on_page_name, and there's an open poll at Talk:2012_millenarianism#Title_of_article_--_the_.28single_transferable.29_vote.21. Contribs & thoughts welcomed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1‎

Just to note, this has now gone to Featured article removal candidates. I suspect it is not my place to say more than that. Shoemaker's Holiday 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis

Two editors, Xellas (talk · contribs) and Paul H. (talk · contribs), are in a dispute about the appropriate level of coverage for the ideas of Robert Sarmast, and have escalated to the level of a WQA. It seems to me that the best solution is to bring more eyes to the question, and that this is the right place to do it. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul H may not understand our policies and guidelines as well as some of us, but I'll vouch for his understanding of the subject and attitude - he may need some friendly guidance. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I should have looked at WQA, this is ridiculous. Paul H isn't Sarmast, Sarmast edits here but not for quite a while, and I told Xellas Paul's not Sarmast. I can't take direct action as I know Paul. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI I think as Xellas is both attacking Paul and trying to out him as Sarmast. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul LaViolette

Paul A. LaViolette . . . is an American scientist who has proposed unorthodox physics theories and interpretations of the Bible, Mayan pictograms, the Zodiac and ancient Vedic stories. . . . LaViolette is the current president of the Starburst Foundation, an interdisciplinary scientific research institute."

This article was started on August 19 (by a now-blocked user) and seems to be generating some rancor, including this thread at ANI, and this AfD that closed without consensus on August 27. Fringe-experienced reviewers might be useful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently there is an RfC on notability of certain parts of the bio material.Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Canaan and the biblical claim it was conquered by Hebrews

I removed what I saw as a pov statement, including something about a race of giants (Zamzumim}, and it was reverted by Til Eulenspiegel with the edit summary " the part you blanked makes no mention of any "giants", it merely states that the Hebrews conquered Canaan which is only disputed by fringe". Fringe has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages, is Til right? Thanks. I've removed the text again. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Who actually disputes that the Hebrews conquered Canaan? Are those few who dispute it now the "mainstream", and everyone else "fringe"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that anyone with a basic comprehension of archaeology would dispute that the Hebrews conquered Canaan. We simply do not have the data which indicates that there was ever an organized, homogenous conquest of "Canaanites" by "Hebrews". There is evidence of warfare, and the movement of people, but we are nowhere near having a clear picture of historical events in that period, or whether a distinct group of Canaanites ever controlled the area in the first place. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Anyone with a basic comprehension of archaeology would dispute that the Hebrews conquered Canaan". Yes, I'm sure you would argue that, but on the other hand, there are entire magazines like Biblical Archeology Review devoted to the mountains of archaeology evidence of how Israelites came to be in Canaan. Stating that "basic comprehension" is required to agree with your POV seems like just typical rhetoric. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that there are mountains of solid research done on how the Israelites came to be in Israel. However, there is no evidence of the exodus, or a conquest. We lack a clear view of the historical record in that time frame to clearly delineate between Canaanite and Israelite, which is to say that Israelites may actually have been Canaanites, or a blend of Canaanites and other peoples. Last week, archaeologists announced the discovery of a massive stone wall below the location of the City of David. We had no idea this was there, and aren't certain who built it. It dates to the time of the Canaanites, but we have nothing in the evidence that says the people who built the older wall weren't the ancestors of the people who built the City of David. I reworded the article to try and strike a compromise, leaving in references to the Bible as describing events, but not relying on the Bible to state these events as definitive. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there's Biblical Archaeology Review, but you must know it's a pov journal and not in the top rank of archaeology journals. As for 'entire magazines like' it, what else is there? Are you thinking of Bible & Spade? That's your fringe. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you guys basically control wikipedia, why don't you just declare that the Bible is officially and unanimously declared "fringe", and be done with it? (In the name of "neutrality", of course) If anyone disagrees, just block them, then it will be "unanimous", right? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't control Misplaced Pages, or the Bible. However, the Bible is not a reliable source. It is an extremely important text because of its impact on history, however, it is not an accurate or contemporary record of the events it describes. More than anything, it represents a political text which was assembled after the Babylonian exile from various histories in order to create a unifying foundation myth for the Jewish kings of the time. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That theory is far from proven, and many other scholars and sources disagree. Why don't we just stick to presenting all of their views neutrally and impartially, instead of taking part in these marginalization games and trying to decide which ones are "right"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the Bible is not a reliable source is not in dispute. How or why it was written is certainly open to debate, but there is no question that the Bible is an important piece of history, rather than an accurate report of it. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I never suggest that we consider the Bible a reliable source. But there is an opposite extreme view that says if the Bible says anything, it's automatically wrong and the opposite of true, even something as basic as saying the Israelites conquered Canaan. I don't take the Rig Veda as a reliable source either. But just because it says Aryans invaded India, can we then presume they definitely did not, because it is an unreliable source and therefore lying? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

this is ridiculous, nobody suggested anything like this. Incidentially, the Rigveda at no point says anything like "the Aryans invaded India". Hell, the Rigveda doesn't even have a concept of "India". --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The conquest is certainly not fringe: as TE says, a lot of scholarship is dedicated to the idea that the outlines of history in the OT are more or less accurate. IMO, biblical accounts of history should not be deleted by a rational that they are fringe. OTOH, the conquest should not be presented simply as fact, but as the biblical account. What TE has restored is not neutral or impartial for this reason: "probably the best account of the Hebrew conquest"--the OT is the only account of the Hebrew conquest. kwami (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I did restore that phrase, but didn't keep it there for long since whoever wrote it is obviously not impartial. Although the gentile Roman historians also mention it, btw. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, you have a fair point, but the rationale is not that the information presented in the Bible is fringe. The problem is that the Bible is known to be wildly innacurate on numerous things, while containing interpretations of actual historical events. Historical events portrayed in the Bible cannot be corroborated. If the Bible is the only account of the Hebrew conquest, this does not make it a reliable source that can be referenced. To that end, a description of Canaanites in an article can definitely include descriptions from the Bible, it would have to be presented along the lines of "While the historical record describes XYZ, much of the popular view of Canaanites comes from descriptions in the Bible. Because the Bible cannot be used as a trusted source, it describes the Canaanites as...". That said, such a section would have to be deeply subordinate in the article to any reliable sources. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Some confusion here - Til was calling the view that the Hebrews did not conquer Canaan fringe, I don't think anyone is calling the Bible fringe. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Hiberniantears, that's way more than necessary. All we have to say is s.t. along the lines of 'according to biblical sources'. We don't need to get into a debate about how reliable the Bible is every time we mention s.t. biblical. (As for the Roman sources, wouldn't that be long long after the fact?) kwami (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Til (aka Codex Sinaiticus) has a long history of bible-thumping pov-pushing. Typically insisting on using the Bible directly as a secondary source, as evident by his complaint that we are "treating the Bible as fringe". The Hebrew Bible is, of course, neither fringe nor non-fringe, since it isn't a secondary source in the first place. It is a primary source, a compilation of Iron Age Hebrew texts. Be that as it may, the paragraph in question can be salvaged by improving it: it is almost never a question of "do we keep this material, yes or no" but one of how do we need to edit this to make it acceptable. Now the point here is conflation of the Biblical account with other evidence. In the topic of Canaan, the Biblical account is certainly highly notable, but it should be made very clear which bits are taken from the bible and which aren't. Consequently, the passage

"Many earlier Egyptian sources also make mention of numerous military campaigns conducted in Ka-na-na, just inside Asia. Probably the best descriptions of the Hebrew conquest and occupation of Canaan are given in Deuteronomy 3:12-17 and in Joshuah 12-21."

is not acceptable. We need one paragraph or section detailing the account in the Hebrew Bible, and another one detailing Egyptian sources, but we cannot conflate the two. Obviously, Deuteronomy and Joshuah are in no way a reference to the "many earlier Egyptian sources", which need to be specified in order to satisfy WP:CITE. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Til (aka Codex Sinaiticus) has a long history of bible-thumping pov-pushing." -- Yet another appeal to ad hominem "logic" and blatant personal attack, sounds familiar... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

how is it ad hominem to call a pov pusher a pov pusher? I wasn't making a logical argument, I was imparting information for those unfamiliar with Til's history on Misplaced Pages. "Ad hominem" is something entirely different. It would be "ad hominem" to resort to comments unrelated to the content of Til's edits, instead speculating on his sexual preference, his intellect, his personal hygiene, or his mother. You get the idea. Saying Til has a history as a problem editor with an infatuation for the Hebrew Bible is about as detached and on-topic as it gets. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I would dispute that I am a "problem editor". That is only your personal and subjective opinion, isn't it? Just like I have witnessed countless scores of editors express their personal opinions about you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

sure. Most of the "countless scores" you mention are "editors" who were blocked because they were in fact socks of other blocked editors, or because they were trying to sabotage the project by inserting the sort of stuff WP:FRINGE is talking about. You can't write an encyclopedia without alienating some people who prefer to adhere to some pre-encyclopedic, pre-rational worldview. If you are one of those, you need only say. Oh, and there is Ottava Rima (talk · contribs). This isn't so much pre-rational as post-rational, this chap will go on an epic crusade to shoot the messenger who told him he was wrong before considering just admitting he was wrong. Perhaps you want to join his cause of "Dbachmann is an evil vandal". Or then you could just focus on the issue and try to discuss the Bible encyclopedically instead of your regular hysteria on how Misplaced Pages mistreats it as "fringe". I would be more accommodating if you were a new user, Til, but you have been doing this literally for years, and you show no signs of a learning curve. Everyone is entitled to their "personal opinion". But your opinion will put you in a company. And you will be known by the company you keep. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That is quite possibly the most arrogant diatribe directed against other editors I have ever read on wikipedia, with some other comments you routinely make coming a close second. Whatever happened to "comment on edits, not the editor?" Doesn't seem to apply to you. I don't have any more time to waste on your obvious superiority complex and predilection for baiting and accusing everyone with whom you disagree, but neither will I ever acknowledge the pretended superiority you imagine you have over me, and I am no longer going to be baited into continuing this discussion where it doesn't belong since I have better things to do. What you are speaks enough for itself. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Refocusing on the content question: Assertions that the Biblical accounts of ancient Middle Eastern history are factually accurate are almost certainly fringe views. This is akin to stating that Homer's famous version of the Trojan War is a factually accurate recounting of history. Kernels of truth exist, but we must mainly rely on current mainstream scholarship to identify those portions (and to identify how they've been altered in the narrative) and most certainly should not take Biblical acocunts at face value. Jericho's walls are the prime example of the conquest: The walls did certainly fall, but the city was in area then prone to earthquakes and the city itself was a ghost town during the purported time of Joshua (or at least thus is general consensus of secular archaeology). In a similar vein, the overwhelming majority of scholarship sees a complete lack of evidence for the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. It is also important to note that modern archaeology generally considers the Iron Age Hebrews to be fundamentally Canaanite in language and culture even as late as five centuries after the supposed conquest (even extending into the time after the united monarchy is said to have split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel). Accounts with some considerable distance in time from this period are generally considered to have a greater foundation in historical fact, but are still usually regarded as heavily biased and edited versions of historical truth at best.

tl;dr version: Insisting that the Bible is an accurate representation of Iron Age history in the region is a fringe view. --Vassyana (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"the overwhelming majority of scholarship sees a complete lack of evidence for the Hebrew conquest of Canaan." That's the old circular argument appealing to the "overwhelming majority of scholarship" in a hotly disputed question, if it discounts an equally vast body of scholarship as "fringe" just because it does see solid historical evidence that Israel conquered Canaan and established a polity on their territory. We should acknowledge that there is a dispute among the scholars over the degree of accuracy or inaccuracy, but the most neutral path is always to describe what these positions are impartially, not officially marginalize one POV to endorse the other. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's nothing new, certain people have been trying to rewrite Israel completely out of the history books as much as possible, ever since it started. Never mind Egyptian propaganda, rest assured there are still people today who wish they could bring back the Imperial Romans' Damnatio memoriae that tried to efface the name of Judea following Bar Kokhba and rename it Palaestina. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's reminiscent of Finkelstein's being accused of anti-Semitism - I'd appreciate it if you'd make clear you aren't accusing any of us of anti-Semitism. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No Doug, I didn't accuse you or anyone else here, but what I said is still certainly true of bona fide Anti-Semites in the world (not anyone on wikipedia of course). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We agree on that but it seems irrelevant here. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Kambojas, again

We have Satbir Singh (talk · contribs), still merrily spamming us with his unspeakable Kamboja essays. I just discovered Komedes, but there are lots of others. I would be grateful if I wasn't the only one trying to contain this. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

René Warcollier

Evidently, all research on psychic powers this fellow did was completely successful and uncriticised. Who knew? Shoemaker's Holiday 11:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Precognition presents itself as entirely a real phenomena. Shoemaker's Holiday 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Pavel Stepanek was never, ever shown to be anything but a full-out psychic phenomenon.

Displacement (parapsychology) shows that if you guess wrongly in a trial, but would have guessed rightly if you had made that guess at some other time, that can be used as evidence of parapsychology too, and there is absolutely no problem with this, indeed, the article says it's a statistically proven phenomena.

...Ah, screw it. Just check the contributions of Rodgarton (talk · contribs). I caught him abusing sources horribly at Parapsychology, and simple requests afterwards like "You claim this paper on card guessing significantly advanced the field of statistics. Can you show it was ever cited in a non-parapsychological context?" were met with non sequiturs like "I don't need to prove it! It was published in a non-parapsychological journal, that's all that's necessary to show parapsychology advanced statistics!" and, later, "Other papers in that journal are cited." Copious personal attacks were also provided.

Rodgarton is pretty much the epitome of a POV-pushing single purpose account, and a thorough review is almost certainly necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ETA: Joseph Banks Rhine is pretty much an advertisement for parapsychology, start to finish - criticism is only mentioned briefly, and immediately belittled. This is the fellow Langmuir invented the term pathological science to describe the studies of. Shoemaker's Holiday 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Article on Warcollier leaves me asking: how is he notable? Seems to be yet another self-published fringe theorist who started a self-created foundation to make his "work" seem legitimate. Dime-a-dozen.Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think we have a situation where bio articles have been written on people who are well known within a narrow Fringe field, but are unheard of beyond it. If wider notablility can not be established, we should consider deletion. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I will support an AfD on those criteria but it may be an up-hill battle as there are cited references.Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I should mention the reason I was checking these articles is because their creator abuses sources horribly (for an analysis of one such section he wrote, and his increasingly irrational defenses, see the first big table at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1‎), and is purely a pro-Parapsychology SPA.. Shoemaker's Holiday 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well he has already started spreading about invective about pseudo-skeptics and I had to put a neutrality tag on a statistics article he edits so... understood.Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think an RFC or similar on him would help? He isn't really here to improve the encyclopedia. just to push his POV. Shoemaker's Holiday 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered something very interesting:

26 July, at Meta-analysis, he makes the following change

The claim he makes there is almost certainly false, see http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/12/579 - a comprehensive analysis of the history of metanalyses that makes no such claim, whereas his cite for the extraordinary claim is to a conference paper presented at a fringe theory conference - however, more interestingly, despite what he wrote there, he makes a very different, very much more inflated claim in Parapsychology:

Parapsychology, 11 August.

Same reference. Claim he knew was false. Bad. Faith. Editor. Let's ban him. Shoemaker's Holiday 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He also has made repeated personal attacks in talk pages, major violator of WP:CIVIL; this is rather annoying. The entire "pseudo-skeptic" lable he bandies about is just a concealed way of criticizing non-believers for questioning in-universe sources he provides supporting "PSI phenomena" (or as I would call it hoaxes, poor experiment design, pattern seeking behaviour and superstition).Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just what is a "pseudo-skeptic" anyway?... someone who is not skeptical enough? Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone who uses the cloak of skepticism to attack things they don't believe in, when objective skepticism would not have a problem with it. It's the methodology of many conspiracy theories. (Or at least that's my take on the word. We should have an entry at Wiktionary.)

However, in practice, a "pseudo-skeptic" is anyone who debunks something that I believe in. Since they fail to recognize the Truth, their skepticism must be false. kwami (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Kwamikagami basically hit the nail on the head; believers in this sort of hokum assume that a real skeptic would remain open to their theory and admit that a UFO was equally likely to a Sun Dog since it can not be known either way. Anybody who argues that although certainty can not be attained near certainty can be by the assumption that a parsimonious fitting solution (IE: a Sun Dog) is more likely than one that depends on extraneous entities must not be a real skeptic and thus they are a pseudo-skeptic.Simonm223 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

pseudoskeptic: someone who is skeptical more than enough, to the point of WP:COI.. for an encylopedic definition; Pseudoskeptic#Pseudoskepticism. Logos5557 (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fatima UFO Hypothesis

• The Fatima UFO Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jacques Vallée (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I redirected the UFO Hypothesis article to the article of its main proponent. "The Fatima UFO Hypothesis" article's citations were exclusively to proponents' books published by Anomalist Books and references that do not address the UFO theory. Thus, the article was highly inappropriate in the context of both "no original research" and notability. It served as little more than a soapbox to expound on proponent's views. The redirect was reversed by Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) with the edit summary of "redirect and virtual deletion done without discussion or good explanation". I have reinstated the redirect and left a message for Zacherystaylor explaining the problems with the article (User talk:Zacherystaylor#Fatima UFO Hypothesis, permalink). Additional eyes would be welcome on this topic. Also, did I take the correct action here? Is my rationale sound or lacking? Vassyana (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems sound to me. But, then, cleaning up the UFO fringe stuff on wikipedia is a stated goal for me so I may constitute a slightly biassed person to confirm from.Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) made an extensive and heartfelt plea to keep this article. Unfortunatly the internal logic actually made an extensive and heartfelt plea to keep this article. I have said I would support redirecting to The Miracle of the Sun rather than to the Jacques Vallée article if he would prefer that. Considering that he posted a huge block of text complaining we don't want to discuss the issue and then said he would not be responding to rebuttals for a while so I don't know... might be easier to just keep it at Jacques Vallée.Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After giving it some thought I'm going to be bold and swap the redirect to The Miracle of the Sun.Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

23 Enigma

AfD Open, interested parties may want to have a look.Simonm223 (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Cat naming controversy

A page created exclusively for the purpose of ethnic bickering among Turks, Armenians and Kurds, under the pretext of the name of a cat breed. The article didn't even bother to link to the article on the cat in question before I touched it. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be a whole heap of forks on this topic:

• Van Cat naming controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Van Kedisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Turkish Van (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Turkish Vankedisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Van cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a dab page)

Merging the whole shebang into a single neutral article would seem to be appropriate. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Bösch, H. (2004). Reanalyzing a meta-analysis on extra-sensory perception dating from 1940, the first comprehensive meta-analysis in the history of science. In S. Schmidt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, University of Vienna, (pp. 1-13)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution