Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:16, 1 May 2013

Archives

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

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

Ehrman 2012 book on existence of Jesus

Hello, there is a question about whether Bart Ehrman's recent book "Did Jesus Exist?" is sufficiently acceptable (i.e. not fringe) for inclusion in the article on Oral gospel traditions. Below is the complete citation:

• Ehrman (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-0622-0460-8.

May we have independent verification of its acceptance or a lack thereof? Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman is mainstream from what I have seen of him, and his work appears mainstream (with regards to history etc). What's the specific claim? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff of how the source was used to support article content before it was deleted. And here is the talk page discussion associated with its deletion. Ignocrates (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman went off the rails some years back when he started claiming that there were heinous transmission problems with scripture, a position which the mainstream roundly rejected. I would be hesitant to include his recent work at all, and certainly would never represent it as anything but his own position. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but my question relates to this specific book in the context of how it is being used as a source to support the article content that was deleted. The claims that are being advanced are (1) Christian oral traditions likely preceded and were concurrent with the written gospels, and (2) some of those oral traditions were transmitted in Aramaic. Hope this helps. Ignocrates (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to restate the question now that all the relevant facts are on the page: Is this specific source acceptable (i.e. not fringe) in the specific context it is being used in the article to support the content I detailed in the example? General statements aren't much help for resolving specific issues. Ignocrates (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, this specific source is acceptable in this specific context. I say this not having read the book but having read probably four of Ehrman's other books and having some familiarity with his standing as a scholar. As he's writing well within his area of expertise, as he has a solid publisher behind him, and as the paragraphs summarizing the work do not appear to be making unusual claims or fall outside of what I understand Ehrman to believe, I don't see where there is a problem. I expect others might disagree, but that's how we get to consensus.... Garamond Lethet
c 00:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I would think the view that Jesus did not exist would be the more controversial position, whereas Ehrman is advancing arguments to show that he did exist, based on a combination of oral and written sources. In any case, the relevant point within the context of this article is whether oral sources of tradition were used in early Christianity. Ignocrates (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is that Ehrman has taken to making claims which the rest of the field does not accept. He's a good expositor, so if someone else corroborated his thesis I would be OK with him; but I would be wary of using him as a sole source without checking him against others. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If the points sourced are, as Ignocrates claims "(1) Christian oral traditions likely preceded and were concurrent with the written gospels, and (2) some of those oral traditions were transmitted in Aramaic", then I don't see how these are even controversial. If he is also making more idiosyncratic claims, it should not be difficult to identify what they are as thety will have been noted by reviewers etc. Paul B (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I read the page, which at the moment is an almost utterly useless stub. The discussion on the talk pages seems quite bizarre. The paragraphs that were deleted diff were clumsy, for sure. They managed to combine banal truisms with uninformative generalities, but they could easily be improved. I realise that Erhman's "proto-orthodox" arguments have been challenged, but he is still a reliable source. I know of no evidence that any of his views enter WP:FRINGE territory. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman is the opposite of fringe - James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one book after the other published by Harper Collins, Oxford University Press, prize -winner, so on and on, it is hard to be any less fringe than that. Some may disagree with some of his views of course, but that does not make him fringe. I dispute Mangoe's statement that he went "off the rails some years back" and that the mainstream roundly rejects his views. His most recent book "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" was published last year by Oxford University Press, it is not possible to get much more mainstream that that.Smeat75 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Christianity considers Ehrman to be fringe. I'm not aware that outside this (large) fringe-group anybody else consider's Ehrman's scholarship to be dubious. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Eliyahu Comay

The article describes mainly the subject's alternate to the Standard Model of particle physics - in a most unbalanced tone. Associated articles seem to have been tampered with to give Comay's theories more credence: see vector meson dominance.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've cross-posted to WikiProject Physics. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

See also Proton spin crisis, vs. Nucleon spin structure. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 03:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Borderline case, I would suggest an AfD. a13ean (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agreed, no sign of notability, all primary sources (except for one seemingly SPS source) I put it up for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett and Jonathan Wright (physician)

These articles need eyes after recent editing. I've worked on Barrett's article but not on Jonathan Wright (physician) where besides a lot of tags I'm not happy about I also find some pov language, eg "Jonathan Wright (physician) eg "In August of the same year, Wright was fined $850 for court costs and fees," bceomes "Later that same year in August, Wright was only fined $850 to cover court costs" A quick link to the changes for Wright's article is . I note that Neuropsychiatry, which was already in need of attention, has had some changes also but I'm not sure that article is under the purview of this board. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted most of the changes that Pixie made, they were a disimprovement and had several independent issues (mistaken tags, removing details, editorializing etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Chico Xavier

Lengthy and highly detailed article just keeps getting bigger. Subject is a man considered by a majority of Brazilians as having the power to to talk to the dead. Lead is within policy, but the rest of the article is written from a highly sympathetic POV and citing only four sources (one of them Rottentomatoes.com). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree the article is in a bad shape, and much of it is unsourced. I have worked on many of the mediumship articles recently. If I have time I may help out on that one. Much of the unsourced original research should be deleted on that article IMO. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Melissa Farley

Melissa Farley is quoted in many articles as a accredited psychologist but is no longer is no longer accredited member of APA following Ethics violations over fraudulent fabricated research and there are many editors guarding article about her pet theories that quote her. This needs sorting out before these subject become laughing stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk • contribs)

The proper place for this notice is the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. At any rate, you will have to cite a notice from the APA, or a news item, saying that Farley has been dropped from APA's list. You cannot simply make the statement without supporting cite. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As posted on the talk page of that article, please provide a citation quickly or this will be taken to Misplaced Pages:Oversight. Incidentally, the APA is not a regulatory agency or organization and does not "accredit" psychologists. Location (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The burden of proof is to justify the claim that she is accredited by the APA, especially given she does not show on the member list: http://search.apa.org/search?limited=true&section=membership&query=Farley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk • contribs) 9:00, 23 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Responded on talk page. Location (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

While some people clearly believe her views to be extreme, this is not an issue for the Fringe theories board. She is a published academic. If her research is considered to be fraudulent that's soimething that only relevant academics and professional bodies can determine. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Moon-eyed people

I'm not sure this should have its own article but if it does then this one is pretty POV. Til has fixed a bit but more work is needed. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"They only came out at night to do their food gathering activities, as the sunlight of day time blinded them." Clearly they must have been Welsh. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the article was about Madoc, the editor's favorite subject, with sources that were poor through to rubbish. Academic sources are available, but it seems that this is another name for the Adena culture.. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. All of that stuff should just be dropped, or reduced to a very brief mention. In fact, it seems like a case for a redirect. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to all go back to a dubious 18th century source, see my comments on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a gross WP:SYNTH violation. It's positing (without reliable sources) that the moon-eyed people are the same people as the ancient white tribe. There's no evidence that this is a culturally important myth - I suggest we just nominate this article for deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've nominated this as an article for deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Cherokee

And unfortunately it's now in our article on the Cherokee. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I added it to the Cherokee article because it's patently obvious that it concerns the Cherokee, and you improved on it and expanded it. So what is unfortunate about it in your viewpoint, and why bring this up on a canvassing board? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Barton relays an extremely short communication from an Army officer - "The Cheerake tell us, that when they first arrived in the country which they inhabit, they found it possessed by certain "moon-eyed-people," who could not see in the day-time. These wretches they expelled." That's all that we are told about this group. Others added skin color, etc but those are just embellishments with no sources. Out of all the other things we could add to our Cherokee article, why add this one? It seems to me that WP:UNDUE covers this. It isn't as though it's clearly a genuine Cherokee legend - it's certainly not part of their folklore. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I just brought this up on Talk:Moon-eyed people. We've got literally hundreds of published sources on the Cherokee stating that it IS a Cherokee legend, up against ZERO published sources, but one wikipedian, arguing that it's NOT a Cherokee legend. So once again we will see if one wikipedian can defeat every source that's out there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This is more of the usual mythos of "white people were here before Columbus" sort of "ancient Injun legend say" nonsense that plagues many Native American articles. If you can provide peer-reviewed scholarship from respected historians who have thoroughly studied this, then discuss it at the talk page of the Cherokee article. Otherwise, leave it out. Montanabw 22:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And now it's in Cherokee mythology. "According to one Cherokee legend first attested in 1797, a "Moon-eyed people" had lived in the Cherokee regions when they arrived.<ref>Russell Thornton, 1992, ''The Cherokees: A Population History'', p. 9.</ref><ref>Barbara Mann, 2004, "The Greenville Treaty of 1795", in ''Enduring legacies: Native American treaties'', Bruce Johansen, ed., p. 137.</ref><ref>Vicki Rozema, 2007, ''Footsteps of the Cherokees'', p. 308.</ref><ref>''Southern anthropological society proceedings'' 1990, Issue 23, p. 197</ref><ref>Vincent H Gaddis, 1992, ''American Indian Myths'' p. 107.</ref><ref>''Encyclopedia of American Indian History'', 2008, p. 444.</ref>" Note 'first attested' but no clarification that it was only a a brief mention by an Army officer. Let's see some other 'attestations'. Let's see who actually calls it a legend - it isn't called a legend in 1797, so that bit is flat-out wrong, it's a label attached by Til. Let's see the quotes from these sources. For instance, "Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, 1990" - what does it say? I can find mention of moon-eyed people but no secure basis that it's a legend, nor any other source than the Army officer. Til, you've got to show us what these sources say if you want to keep them. Dougweller (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, it's not a label attached by Til, every last one of those scholars refers it as either a "Cherokee legend" or a "Cherokee tradition". The best place to reproduce direct quotes for proof will be at Talk:Moon-eyed people. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this the Vincent Gaddis source? Why in the world is this being used as an RS by Til? Til, it's up to you to show that your sources back your claim and that you've actually read them. And you added that to Cherokee mythology where I've reverted you. That you think Gaddis is a reliable source says a lot. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And it is not called a legend in 1797, which is where this all seems to originate. Can anyone find any other sources that discuss it as a legend explaining where it is found among the Cherokee? Cherokee sources for it? Anything that directly traces it to the Cherokee? Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Doug, every source that's ever been written on Cherokee legends mentions the Moon-eyed people as a Cherokee legend, and you and a couple of your fellow editors are the only ones who consider this illegitimate because of your novel argument that you are debuting on wikipedia, stigmatizing the earliest source as illegitimate, which no scholar has ever been foolish enough to do because every expert on the Cherokee knows it as a Cherokee legend. Unless you are going to stigmatize all Cherokee sources as equally suspect. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Again this impossible claim about every source on Cherokee legends. You may be right Til about the Cherokee calling it a legend or a myth of their people, but you haven't shown that yet and it certainly doesn't belong in Cherokee mythology so far as I can see. Let's see your Cherokee sources. It still looks to me as though Barton's informant is the source of this and he doesn't call it a legend. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I will show you what the scholarly sources say, one after the other after the other, but not on this page. Fringe theory is not the page for this, there has to be some restriction on just any random person saying "That's a fringe theory because I don't like it and therefore all the hundreds of scholarly sources discussing it are declared illegitimate by me." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It started out as a fringe bit about Welsh/white Indians, remember? And I note that the source you quoted at Talk:Moon-eyed people does not call the moon-eyed people a legend or myth, and is as you say just a passing mention. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And at the talk page he's added a state park plaque saying that they have legends about Madoc buiding forts, and says this was written by park historians and certainly implied it's a reliable source. That's clearly fringe. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Tourist signage is often promotional in nature and definitely does not count as a 'reliable source' for history. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources presented to date, and plenty of "ancient Indian legend" crap abounds in tourist land. WP:RS and WP:V prevail here. Montanabw 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with a "see also" link to the article, since the 18th century source links it to the Cherokee, but doesn't mention any of the Welsh/European theories. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'm just catching this. I think making a decision about this is going to require finding sources that discuss the "moon-eyed people" story in great detail. It sure seems to be something that may have been an actual Cherokee tradition in the 17th century that has been greatly influenced by the "Welsh Indians" and Madoc legends since that time - probably both among the Cherokee and non-Cherokee writing about them.--Cúchullain /c 14:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the question of whether this is an actual Cherokee legend or not is immaterial to whether this legend is notable. There are many inauthentic legends which are notable because they are famous or widely believed. My main concern here is that the Moon-Eyed people are little more than an item of trivia. None of the sources provided cover this topic in any detail, depth or rigor. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Til who has been providing sources that have from 2 words to a few sentences (and fail to meet his claim that all or virtually all writers call this a legend) now says there are chapters written on these people. Another editor at the AfD mentions 2 academic articles. We'll see.

There is probably enough to keep it from deletion, but not enough to link it as a truly authentic Cherokee legend (the Cherokee get all sorts of things attributed to them, correct or not) nor if there is even a scintilla to like it to Madoc, which is the point here. Montanabw 19:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The only chapter Til has identified is an ebook self-published by someone who also writes about starting nightclubs. Til didn't know about WP:SPS and now agrees we can't use it. It's probably notable, we just need to be careful how we label it and to keep the fringe stuff out. Note that Til wanted to use the book because it debunks the Madoc stuff, so we agree on that. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Sun and the Serpent

• The Sun and the Serpent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hamish Miller (dowser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just thought I'd drop this here so you folks can have a look if merited. §FreeRangeFrog 03:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Also edits to ley line by the same editor. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Those articles should be deleted they are not notable and contain no reliable references, by the looks of it the user who created them is also a troll using the words "groovy" and "dude" to describe the author/s in his articles. I think he is creating these articles for a joke. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The citations are good, but there's not enough depth of coverage to support separate articles for Paul A. Broadhurst, Hamish Miller (dowser) and The Sun and the Serpent. I'd redirect all those articles to Ley lines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Miller was notable enough to get an obituary in the Times, but that's about all I can get on him outside of Ley Land. I'm inclined to point the stuff back in the ley lines article as well. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

YDone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

But now being reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And based on this, the reverting editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, I think you need to take a chill pill and mellow out a bit. Some of us think greedy capitalism is bogus and being groovy, funky dudes is right on. What's to discuss? I ain't gonna disrupt nothing, and bum out your religion. That's called religious hatred man, which is really uncool and the reason the world's such a mess right now. Peace out. :) ۞TrippingHippy۞ 14:49, 15:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Obvious spoof/parody troll. Sent to AN/I. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Has now started a new page: St. Michael and St. Mary ley lines. Agricolae (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And I'm not convinced this is this editor's first rodeo. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The new article assumes one can "dowse" for ley lines, and ley lines were positively identified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I already toned it down a little but I don't know what to do with a complete article based on a (notable ?) concept admitted to be arrived at by "some process independent of the rational mind". Given that dowsing is nonsense and ley lines are nonsense, I don't see why one shouldn't be able to dowse for ley lines and I certainly don't expect there to be non-fringe criticism of this approach - what are they going to say, that you can't find ley lines by dowsing? That leaves it difficult to balance. Agricolae (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it's a bit more neutral after some copyedits, although I'm still not sure the ley lines described are actually notable enough to have their own article. This seems like just another attempt to publicize the accomplishments of Hamish Miller. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Moot, since TrippingHippy has been blocked as a sock. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't say this comes as a shock. Always came across as someone putting us on, but WP:AGF and all that. What do you think - can they still be SPEEDYed or do our own contributions while attempting to minimize the mess mean we must now go to AfD? Agricolae (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC

Nope, they're nuked. If anyone wants to recreate any of them they are welcome to do so if they follow our policies and guidelines. Feel free to revert any edits he (Bedson almost certainly) made. to existing articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Don't you think Misplaced Pages is better for having had a dozen articles on different genera of lice, each stating that "x refers to really small lice"? (and another thing, does any edit involving lice count as a minor edit, by definition?) Agricolae (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

History of spiritism

I suggest a redirect of this article History of spiritism to spiritism. The history of spiritism article contains no references and is mostly original research/fringe claims or some duplicate stuff of what is on the spiritism article. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be a "history of" article split off from the main article, which is not an unusual practice. However this particular fork article seems to be rather skimpy on actual "history" and heavy on uncited original research -- such as speculation about spiritism's differences with Christianity and other religions. You might want to trim out anything that's not "history" and see what's left that can be cited. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

I don't really know whether this issue belongs here or at the NOR or NPOV boards. Essentially an editor is claiming that there is a "feminist" viewpoint on the Taj Mahal that should be represented. I can't see any evidence that this feminist viewpoint exists outside of one non-notable piece of journalism. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Erotic target location error

Erotic target location error (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm going through the contributions of James Cantor (talk · contribs) after the closure of Sexology, and, in defiance of his pledge on his talk page to not edit in areas relating to the fringe theory of autogynephilia due to allegations of CoI, I have identified at least three articles of which he is the primary contributor, created in the last year:

• Gynandromorphophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Autoandrophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Erotic target location error (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One is at AfD, one was redirected, and the third is here. I'm rather concerned that Cantor created an article about a theory that was coined by his friend and colleague Ray Blanchard (who he says he is a "fan" of at Talk:Shemale/Archive 5), which appears partially to be a coatrack to push autogynephilia. I also note that Cantor also seems to be engaging in editing to attack opponents of theories he supports, which was brought up (but not actioned through deadlock) at the arbitration case. I'm unsure what to do here, as the arbitration case complicates things. However, I do think that the article could do with some combing through. Sceptre 19:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking purely personally, I have very little sympathy with these theories, but I'm not any kind of an expert. The people who propose them and publish them are, as far as I am aware, scholars with legitimate publications, though their views are highly contested. The outcome of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology was that Jokestress, James Cantor's principal antagonist, was topic banned, not James Cantor. The way you present this, you seem to be suggesting the opposite was the outcome. I know of no determination that these views fit the definition of WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of how the case ended, and I believe it was a massive error on the part of ArbCom. Sceptre 21:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Gynandromorphophilia has 11 sources, all quite reliable scholarly books and articles; more seem to be available.

Autoandrophilia has 5 sources, 4 of which are scholarly books or articles (and again, more exist) - but could definitely be merged as a section into androphilia or other pages.

Erotic target location error has 17 sources, 15 of which are scholarly and the remaining two are quite mainstream news publications (ditto).

I don't see how this meets the definition of WP:FRINGE. All of these are discussed seriously within mainstream publication outlets. I'm not sure why this is at the FTN. Are any of the sources misrepresented or otherwise inappropriate? These may not be widely-accepted concepts, they may not be popularly liked, but there does appear to be scholarly interest.

My position on the outcome of the arbitration hearing is quite obvious given my initial position and (now blanked) activity on the evidence pages. That being said, I don't know what action or comment is expected here. I don't know what policy or guideline is being breached. The redirected article was redirected by Sceptre, and gyandromorphophilia was nominated by Sceptre. I normally see the FTN as a place to address content, not behaviour, but these complaints seem to be primarily aimed at identifying a behavioural problem. Arbitration, which does focus more on behaviour, just concluded and essentially produced no restrictions on James Cantor's editing activities. The only policy I see being really relevant may be Misplaced Pages:FORUMSHOP. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

When we're talking about a search engine where "gender identity disorder" and "gender dysphoria" have about 37,000 results, 190 for "autoandrophilia" is not really a convincing argument. Many of the results given for the latter seem to be tangential, not-focused on gender identity, or actually give scant evidence for its existence. From Cantor's expansion of Autoandrophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), this is even admitted; the article says that "the concept has received much less attention than autogynephilia, its counterpart". Also, the citing of J. Michael Bailey, who is as reliable as Blanchard (i.e. not) on the subject of transgender pathology, is indeed worrying.

From what I can tell from doi:10.1080/15532739.2010.550766, Blanchard's preferred diagnostic criteria for transvestic fetishism (itself a controversial diagnosis) did not match those of WPATH, the accepted authority on transgender healthcare. Indeed, from what I can tell (from Conway), Blanchard isn't even a WPATH member, after he resigned in a huff over the TMWWBQ controversy. This also pushes towards seeing such concepts as fringe.

And on the subject of erotic target location error and gynandromorphophilia, the Google Books results for those are even scanter. Interestingly, makes very little mention of autogynephilia or gynandromorphophilia, and indeed, it seems he sees it as not part of transsexualism at all, but a different concept: a far cry from Blanchard. Also interesting is part of Lawrence's (a proponent of the typology) new book in which she pretty much confirms that "non-homosexual MtF"s (i.e. bisexual and lesbian trans women) are autogynephilic unless proved otherwise, which gives credence to the popular theory that autogynephilia as a homo/transphobic quackery masquerading as science. The same, IMO, can be also extended to Cantor's own theories on their face; I mean, really, "shemales"? Google Scholar results, by the way, don't give support to autogynephilia either.

For the sake of not opening old wounds, I've tried not to cite from the TMWWBQ-era sources. However, we can't isolate them entirely. I would like to point out, however, SPLC's report on Bailey, which raises worrying questions about the theory being artificially inflated in stature, mostly by a small cabal of unsavoury people (including the co-author of The Bell Curve and a far-right columnist).

I posted this here because I wanted the articles to be checked over by someone who has more journal access than I, although now I can see a good case for an ANI report too. Not only does WP:FRINGE seem to be violated in a systematic way over several years (and it's something that could take some time to correct), worse is that Cantor's personal pledge has been broken. I'm not privy to the details of why he made it, but I'm assuming that it's due to the fact he recognises his own conflict of interest, and also recognises the accusations of fringe editing in this area. In my mind, the second is worse, as it does seem to have been his only restraint from violating the first. Sceptre 07:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

But what do you want done? James Cantor didn't get topic banned by arbcom, so you want to try FTN instead? Or ANI? Or you want someone else to read and verify the sources apply? I find the former distasteful and indicative of personal distaste that I find irritating, but the latter reasonable. I get that lots of trans* persons find Cantor's, and many sexologists/psychologist/psychiatrists' views offensive or harmful - but the standard is whether there are reliable sources discussing the topic. Not personal offence. For instance, J. Michael Bailey is controversial and disliked - but still reliable. Misplaced Pages's readers are served by having discussions of controversy, not excision. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages reliable != Real world reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:69.244.220.253 (talk)

I'm not sure what that comment is meant to mean, but you are in the wrong place if you wish to question the reliability of a source - WP:RSN is the venue you want for that. Beyond that you're going to have to be more specific about what you mean. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd like FRINGE-checking of any articles related to autogynephilia, but these three are articles which could do with combing over in the meanwhile. I'm very worried with the reliance of these articles on a fringe pathology of transsexuality. Over the weekend, I was able to gain access to the International Journal of Transgenderism, volume 12, issue 2, its DSM-V special issue. doi:10.1080/15532739.2010.509215 and doi:10.1080/15532739.2010.509202 indicates that autogynephilia was rejected by WPATH's working groups due to a) lack of evidence of its validity, and doi:10.1080/15532739.2010.513928 also discusses autogynephilia unfavourably. Looking further into doi:10.1080/15532739.2010.550766, I note also another rejection of autogynephilia for insertion into the DSM-V, and also an implicit rejection of ETLE, again due to a lack of evidence of this validity. While, yes, I do recognise that the controversy is notable for an article, I have my concerns, especially given the above articles, that we are very much treating these concepts uncriticially. Sceptre 17:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject in general, but as I understand it this interpretation is somewhat controversial. There should be some concern, then, when Erotic target location error ends with the only stated criticism being dismissed as "ludicrous". Agricolae (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hoax article?

Could someone check on the historical existence of Rome, Maryland. I think this article may be perpetuating a conspiracy theory myth. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The current pope is doing an effective job of concealing all searches for anyone named "Francis Pope", but one of the cited sources does provide a key to unlock this. The Ovason book, which is otherwise a farrago of Masono-astrological, um, stuff, very helpful transcribes part of the original deed, which I repeat here: "Do hereby grant unto him the sd Francis Pope, a parcell of Land called Rome, lying on the East side of the Anacostine River Beginning at a marked Oak; standing by the River side, the bound Tree of Robert Troop, and running North up the River to breadth Two hundred perches to a bounded Oak standing at the mouth of a Bay or Inlett called Tiber" Two things may be noticed by local residents: first, that this a grant of property for a farm and not the establishing of a town. It is pretty typical for these properties to be named, and no doubt someone thought it fitting that Mr. Pope would reside at Rome. Second, and more importantly, this is the wrong side of the Anacostia River. But in fact the locations of all these old properties are very uncertain. The aforementioned Tiber Creek is actually located west of the Anacostia's mouth, roughly at the west end of Washington Channel, and this page claims that the creek was also east of Pope's property. In any case I have not found his land on the accompanying map.

The upshot, though, is that none of these sources says anything about a settlement or town named Rome. It looks to me as though the original author misconstrued the sources. I notice her talk page is almost entirely occupied with complaints about misuse of sources and questionable articles. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rome, Maryland is open for business. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

So we have an unreliable conspiracy theory source, supposedly quoting from what it says is the original deed... and then an editor taking what might have been the name of a farm and turning it into the name of a settlement or town? Do we have reliable corroboration that any of this is genuine? Is the farm, settlement, deed (etc) mentioned in any reliable history of Washington DC?

I have to admit that at first glance, the existence of a "Rome, Maryland" in the late 1600s seems plausible (given Maryland's Catholic origins)... however, the fact that the only verification for its existance comes from such an unreliable source (one that pushes an Anti-Masonic/Anti-Catholic conspiracy theory), I have to question it. Thanks for nominating it for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Just an update for the records... we now have reliable confirmation that a farm by the name of "Rome" did indeed exist in the late 1600s (and was located in what is today Washington, DC)... It was apparently located on the banks of Tiber Creek, and was adjacent to the "New Troy" tract (on which the US Capital was later built). In other words, the fringe conspiracy theorists have it wrong (surprise?)... there is no real association with "Rome" and the US Capital. The article has been edited to reflect reliable sources... and is still nominated for deletion - a plot of land that was adjacent to another plot of land (on which a notable building was later erected) really pushes the envelope of inherited notability. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the "fringe conspiracy theory"? I haven't seen anyone proposing any conspiracies about this around here, so I'm not sure just what you're tilting at. As far as notability, though, you've convinced me it probably should be merged to Tiber Creek so I will change my "keep" vote now to a "merge". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The theory is that the Jesuits were somehow behind the founding of the United States (and continue to secretly control the government). The theorists like to point to the fact that both Francis Pope and Daniel Carrol were Catholics (Carrol was - gasp - a bishop!!), and the "fact" that the land on which the US Capital Building now stands was originally called "Rome" as some sort of "proof" of their theory. Yes, I know it does not make a whole lot of sense... but conspiracy theory rarely does. It's the same flawed logic used by other conspiracy theorists when they look for "Masonic Symbolism" in the street plan of Washington DC and the dollar bill (as some sort of "proof" that the Masons are secretly running the government). The Jesuit conspiracy idea is fringe of the fringe... but there are those who believe it. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I see... These fringe theorists must be saying this somewhere on a different website then, since I have not found anyone saying it here with reference to the Rome farm in 17th century Maryland... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that the original author of our article was pretty sloppy in their use of sources, and wasn't concerned with the theory behind the source that was used. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... OK... Perhaps I was reading "between the lines" a bit... but the choice of sources is telling when you know the theory exists. Also, in it's previous state, the article gave an undue amount text discussing Daniel Carrol's Catholicism. While it did not state the Jesuit conspiracy theory outright, it was clearly referencing it.

In any case, the current version corrects all of that... so there is no longer any WP:FRINGE issue (even one reading "between the lines"). Now it's just a question of whether the farm is notable enough, as a historical property, for inclusion or not. That question can be dealt with at the AfD. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad in the Bible redux

This came up a few weeks ago. Checking back, it seems the small amount of good RS material in the article has now disappeared and a lot of new stuff added some of which seems distinctly ORish, though at least there now appears to be some sources. Alexbrn 06:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Distinctly ORish is an understatement. I just deleted the whole lot as OR and synth based on unreliable and primary sources. But it got reverted back. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychotronics

Psychotronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A badly-defined subject, needing attention from those familiar with fringe topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ideas popularized by fringe folks such as "Mind Justice" show up in this article from time to time. For example, John Norseen's statements about brain-mapping have been made to seem like they have something to do with psychotronics, which they don't. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The more I look into it, the less I'm convinced that 'psychotronics' actually means anything much at all - instead it seems to mean whatever it suits the person using the word to mean - technobabble of the worst kind. Anyway, we currently have an editor filling the article with more of the same, and I'd welcome more eyes on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately a new article Psychotronic weapons has been created that places undue weight on passing mention in an Information Operations text of reported Russian research and lifting the most sensational aspects of Sharon Weinberger's article out of context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a clear POV fork to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Note, a related disruption at Stalking on the subject of psychotronics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Predictably, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic weapons - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have also reverted similar material the same editor added to thought identification, and looking at his contribs led me to Electromagnetic weapon, which after a quick horrified scan I converted to a redirect. Yikes! Looie496 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Welcome to the conspiracy to suppress and censor the truth. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, this meme has been popping up every so often for years, most commonly in the mind control and brain–computer interface articles. I didn't realize it was creeping into so many other articles, though. Looie496 (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you go through the sources on Psychotronic weapons before you consider it a "sensationalization" of the Weinberger story. These things are sourced directly from the Russian Defense Minister, Putin himself, A U.S. Army publication, a Navy publication, and a textbook written with the NSA. You are either ignoring something obvious, or not reading the sources. Thanks for taking another look. Damonthesis (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have now filed a report at WP:ANI#Disruption by user:Damonthesis. Looie496 (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

HTMA Nutritional Balancing

Article has serious NPOV and OR issues. Thoughts? Jrsimmons (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at rectifying this. There's not a lot left. Searching JSTOR/Google Scholar for "hTMA Nutritional Balancing" didn't turn up any RS ... is an article on this subject merited? Alexbrn 12:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: this section was incorrectly deleted in this edit , claiming 'vandalism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Bmartinsen (talk · contribs), the user who deleted this discussion claiming that it was vandalism (and has done a similar thing on other occasions — see Andy's notice on his talk page) has undone all of Alex's edits, once again erroneously calling it vandalism. It seems that he is suffering from a serious case of WP:OWN; he's calling any edit to his original research "vandalism" and gives the editor a warning template. — Richard BB 15:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to AndyTheGrump -- Bmartinsen (talk · contribs) has in fact reviewed Wiki vandalism policy and his actions were based on his understanding of Wiki policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism. It should be understood that the edits bmartinsen removed were not constructive and they eliminated most of the articles content. This appears to be a malicious attack. It was instigated by an anonymous IP in AU. And the "fringe theories" hTMA section on this page was instigated by an anonymous Jrsimmons (who's page does not exist) for the explicit purpose of supporting a multi-edit onslaught and criticism of the original hTMA Nutritional Balancing page by Alexbrn. Alexbrn does not have the professional credentials in biochemistry and hTMA science necessary to support his editing actions, yet justifies the edits allegedly because of one search result at JSTOR/Google Scholar. While the original article is actually well referenced, objective, non-commercial and follows Wiki article development recommendations. http://en.wikipedia.org/HTMA_Nutritional_Balancing Bmartinsen (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS, and cut out the crap about 'professional credentials in biochemistry and hTMA science'. Misplaced Pages articles are based on published reliable sources,not on the self-proclaimed 'expertise' of contributors. If you wish to promote hTMA as a 'science', you will have to do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So anonymous Bmartinsen (whose page does not exist) complains that this article is being edited by "anonymous Jrsimmons (who's page does not exist)"? I see. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution