Misplaced Pages

Huh? It's a quote from Herodotus. Saying that the article is one of the "worse" on wikipedia is totally unhelpful. If you want to improve it then please feel free to, however simply criticizing it without any actual advice won't help anyone. Wikidudeman 03:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman: what is so difficult to understand here? If it's Egyptology, cite Egyptological WP:RS. If it's archaeogenetics, cite genetics WP:RS. "Some afrocentrists" do not qualify as either, and their opinion is not of academic interest. There are academics discussing this afrocentrism thing, but these are sociologists, not Egyptologists. This is eerily parallel to Out of India: ideologists with no academic background call "discrimination by white imperialist academia", playing the race card until Egyptologists do feel compelled to explain why they are ignoring their "contributions" (because they have no merit). Look, if this was about editors insisting on organizing the Germanic peoples article along the pros and cons of Nordicism, I don't think we would be having this debate. If you can discuss the "Race of Ancient Egyptians" by referring to peer-reviewed Egyptological literature, please do that, but sprinkling the article with afrocentrist ideology and its debunking is precisely what we do not want, and what WP:FRINGE is built to prevent. --dab (𒁳) 07:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing unreliable as a secondary source as non-notable. The afrocentric scholars aren't reliable as secondary egyptological sources, but they ARE notable and can thus be used as primary sources. This means that the afrocentric views are notable enough to include information dedicated to their views and we can use their own assertions as primary sources to source what they have said. It's also worth mentioning that not all of the sources dealing with afrocentric views are by afrocentricists but are secondary sources from news organizations, etc. Wikidudeman 12:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, dude, did you read anything I wrote? Yes, Afrocentrists can be notable as primary sources, on the topic of Afrocentrism, but not Ancient Egypt. This is what I have been preaching all along. Now please go and take a good long look at WP:UNDUE. (some help, anyone?) --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, loud and clear, dbachmann, but since this particular article is on a subject outside the bounds of mainstream Egyptology and archaeogenetics, I'm a little confused as to how to apply the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE clauses judiciously. I think a case might be made for deleting the article in its entirety and merging content to another article like race pseudohistories where all the garbage about who is what race can be dumped including Nazi historionics, Noachian families, and evolutionary racial hierarchies. ScienceApologist 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

An article on Racial myths sounds like a good idea to me too, particularly considering all the other groups which have such myths. This would include the ones mentioned above, the controversy about the Ainu's relation to the Japanese ethnicity, and others as well. John Carter 14:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, this is what I am talking about. The article has no business to be in some undefined limbo "outside the bounds of mainstream Egyptology and archaeogenetics", not on Misplaced Pages it doesn't. At present, it is half about serious population history, and half about the most outrageous kookery, and it doesn't distinguish the two. This will not do, cases such as this is why we have this noticeboard, and we will not be done with this article until it is clearly split into one part that is academic, and one that is fringy-but-notable. The present situation is untenable: it is designed to confuse the reader. it is designed to give an academic spin to absolute kookery by conflating valid and invalid terms in the most irresponsible manner. And this is why it needs to be cleaned up and {{split}}. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we're in agreement, dab. Let's go in and separate out the two articles. I'll start the section on the split and defer to your editing expertise for naming/content suggestions. ScienceApologist 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be both about an explanation of the evidence for the appearance of the ancient Egyptians, their genetic relations, as well as controversies surrounding the appearance of them. I think that it would be impractical to split the article into other articles because what we would end up with are a few articles that are hanging out there naked and without context and without anyone willing to work on them. The best course is not to split the article but to understand it's topic, form it in a way that it's clear, understandable and informative. As far as making articles called Racial myths or race pseudohistories, what info would they include concerning the ancient Egyptians? Perhaps the Nordic Egypt, but is that really a "myth" or just simply fringe? What about the idea that ancient Egyptians were "black"? This really isn't a myth or a pseudohistory as there is serious debate and controversy about that topic and there were indeed what most westerners would call "black" ancient Egyptians, except they just weren't ethnic Egyptians. Wikidudeman 02:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the "black Egyptians" stuff is both pseudohistory and pseudoscience. And a lot is Fringe (although it is on the notable end of Fringe). I am not saying it all is, but a lot of it is. I see nothing wrong with labeling those theories that are pseudohistory/science as pseudo or Fringe theories as being Fringe. Blueboar 12:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

a cleaned up population history of Ancient Egypt would contain a discussion of the racial or phenotypical aspects of AE populations, within the scope of what can be sourced to academic literature. It would however not go into ideological issues of "Black pride", unscholarly polemics, and the topic of Afrocentrism. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose a split of this article. I agree with Wikidudeman. ~Jeeny 10:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you "oppose". That's apparently because you are unfamiliar with what Misplaced Pages even is. I do not find debate fruitful if one side refuses to acknowledge Misplaced Pages policies. As long as the afrocentrist editors refuse to submit to policy and address the article's issues with honesty, I have no interest in further debate. dab (𒁳) 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the title "Population history of ancient Egypt" would work. The article is supposed to be about the controversy surrounding the supposed race or ethnicity or "color" of the ancient indigenous Egyptians, not the population history of Egypt. The article needs to elaborate on the afrocentric controversies. Wikidudeman 15:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, there is no such controversy outside afrocentrist propaganda. Feel free to develop a separate Afrocentrist Egyptology article (sheesh, I've been advocating that for weeks). But stop pretending this has anything to do with academia. Bottom line, do one article on Afrocentrist Egyptology, focussing on whatever this is worth, and one about population history of Ancient Egypt, reflecting academic debate on the topic. dab (𒁳) 16:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Otherwise, why was Frank Snowden discussing what classical sources say about the Egyptians' skin color and appearance? Isn't that an academic source? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but one academic source does not mean that the general discussion is an academic one. Also, as has been noted elsewhere, some academics, like Cornel West, take positions which can occasionally be classified as being based on or substantially influenced by racial issues. Departments of "African American Studies" and the like further substantiate this thinking. Simply being an academic does not disqualify one from being part of a group or movement which extends beyond academia into the broader popular culture. In fact, I've always gotten the impression that "newer" social movements and schools of thought tend to be the breeding ground for many of the more publicly noted academic writers, and that the two are often fundamentally related. John Carter 17:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't agree with saying that Frank Snowden is a fringe source. He was writing in the '70s and '80s, and his work has been established as an authoritative source on race in the ancient world. If the "controversy" we're referring to is the question "were the ancient Egyptians black?" (or, "Was Cleopatra black?") then most of the discussion is outside academia. But the questions about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, their self-perception, their genetic relationship(s) to other populations, how they were perceived by other ethnic/national groups like the Israelites/Jews, Greeks, and Romans, are all questions that are dealt with in academic sources. Right now, I'm having trouble even figuring out what's under dispute, in part, I suppose, because the things that some people are saying doesn't match my impression of the scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling, based on what one of the editors said above, that the subject of the article is not intended to be what the ancient Egyptians actually were in terms of color/racial identity/whatever, but the controversy that exists today about the subject. If that is the case, then I think that it should probably be made a completely separate article, as most of what it would be discussing is at best peripherally related to the actual discussion of the color/... of the ancient Egyptians per se. And, unfortunately, having worked with a lot of religion articles here, good academics often are among the better sources for goofball theories. In fact, that seems to be how many of the goofball theories start. That isn't meant to impugn the character, integrity, or reliability of these individuals overall, but just saying that being respectable doesn't necessary mean that all their ideas are really good ones. John Carter 18:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, the Race of Ancient Egyptians article is supposed to be centered on the afrocentric fringe theories and pseudohistory/science stuff? That seems fair. I don't think anyone is arguing that such an article should not exist. (While many of the theories are fringe, the whole idea has certainly gained notariety, and thus these theories are notable). So what are the objections to creating Polulation history of Ancient Egypt that focuses on things from the scientific perspective? Blueboar 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If, as is said above, the article is supposed to be about the present controversy, then it would make sense to include the data about the factual "color" of the ancient Egyptians into a separate article. By conflating the two different subjects, what we are doing is implying to the average reader that the theories in the present controversy actually have any real bearing on what the color of the Egyptians actually was. There is quite a bit of content, not included in the article right now, which could and should be included in an article about the actual color of the old Egyptians. This would include such things as how different groups within populations develop over time, how separate populations develop separately and how the results of breeding between populations which had earlier been separated produce new variations, and on and on. Also, there are several facts which would probably be relevant to an article about the factual skin color/apparent racial grouping of the ancient Egyptians which are not currently included. According to Talk:Ramesses II#RED HAIR?, Ramessess II was a redhead. While this not specifically address the matter of skin color, it may well be relevant and important enough to the subject of the "color" of old Egyptians to be included, with some discussion. By trying to indicate that two separate subjects, the factual "color" of the ancient Egyptians and the current discussion of the same subject, both of which are seemingly notable enough for inclusion as separate articles, we are in fact stifling the development of the content regarding both subjects. Theories which have been put forward in enough separate sources qualify for articles on the basis of their own inherent notability, and the current controversy about this subject could certainly be thought to qualify for its own separate article. Having said that, many of these theories can be seen as not relating explicitly to the race of all ancient Egyptians, but only those specific ancient Egyptians we can produce evidence for, who may not have been what we might call "true" ancient Egpyptians. That is an entirely separate subject from what the actual color of "ancient Egyptians" was. There are also several other issues, such as whether Semites are "white" (whatever that means), which are completely irrelevant to the subject of what the actual "color" of the ancient Egyptians was but are inherently relevant to the current discussion. By attempting to shoehorn all these separate ideas and concepts into one article, I think what we are actually doing in some cases is giving those who already have preexisting biases about the subject reason to think they might be right, by trying to "hide what we don't want people to know". The best way available to us to help ensure that people will come to the most accurate conclusions about the subject is by presenting all the evidence, pro and con, for all the ideas discussed. This cannot be done in a single article. We already have several articles which discuss an existing "academic" POV, and there is no reason to think we couldn't do so here. All that is required is to state in the introduction that it is a minority POV. But, creating such articles also gives the opportunity to provide all the evidence to the contrary in a separate section, which cannot be done in a single article on the entire broader subject. WP:POV really only applies to editors pushing their own POV in an article. POVs on subjects in the "real world", if they meet notability requirements, as these do, are an entirely separate matter. John Carter 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Ramses II had red hair. Does anyone not realise that there is scientific evidence that hair color changes after death? And you cannot determine "race" on that alone? BTW, that wiki article on hair color needs a lot of work. ~Jeeny 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do realize that. Please read the section of the talk page linked to above. All that I was saying was that the factual matter of the "color" of the ancient Egyptians has a number of other facts, not currently included in the article, which would not be appropriate if the article is about the modern theories of the color. And no reference to the article about hair color was made or even implied in what I said. John Carter 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

All you were saying? Then state it in fewer words. I didn't read the whole thing, because of the huge clump of text. If you want someone to read that mess, then use breaks for easier reading. It's as bad as writing in all CAPS. I hope you don't write articles that way. ~Jeeny 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you believe that you are capable of responding to comments of others without reading them. Complicated subjects, as this one is, merit discussion of that complexity. In all honesty, that is more or less what this subject is. They cannot be reasonably turned into the 10 second sound bite. Manners apply here, as well. And, of course, I will follow the orders I was so politely given above. John Carter 12:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually quite a few reliable and notable scholars have gotten in on the discussion of the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians and what color their skin was, etc. See the sources in the actual article. Wikidudeman 00:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FFS, Wikidudeman, then why doesn't the article discuss the work of "reliable and notable scholars" and goes for this Diop character instead? Can we decide whether this article is even supposed to be on reliable scholarship, soon? and if so, clean out all the cranks? I have no objection of a discussion of AE ethnicity, as long as only academic sources are used. dab (𒁳) 13:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is "supposed" to be about the race (or ethnicity) of the ancient Egyptians and this includes controversy of the subject. There are both reliable figures and fringe figures who are notable as far as the subject goes and both need to be discussed. The afrocentric scholars need to be discussed, even if they are fringe simply because they are notable to the topic. No one is using them as sources of factual claims about the actual race of the ancient Egyptians. Wikidudeman 17:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article is supposed to be a serious discussion about the race or ethnicity of ancient Egyptians (as opposed to really being about the controversy over the afrocentric theories)... then there are serious Undue Weight issues to be considered in bringing up all these frings theories. At best, the fringe stuff would rate brief paragraph saying something like: "Recently, there has been some controversy due to various theories put forward by afrocentric authors such as (insert list of authors here)" followed by a very short synopsis of why what they say is controvercial.

If, on the other hand, the article is supposed to be about the controvercy, then I could see going into more detail on what these theories say (and much less detail as to the serious accademic/historical/scientific issues). But to mix the reliable stuff with the fringe stuff gives undue weight to the fringe stuff. Blueboar 18:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the user pages of Jeeny, Wikidudeman, and Taharka, there seems to me to be the very serious possibility that these three individuals may be, knowingly or unknowingly, ascribing greater importance to a theory which they may, as individuals, place greater importance on than is necessarily merited. The fact that Wikidudeman has changed his statement about what the intended scope of this article in his comments above certainly doesn't help make me think otherwise. I don't think violations of NPOV stop becoming violations simply because a group of people support it. I'm not however necessarily saying that is the case here. Certainly, presenting all the fringe theories about a given idea in a comparatively short article does give those theories undue weight, particularly when the facts themselves in this case are given as little space as they are. On this basis, I have every reason to believe that either the removal of a good deal of the content regarding the current fringe theories needs to be removed from the article, or the article needs to be split into separate articles on the facts themselves and the current theories. Otherwise, the article will continue to give undue weight to those fringe theories. I cannot see how the range of fringe theories can be discussed in the same article as the relevant facts without also giving those facts a significantly greater amount of content than they already have. John Carter 12:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's time we start over from the beginning and work together to improve the article whichever way is best. If that includes splitting it into another article then that's what we'll need to do. I've started a new post on the articles talk page to get a solid consensus for the actual name of the article. Once there is a consensus for the name of the article, I will then ask everyone to briefly describe how the article should be presented ideally, including splitting it nor not splitting it. Once that is done then we can start working on the article and doing what needs to be done to improve it. Wikidudeman 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Schechtman's "Fear Psychosis Theory" in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Hello all,

There's something of a low-key edit-war going on at Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus regarding the inclusion (or not) of a theory by Joseph Schechtman, a "historian" who has been discredited for grossly misquoting sources by the Author Erskine Childers (UN) (much in the same way Joan Peters who, interestingly enough, quotes Schechtman excessively, was unmasked by Norman Finkelstein). This was later acknowledged by the historian Stephen Glazer (Glazer, Steven. (Summer 1980) The Palestinian Exodus in 1948. Published by Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4.) and not refuted since.

The "theory" presented is called the Fear Psychosis Theory, which implies that Palestinians were so obsessed with there own atrocities towards Jews, that they developed a Psychosis (yep, you read that correctly, a mental disorder) that the same cruelty would be bestowed upon them in retaliation. The text used in the article is

This, in my opinion, qualifies as a fringe theory and should be removed. The most pertinent arguments are:

• The attribution of a mental disorder to an entire population as a "cause" for their exodus during a war.
• The claim "no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands" is provably false.
• The theory is not supported by other authors.
• Joseph Schechtman, according to his own Misplaced Pages entry, was the chairman of the Association of American Zionists-Revisionists, which later became part of the WZO, on whose executive committee he served until 1970, thus hardly an impartial commentator.

Schechtman's defenders in this article point out that while no other authors support his theory, he is nevertheless quoted. This is true, but in most cases he is quoted for other things (Morris, for instance, quotes him only for his analogies to the Muslim-Hindu transfer in 1947-8), to rip him to pieces (e.g. Glazer, Childers or Finkelstein).

This dispute regarding Schechtman has been going on for a while and seems to be headed towards a WP:RFAR. It would be nice to get some "professional" opinions here before it lands there.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 26.10.2007 06:18

P.S. You can follow the talk-page discussion here.

the question seems to be Proportional weight. As people will have seen the material--the theory, whatever its validity, has fairly widespread circulation-- there should be some mention of it. Give a sentence or two, and then the refutation. WP is not concerned with demonstrating the truth of the matter, just the views. DGG (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Assyria-Germany connection

It doesn't get any more fringy than that. No notability apparent, at all. dab (𒁳) 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It is about as far-fetched as the Hungarian-Sumer theory.--Berig 15:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Jiroft civilization

I've stumbled on this with suspicion in the past, and now, in the light of this review, it is clear that this article falls within the scope of this noticeboard. Extensive reviewing and rewriting needed. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Though not an expert, i have read through the review here--it was carried out in 2004--do you know if there are any later publications? I note in the WP article the section of "writing cites an article in Science "Andrew Lawler, Ancient Writing or Modern Fakery?, Science 3 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 588 - 589.", I have a copy, which I can send to anyone interested. from that and this, it seems obvious that this entire article needs to be rewritten in an altogether different manner. DGG (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

it's difficult to judge. Apparently important discoveries were made, but the excavators in their enthusiasm of having found an "ancient civilization" in the middle of the "Iranian homeland" went completely cranky for joy and began presenting fantastic dates and far-out claims. I imagine this topic is tied up in Iranian national mysticism, and we'll have to be aware of this when evaluating sources. dab (𒁳) 12:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Evp1.png listed for deletion

An image, Image:Evp1.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Thank you. ScienceApologist 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC) ScienceApologist 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Green fireballs

I think that Green fireballs may need some balance. Bubba73 (talk), 05:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does " Many Ufologists consider the green fireballs to be among the best documented examples of unidentified flying objects (UFOs)." (I think "many" refers to Lincoln LaPaz) or "everybody agreed they were a real phenomenon" -- that's just the lede, & it goes on similarly. Illustrated with a painting claimed to represent the object--a painting by Mrs. Lincoln LaPaz. DGG (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not awful but there are some statements that either need serious ref.s or to be removed. --Rocksanddirt 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked it yesterday before I listed it here, and it used to be a lot worse. I tried working it a couple of years ago and had no luck. Bubba73 (talk), 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Antireductionism

This article is awful. Adam Cuerden 23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also A Guide for the Perplexed. Adam Cuerden 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gracious. a complicated several paragraphs to say not very much. I tried to make it followable, at least in part. --Rocksanddirt 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note... Antireductionism probably isn't a fringe theory. It's a fairly common view among mainstream philosophers of science and philosophers doing metaphysics (in the academic, not new age, sense of 'metaphysics'). Fireplace 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But is what is here being described the same as the antireductionism used there? Adam Cuerden 09:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article discusses a topic better known as, and better covered at holism in science. And, yes, it's not quite a fringe theory - scientists including Ilya Prigogine and Murray Gell-Mann have advanced rigorous ideas that could fairly be described as antireductionist, and disciplines such as complexity theory are based on an antireductionist viewpoint. Still, the article itself is ugly and POV. I was especially amused by the quote about "psychiatric hubris". I suggest antireductionism be redirected to holism in science, and any usable material (it doesn't look like there's much, if any) be integrated into that article. Skinwalker 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I redirected it, but the creator reverted me. What now? Adam Cuerden 15:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked him to come over and talk about it. I really don't see how antireductionism and holism differ, but I'm willing to listen. Skinwalker 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

they may be fundamentally the same, but biologists do use antireductionism as the concept. I think of it as much more narrow than the general concept of holism. There could be more specific documentation there. A redirect is in my opinion much too limiting, and altogether too drastic a use of BOLD. DGG (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I've heard biologists use the term, but perhaps I've never understood the distinction between it and holism. What, specifically, is the difference between the two? Cheers, Skinwalker 18:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As for guide to the perplexed, I removed the final section which is pure speculation. Let's see if it sticks. DGG (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you arch-deletionists can explain your rationale for wishing to delete this article at this particular time. thanks Peter morrell 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We did give reasons: NPOV, unclear writing, and possible redundancy with a better article. Could you address my question instead of calling us names? What is the difference between antireductionism and holism? If they are not the same thing, then clearly there is no rationale for merging the articles - I just want to understand the distinction between the two. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

When you have answered my question I will explain why antireductionism is different from holism. Given that you do not know the difference speaks for itself: why are you even editing this article? which brings me back to my point - why now? why merge them? what is your motivation? You are certainly both arch-deletionlists; that is not name calling, it is an observation of fact. Peter morrell 19:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did, in fact, answer your question in my previous post:

"We did give reasons: NPOV, unclear writing, and possible redundancy with a better article."

So what's the difference between the two terms? Cheers, Skinwalker 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You can carry on like this if you wish but until you answer my questions it's a no go. Read what I wrote for example and answer the specific points. Thusfar you have not. Peter morrell 20:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine.

1. Why now? No time like the present. I poke around on this noticeboard from time to time and saw this discussion, and felt I had something to contribute.
2. Why merge them? Because, as I understood it originally, holism and antireductionism are synonyms. I have heard them used interchangeable in the context of systems dynamics and complex systems. As I saw it, this article verged on being a POV fork. I'm trying to get someone to explain the difference between the two terms to me - if they are different, then a merge is not appropriate.
3. What's my motivation? My motivations are upholding NPOV and making sure fringe topics are not given undue weight. Peter, you've made many good contributions in non-scientific articles, but your editing in areas of science and pseudoscience show a strong POV. You also seem unable to perceive this POV. You've started articles like antiscience, scientific imperialism, fragmentalism, antireductionism, and several others that are non-neutral, poorly cited, and largely represent original research and inappropriate synthesis. Experience has shown me that your edits in these areas need scrutiny.

Now, please, enlighten me as to the difference between antireductionism and holism, and I'll shut up. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for YOUR POV. If this is so then why was it Adam who made the action? however, in relation to the question, AR is really a suspicion on the part of many, esp in the social sciences, but also in portions of biology, that reductionism is too simplistic for adequately describing complex systems and processes and that it innately oversimplifies and thus distorts and misleads. Especially in ecology and weather systems for example. Such folks do not believe that reductionism inherently can generate the answers it promises: it can prove to be non-insightful. Holism by contrast believes that phenomena in general are best perceived as wholes rather than via analysis of parts. I agree these are close to each other but holism is probably the broader concept and I would say they are different precisely because both terms occur in academic discourse...which kind of justifies their separate inclusion here. Also I would say the AR article is much better than the other one which is very poorly ref'd and too generalised to be of much use. It looks like a rag bag mix of all sorts of odd stuff simply thrown together. I guess you will disagree. What attracts you to fringe theories as you like to call them? and why clean them up when embryogenesis and embryology cry out to be merged but I don't see you two banging on about that. BTW I am a zoologist by training so I disagree with your view of my understanding of what science is. If you do merge them then please merge them proper rather than deleting whole swathes of stuff. OK? cheers Peter morrell

...Peter, I'm studying zoology. How much actual training did you get? Adam Cuerden 20:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by actual training? I completed my degree and after a couple of years went into teaching mostly environmental science and ecology plus some bio and biochemistry and a lot of fieldwork and pollution studies type stuff, very enjoyable. More recently an MPhil in history. does that suffice? how is this relevant? I think my doubting view of some aspects of science stems from teaching about nuclear power and ecology which cannot be fully understood via reductionism; you have to look at social issues, politics and economics or at complex organism interactions--the wider picture--to get a grip of them both; apart from which scepticism of science claims is a good thing and in my case that flows from my study of sociology and philosophy for my MPhil which are core aspects for understanding historical processes. The world is not as black and white as science pretends and science is largely profit-driven sadly so you cannot separate the scientific view of life from these background realities of it as an enterprise. It is very largely a belief system little different from a religion. sorry I have rambled on. Peter morrell 21:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If the two of you want to argue on the basis of credentials, go find a more appropriate project. Keep your educational background for your user pages. We go by evidence here, not status, and we have to convince one another and reach some agreement. And, it doesnt depend on personal views. I may be myself very much of an extreme rationalist and reductionalist, but still know there's a different position. (or vice versa). I know there.

• I'm not sure about the sciences, but in mainstream academic philosophy, holism about science/physics/biology/scientific laws/etc and antireductionism about the same are generally used interchangeably. However, the holism in science article is poorly written and misses a lot of the major, mainstream academic points. I'd slap both articles with a cleanup tag and hope that an expert with plenty of time comes along to tackle them. Fireplace 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Should ghost lights merge to will o' the wisp? See Talk:ghost light. ScienceApologist 00:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Talk:Quackwatch#Request for Comments. Thanks. ScienceApologist 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoter of fringe theories at it again

Christos Papachristopoulos (AKA ChrysJazz (talk · contribs) or 77.49.178.72 (talk · contribs) is at it again, promoting his own philosophy (especially at articles related to Albert Camus). Prime examples: Nuclear Philosophy of Media and Mathemagics. An AfD established that the guy's bio was non-notable, so his philosophy definitely should not be here. Any advice on the quickest way to proceed to put a stop to all this would be greatly appreciated. --Folantin 10:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote for "speedy delete" as advertising, conflict of interest, and patent nonsense. Adam Cuerden 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I also blocked him. Adam Cuerden 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. This guy was never going to follow WP policy. --Folantin 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is his IP only temporarily blocked? -- Fyslee / talk 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs can be shared among a great number of users, so it's good practice not to indef block IPs except in extreme circumstances. Adam Cuerden 19:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. -- Fyslee / talk 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal infoboxes

There are a number of paranormal infoboxes:

• Template:Infobox Paranormalplaces
• Template:Infobox Paranormalcreatures
• Template:Infobox encounters
• Template:Infobox Paranormalevents
• Template:Infobox Paranormalterms

An interesting argument was put forth by another user at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon that these boxes might be serving as a runaround for WP:NPOV because they promote "in universe" definitions and classifications. What makes a place, creature, encounter, person, event, or term "paranormal"?

I'm not sure about this and so I am posting it here for input. Do infoboxes of these sorts serve to prevent verifiable and accurate framing of encyclopedic subjects? Should perhaps these infoboxes be deleted in the interest of preserving WP:NPOV?

ScienceApologist 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around, all of the infoboxes ensure the correct framing of a page. As per the Arbcom, explicitely describing something as being part of the paranormal immediately frames the topic and tells the reader everything that they need to know before they begin reading. You simply can't mistake something with any of these infoboxes for anything other than part of the paranormal. The framing is so blunt that it hits you right between the eyes the second that you look at the page. This actually preserves WP:NPOV, with one of these infoboxes there is absolutely no mistaking the topic for anything else.

In many cases, removing the infobox would actually be EXTREME POV PUSHING. For example, if I were to remove the paranormal terminology infobox from an entry about a disputed gravity phenomona relating to spooks or UFOs (etc) and were to replace it with a physics taxonomy box about gravity, I would be making the EXPLICIT statement that the disputed gravity phenomona was an accepted part of physic, or that it was at least based on physics. Even if I were to replace it with a disputed science taxonomy box (the closest thing that there is to the paranormal terminology box at present) I would still be implying that there was scientific rationale somewhere in the process. Both of which are clearly unacceptable. Even by removing the box altogether I would still be breaching Wikiregs by committing a WP:Point violation because I'd be removing valid information about the noun or phrase in popular culture because I disagreed with the place of the topic (that the noun or phrase was describing) in the natural order. I'd also be in breach of the recent Arbcom which stated that something that exists in belief is valid so long as it is framed correctly, regardless of the topics place in science.

perfectblue 10:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure. While not a huge fan of info boxes generally, I know that some people like them a lot. If the use of the boxes seems NPOV, or seems to create a "walled garden" atmosphere the use or text in the boxes should be examined closely, and maybe adjusted. I would rather not get rid of them altogether. --Rocksanddirt 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They are actually stated as being a highly desirable inclusion for FA status. Thus removing these infoboxes would more or less deny any paranormal entry, no matter how well written and NPOV the chance to reach FA status. I personally don't see how defining a noun or phrase would create a "Walled Garden", if users dispute the contents of a box then they can just put up a Fact tag and request citable evidence that the definition is accurate. For example, the word "Ghost" is in the dictionary, therefore it is verifiable as a real and existing noun. Do people claim that it's inclusion in the dictionary is POV pushing, no, then they claim isn't valid here either.

- perfectblue 10:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the user who brought forth this interesting argument. Example: the instruction for this infobox is vague and contradictory and seems based on a personal view of what's "really" paranormal:

"This infobox is for "real" terms and phenomenal only. It is only to be used whether said term/phenomona is verifiable to a notable source that is not a work of pure fiction (eg, nothing used only on Ghost Hunters and nothing that exists only in the X-files). "Real" refers only to the existence of the terminology, or to belief in the phenomona, not to the substance of what is being described."

Specific instructions for use of the Infobox appear designed to significantly bend NPOV/FRINGE policy:

"Definition: A PURE DICTIONARY DEFINITION. Avoid all words such as alleged, purported, so called etc) avoid attributions. This is a definition of the word, not a judgment on the validity of what it is describing."

- LuckyLouie 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are the contradictions? Real terminology only, no words from the X-files etc, must comply with Wikiregs. Besides, most of this is actually standard practice on Misplaced Pages has been part of the MOS for quite a while. Please see WP:WTA for further information it tells you to avoid all pejorative language. - perfectblue 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those are definitely problematic statements. The question is, what to do about them? I'm not sure that simply rewording those statements is a solution because the very way the infoboxes are set-up seem to encourage this kind of thinking. Even if the statements weren't as explicit, conceivably we could end up with people making such arguments just because the infoboxes are supposed to be explicitly about the "paranormal". ScienceApologist 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't twist things. A "real" term or phenomona is one that complies with WP:V and WP:RS. Real it's the opposite to Fiction or neologism. As was clearly stated underneath. I've changed the wording, your argument is now void. You may delete it if you wish. If you have an issue with the wording in an infobox, then that should be met at the article level. Deleting the template because you disagree with something that a third party has written in it would be a point violation. - perfectblue 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Being invited here by LuckyLouie, I'm concerned with this motion mainly because it does not make any sense. To remove templates related to commonly used paranormal terms and their accepted paranormal definitions would set the standard to eliminate templates for Occult topics because occult topics are not 'mainstream' enough - or templates for any number of subjects not generally related to science or the mainstream. I see no problem with Paranormal templates on paranormally framed subjects in light of accepted template practice here at Misplaced Pages. For an example of what the 'paranormal community' or 'world' or 'believers' or 'investigators' etc. use as paranormal terms see this - if that is a concern as I've seen on the EVP talk page. --Northmeister 01:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your argument of the slippery slope does not hold water. Like most religions, many, if not most, of the subjects of the "occult" deal with beliefs that do not claim direct observable consequences. For example, the Necronomicon, while not mainstream, does not deal with observable consequences and so is immune from this criticism. We are concerned here with topics that fall under the purview of (ostensibly) observable phenomena. That's the issue with the "paranormal". The very definition of the term is an assault on the mainstream, majority understanding of what an observation is. In contrast, most of the Occult topics are attempting to access something other than that, like an unobservable and intangible human soul or spirit world. ScienceApologist 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Belief is an observable phenomona and a noun such as "Ghost" is a definable term. your argument is void. You may delete it is you wish. Also, the recent Arbcom clearly stated that notably beliefs outside of the mainstream are valid for inclusion. - perfectblue 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the assault on the mainstream when the article is about the non-mainstream. Especially a topic science has little concern for. The boxes are guides on what the 'paranormal' field considers and don't try to convey any other meaning outside of that. --Northmeister 03:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This sentiment flies in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT in particular. ScienceApologist 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they do at all. Such an argument would weigh against all infoboxes related to subjects of concern. --Northmeister 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, ScienceApologist's arguments could be applied to any infoxobx or taxobox included on any controversial topic. It could also be used against any controversial category (anything mentioning homosexuality or race, for example, which amounts to censorship, which is against the Misplaced Pages ethos). I am also at a loss to understand how SA could object to a pure dictionary definition of a noun of phrase being included with a topic unless of course SA's issue was really with the topic and not with the definition, in which case the recent Arbcom has already struck down SA's argument (see layer cake decision) - perfectblue 10:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, your sentiment flies in the face of the recent Arbcom which stated clearly that topics which are notable but which are outside of the mainstream remain valid topics. - perfectblue 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the camp that doesn't like infoboxes in general. That said, these particular boxes are mostly used by WP:PARANORMAL, so if you're looking for input from the actual users of the boxes, or just another point of view, you might want to post a notice there. --Nealparr 05:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am seriously concerned that this discussion is even happening. As the creator of 75% of these info boxes I can clearly and unequivocally state that they were created for the purpose of providing basic definitions of what a term means or how a phenomena is described (even if a phenomona isn't actually real, it's still efinable). If users have a POV issue with their content then this should be dealt with at the article level, not at the template level. All of these templates are fully citable and comply with all WP regs.

I'm afraid that the removal of these boxes would constitute a WP:Point violation and would set a very bad president as it would in essence be saying that no Paranormal entry can ever have an infobox because the presence of an infobox would be POV pushing that the paranormal was real, when in fact all the presence of an infobox does is show that the term is definable on paper.

To answer some of the above questions

• Do "infoboxes of these sorts serve to prevent verifiable and accurate framing of encyclopedic subjects" - ScienceApologist

No. As per the recent Arbcom ruling, the infoboxes clearly display the word "Paranormal" thus providing full and accurate framing. A user can in no way mistake then for a scientific taxonomy box. What they do is they provide a pure definition explaining exactly what a term actually means and in what context it is being used.

Let me put this into context. The Paranormal terminology box was put in place to explain how a particular word or phrase should be used and in what context it is used, it also explains the origins of the word and its limitations of use. In essence, it is the purest form of encyclopedic content.

Template:Infobox Paranormalterms

• "Specific instructions for use of the Infobox appear designed to significantly bend NPOV/FRINGE policy" - LuckyLouie

I have changed this, your argument is now void, you may delete it if you wish. I however hold that all paranormal content must include a pure definition. For example while ghosts might be a controversial entities with no scientific verification, the word "ghost" is quite clearly a noun with a defined meaning and definition. The infobox defines the noun, not the entity.

perfectblue 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK let me get this straight, these infoboxes violate NPOV because they use the term "Paranormal"? that seems illogical, paranormal is a term comonly used within the scientific community when refering to something with no scientific confirmation. Another thing how does this present something from a "in universe" perspective? we are talking about material that is unconfirmed or unexplained not a fictional work. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Earlier this year an Arbcom actually that introducing something as being paranormal was effective framing. It also ruled 8-0 that a lot of paranormal terminology has the status of being a cultural artifact used to describe or define something in belief or culture, rather than in science, and thus it's inclusion or use cannot be POV pushing for the scientific existence of said terminology.

The same arbcom also ruled 8-1 that the aim of an entry about the paranormal is to inform the readers about the topic and the debate surrounding it, NOT to produce an entry that reaches a scientifically valid conclusion on the topic. Therefore it is valid to include a definition and a description of the terminology used in the topic or the event which is said to have occurred in the topic. Any disputed over the nature of this description or definition should be dealt with at the article level, not the template level.

In relation to the above, I will pose the question "Have any of these infoboxes been used with fictional terms?" if so then they should be removed. Whether in universe or out of universe, these infoboxes should only be used for verifiable real world terms. For example, if it was made up fo rthe X-files and exists only within the X-files, then it shouldn't use this infobox'

I already had a dispute with perfectblue about this subject on the Crop Circle page, so I won't repeat much of what I said there. In a nutshell, I think the presence of the infobox there is a severe breach of NPOV policy, since it asserts that crop circles are a paranormal phenomenon when all the evidence we have says they are made by humans. I think this is a good example of how the concept of "framing" can be abused to give the wrong impression. Sheffield Steel_stalk 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said back there, Misplaced Pages has two seperate types of box, the taxonomy box and the infobox. Only the taxonomy boxes assert legitimacy, infoboxes merely provide an overview of the topic in a particular context. For example, the page Batman has an infobox, but nobody would seriously consider that this POV pushed for batman being a real person. There's a superhero infobox on the superman page but nobody seriously considers this POV pushing for super heros being real, or for superpowers being real.

Besides, half of the infoboxes listed allow for it to be specifically stated that something has been debunked. If you are so concerned about this, wouldn't the logical answer be to ensure that all of them have this feature. For example, the paranormal creatures box has a status section where you can say who debunked it and when, while the paranormal terms box has one that allows you to add a custom field with debunking information in it.

Most boxes don't actually have the capacity to POV as they don't include anywhere for the POV pushing to take place. most simply contain definitions and descriptions which are all fully in compliance with the arb om by being labeled as being paranormal which tells the reader everythign that they need to know about the topic.

As for the crop circles, what, the box actually contained only basic and verifiable information that is not in dispute. For example that crop circles were made from bent or broken crops. What's POV pushing about that? It's not as if the infobox said "made by spooks and aliens" is it?

perfectblue 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes, like categories and images, are intended to provide additional context and handy links. They should not be used to represent or advance a controversial POV, and if there's a dispute, then the infobox should not be applied to that article until the dispute is resolved. MastCell 18:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that they are not being used to represent a POV in this case. The recent arbcom (see above for links) already determined that labeling something as being paranormal doesn't imply that the paranormal actually exists. For example, it determined that you can call somebody a psychic because the term psychic is a cultural epitaph, and thus doing so is not POV pushing that the psychic person actually has psychic powers, or that psychic are real anywhere other than in popular culture.

In fact, NOT labeling something as being paranormal would be POV pushing. If I went around and swapped all of the paranormal creatures infoboxes for zoology infoboxes, that would imply that the creatures are real, as it is they are all clearly and unambiguously labeled as being otherwise.

Let's say that you used the standard wiki-alternatives. That would mean that paranormal researchers' biographical information would have to be listed using the same boxes as scientist or academics, and that debunked cryptids would have to use the same boxes as real proven creatures, and that Ufology physics would use the same boxes as real physics. That would be a million times worse and I would be the first person on this board to change them. In fact that was one of the reasons why I created some of these infoboxes in the first place, to clearly and unambiguously label certain pages and to distinguish them from all else.

I find it contrary to logic that these boxes could be accused of claiming that the paranormal is scientifically valid when they in fact do all that they can to divide them from science and to provide an alternative to the existing scientific boxes.

perfectblue 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've recently come across (and added to) {{autism rights movement}} and {{autism cure movement}}. They may reflect POV and may be alternate sides of the same coin; I haven't read enough of the articles to sort it all out, but on the surface, they seem to fall into the same territory as this paranormal template discussion. Almost nothing in the autism rights movement template is cited, and many of the articles are unsourced essays or POV, so I'm also wondering about the best use of templates to possibly advance POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates are for ease of use. The Autism templates above simply direct persons to other articles in the same light. Nothing wrong with them. --Northmeister 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Capture bonding

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

Appears to be pseudoscience, much of it devoted to promoting the views of a single editor (User:Hkhenson, in real life Keith Henson). Has been the subject of much debate in the past, including an aborted attempt at mediation. I would welcome more opinions before taking this to AfD, and possibly recommending action against the editor. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The article could be nominated for AfD, perhaps some bits would eventually be merged into Stockholm syndrome, which is much more notable and seems to be the same thing.

Hkhenson is currently involved with you and I in a case at Arbcom. I suggest that any actions required against Hkhenson should be discussed at Arbcom, and that attempts to get sanctions placed elsewhere could be viewed as forum shopping. - Jehochman 15:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, isn't this amusing.

First to respond to Jehochman, the evolved capture bonding psychological mechanism is distinct from its symptom "Stockholm syndrome" the same way "fever" is distinct from the combination of diseases and physiological mechanisms that cause fevers.

I can't respond to Physchim62's accusation of an "aborted attempt at mediation" for legal reasons outside the scope of Misplaced Pages, but interested parties can probably figure them out. Physchim62 *might* be taking advantage of these limits placed on my ability to speak freely imposed by a corrupt judicial system.

The current version of capture-bonding had the evolutionary psychology section restored against my wishes. I happen to be an expert (publications, Google "keith henson" "capture-bonding") in this area who is being driven away from the Misplaced Pages by topic clueless editors and admins. The current version, for reasons described at the bottom of Talk:Capture_bonding is unacceptable. I *support* AfD of capture-bonding in its current form. People who are interested can use Google instead. Within the first page are pointers to several decent explanations.

Physchim62 has a lot of nerve going after after me for "pseudoscience" after supporting Sadi Carnot (reverting a ban). Sadi is perhaps the most impressive pseudoscience attack against Misplaced Pages on record. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop and other places such as Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Scientists_and_Experts You might be interested in this transplanted from Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot/Evidence#Physchim62_is_being_uncivil_among_other_thing

Physchim62, could you describe what Xerox sales or management techniques have in common with what the SLA did to Patty Hearst to induce capture-bonding? (". . . blindfolded, imprisoned in a narrow closet, and physically and sexually abused.") To the best of my knowledge there are none, but I have not been a customer of Xerox for a long time. Keith Henson 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually! Both depend on controlling the social interactions of the individual concerned. Only an explanation of this type will explain all of the phenomena which people try to associate with "capture-bonding". Physchim62 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62's Reply to Hkhenson

"Yes Keith, I consider your views to be pseudoscience and your actions in forcing them on Misplaced Pages, to the exclusion of other points of view, to be disruptive."

I happen to be an engineer by training rather than a scientist, but "pseudoscience" is an extremely serious charge Physchim62 is bringing against me. Unlike the situation with crackpot scientists, large number of people can die if engineers believe in pseudoscience.

I resent Physchim62 sticking me in the same bin as Sadi Carnot. On the subject of evolutionary psychology, I believe my views are essentially congruent with those of the major researchers in the field.

Or is Physchim62 claiming evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience?

Is Physchim62 qualified to judge my views? If not, has he asked a qualified person to judge them? (I don't think Physchim62 did much of a job judging Sadi Carnot's obvious pseudoscience.)

As for "forcing them on Misplaced Pages, to the exclusion of other points of view" that is another very serious accusation, the kind of accusation that leads to arbitration rulings. Is Physchim62 ready to provide evidence?

This isn't distracting from the discussion about dealing with reoccurring Sadi Carnot cases because admins who enable and reward such behavior (as Physchim62 did in capture-bonding) are a significant part of the problem.

After due consideration, Physchim62 are you certain you don't want to retract these accusation? Keith Henson 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Keith Henson 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Is there any source that's not by Keith Henson that uses the term "capture bonding"? I mean a reliable source, not . The sources that are by Keith Henson are published in sources like The Human Nature Review, which appears not to be peer reviewed. This article looks like a bunch of self-promoting pseudoscience to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sanity check, that was one of my reactions. I have decided to take this article to AfD, and so maybe further discussion can be placed HERE. Physchim62 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments requested

Comments anyone can make on my proposal here would be most appreciated. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gibbs Paradox

In Gibbs paradox, Lin Shukun has been adding massive amounts of material which references his own works. He seems to be applying information theory to thermodynamics. Given that Lin Shukun is self-published by the same publishing house that publishes Libb Thims (a.k.a. User:Sadi Carnot and User:Wavesmikey), and the historic misapplication of information theory to things like evolution, I'm skeptical. Will someone please check this out?Kww 14:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic claims, inappropriate tone at Battle of Saragarhi & related walled-garden

Battle of Saragarhi is a persuasive essay written to convince the reader that a last-stand siege involving 21 Sikh troopers is the most important battle in history, and possibly the greatest single event ever. The casualty figures given fail the laugh test (229 attackers killed per defender in a half-day battle with bolt action rifles), and many vital claims are unsourced or poorly sourced. The entire article may trace to a 1987 book by non-academics, filtered through various Indian Army fan-sites and self-published blogs. The sole clearly legitimate source is a Daily Telegraph article, but I seriously wonder whether it was written based on this Misplaced Pages article or some other unreliable source! Worst of all, the article is laced with nationalist hagiography and even racialist claims about the inherent ferocity of the Sikhs. There is also a smallish walled-garden of articles including Saragarhi Day and Havildar Ishar Singh which just replicate the main article, as well as some references in other, "normal" articles like Sikh which may need cleanup. There appears to be at least one editor threatening a revert war if anyone so much as questions this piece, so I'd appreciate some wider community input. <eleland/talkedits> 06:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to improve it a little bit. The 1:229 ratio is hard to believe, I admit, but this does seem to have been a freak incident, and we'll have to accept that's what the sources given state. dab (𒁳) 09:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and check a couple contemporary newspapers. Adam Cuerden 10:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

based on this, it appears the Thermopylae comparison is flawed after all. The 4,800 dead Afghans were the entire casualties of that day, presumably not only due to the 21 heroes at Saragarhi. There was notably a relief party of 93 led by Haughton, and who knows what else. Assuming 93+21 instead of just 21 already results in a ratio of 1:88 instead of 1:476. The calculation in any case appears to be WP:SYN. dab (𒁳) 10:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that the 4,800 figure refers to the entire campaign rather than the one battle. While it's true that the Telegraph piece quotes the 4,800 figure, many of the Internet sources have it around 200-450. And it's not entirely clear that the Telegraph was referring to the one battle, rather than the whole war. Obviously, one group is way off.

It's interesting that the 1911 Britannica article on the campaign makes no mention whatsoever of this battle, though. An oft-quoted anecdote has the British Parliament rising in standing ovation at hearing the news; surely the Hansard would record it? <eleland/talkedits> 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a professional army, particularly if it's defending a narrow area, can cause a massive amount of damage on an attacking unprofessional one. You see this sort of thing in accounts of Thermopylae and Plataea - Spartan society was almost totally militarized - and also in many of the battles of Wellington's Indian campaigns. Agincourt might be another relevant example. Just a note. Moreschi 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, "massive damage" meaning perhaps a ratio of kills of the order of 1:20, but hardly 1:200, not with bolt action rifles and bayonets. If they'd had machine guns or cannons, that would be a different story altogether. But seeing that we have an account emphasizing that a particular defender killed 20, I find it hard to believe that he was below his fellow defenders' average by a factor of 10. Either way, this article is in desperate need of reliable sources. The "Thermopylae effect" says you can immobilize a huge force, simply because it isn't possible for the large majority of attackers to even make contact with the defenders for reasons of space. It doesn't mean you can kill them all. dab (𒁳) 08:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the sources actually say the guy who killed 20 was locked in a high tower sniping at the Afghans, who couldn't break in and ultimately just burned the tower to the ground. The article had him charging into a crowd of Afghans with a sword, which doesn't make any sense. It's like an American action movie where the huge crowd of bad guys all charge one or two at a time, I guess? <eleland/talkedits> 16:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

This article is a constant problem. It describes a theory, or group of theories, that Jesus was not a historical person. This theory has absolutely no respect within modern academia, and is therefore a fringe theory. It had some scholarly impact in the early 20th century and it's currently espoused by several popular authors ("popular" meaning "non-academic" in this context), so it's notable enough for its own article. However, from time to time editors pop up and insist that it's not a fringe theory, despite the quotes in the article illustrating the low regard for the idea within academia. Input from outside parties would be helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My general take is not to argue the fringe/pseudoscience definition with folks but focus on keeping the article as clear and unambiguous as possible. If it is not clear from the article that this is an early 20th century fringe theory, the article needs work. --Rocksanddirt 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

indeed. this is another example of an article that only ever attracts attention from people enthusiastic about the topic. Hence the usual self-balancing effects do not come into play. I have had a hell of a time of even getting the point across that Christ as myth is a perfectly valid topic in itself completely unrelated to the historicity question. It simply isn't very enjoyable to discuss with people on a level where you need to point out that "mythology" isn't the antithesis of "historicity" and that it is perfectly unsurprising that a mythology attaches itself to historical characters (Charlemagne isn't unhistorical just because there are folk tales about him). Of course the whole edifice of "there is mythology -- hence Jesus cannot be historical" collapses as soon as you get this point across, so people are bound to make a great effort at Not Getting It. Ceterum censeo: the exact same mechanism is at play at Race of Ancient Egyptians and Afrocentrism. It is a disgrace that Misplaced Pages allows articles like that to state blatant bullshit for months on end just because the conspiracy theorists play dumb and keep playing the race card. Can people please put these articles on their watchlists and make an occasional effort at cutting down the worst bits? dab (𒁳) 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual warfare

and Category:Spiritual warfare. I have my doubts on the validity of these. Apparently pov-forks of Demonology and Exorcism, but the category strangely also has entries like Michael Harner, a New Age neo-shaman. --dab (𒁳) 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "Spiritual warfare" itself is valid enough, and worthy of discussion, probably in its own article. If advertisement-style New Age mysticism is accumulating around this article, however, it needs to be kept under very close watch. Confusingly, the Spiritual Warfare article contains no mention of jihad, which I would have thought to be a relevant concept. I also think that too much space is currently being devoted to modern evangelical movements. Needs much better referencing. Moreschi 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the term as term is certainly valid. But as far as I can see it is used in completely discrete meanings, among them synonymously with "exorcism". It this is the case, the title should be a disambiguation page, and the category should be depopulated. But I am not sure I got this correctly (and the article as it stands is little or no help). dab (𒁳) 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

French Revolution involved genocide

against Royalists in the Vendee region of Western France.

At the time of writing, the current version of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genocides_in_history&oldid=169877240 , while lengthy (WP: UNDUE), accurately portrays such views as "unconventional" and "minority". However, a couple of users have been waging an edit war to try and keep the claims of Secher and Chanu on an equal footing with that of the prevailing consensus amongst the relevant academic establishment. Please see talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Genocides_in_history - Ledenierhomme 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends how you define "genocide". IIRC the French Revolutionary government did carry out "populicide" (a description used at the time) with a campaign of systematic mass murder in the Vendée. The article seems to suffer the usual confusion about the term "genocide", i.e. is it a deliberate attempt to wipe out an entire race or ethnic group (in which case the clear-cut examples are the Armenian Genocide, the Jewish Holocaust and Rwanda 1994) or organised killings of a specific enemy group on a mass-scale which would constitute a "crime against humanity"? If the latter, then I think the Vendée massacres - in which over 100,000 people were killed, many by particularly nasty methods such as the noyades - qualify as "genocidal". I've certainly seen that adjective used by historians. I'd have to refresh my memory. But judging by the rest of the article, this isn't the only POV problem there. --Folantin 15:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the UN 1948 description of genoicide. "...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group". The "acts" are then listed, and can be summarised as killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, starving to death, sterilization, and forcible population transfer of the group's children. Not sure how helpful that is, but that seems to be the legal definition. Moreschi 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it all comes down to whether the nobility and upper classes count as a national, ethnic, or religious group. But it all seems rather quibbling about terminology to me. Adam Cuerden 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"I think that it all comes down to whether the nobility and upper classes count as a national, ethnic, or religious group". Eh? Most of the victims of the Vendée massacres were Catholic peasants (there was a religious dimension to these events). It was the biggest atrocity of the Revolution and its biggest irony: the revolutionaries ended up slaughtering the very people they claimed to represent (an irony repeated many times since, of course). Here's what General Westermann, one of those responsible for the Vendée campaign, said: "The Vendée is no more...I have buried it in the woods and marshes of Savenay... According to your orders, I have trampled their children beneath our horses' feet; I have massacred their women so they will no longer give birth to brigands. I do not have a prisoner to reproach me. I have exterminated them all. The roads are sown with corpses. At Savenay, brigands are arriving all the time claiming to surrender, and we are shooting them non-stop...Mercy is not a revolutionary sentiment" (Quoted by Norman Davies, A History of Europe, p.705). It's still a highly contentious topic, but in recent years it's been given more attention by historians. A lot of people died - maybe ten times more than were executed by guillotine. It does crop up in discussions about the definition and history of genocide (e.g. here ). But your second sentence is correct and there are many other things on that page to quibble with. This is one of those articles that's probably always destined to be a POV magnet and a battleground. --Folantin 09:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never actually studied the period, so presumed it referred to the more famous massacres. Adam Cuerden 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sack of Nineveh probably involved "genocide". The point is that the term is an anachronism. I do think we should avoid applying the term for pre-20th century events, or failing that, at least for pre-19th century ones. The French Revolution may be something like a borderline case, insofar as it marks the beginning of "political modernity", but I would recommend that if in doubt, avoid the term. It's a bit like "terrorism". It attracts trolling without yielding any sort of benefit. This is, incidentially, a question of terminology, not of "fringe theories" as such. Even "massacre" is preferable, that term being in use since the 16th century. dab (𒁳) 11:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's a question of terminology. Gracchus Babeuf's contemporary term populicide has never really caught on. Ironically, people at the time would be more likely to refer to the Vendée as an act of terrorism. I'm not planning to get involved because this type of page just has too many problems to be worth the effort. Still, not as bad as "Allegations of apartheid". --Folantin 11:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In an ideal world this is probably something we should actually delete, because despite the fact that there might be a half-decent article here somewhere in the very distant future, in practice, on a project like Misplaced Pages, that ain't going to happen - too many opportunities for a good fight. At the least, the sections on pre-20th century alleged "genoicides" should be vastly slimmed down per Dbachmann's reasoning and the focus put on universally acknowledged 20th-century genoicides (the Holocaust, Armenia), along with other 20th-century incidences of what some scholars have called genoicide, but which are disputed by others. Moreschi 13:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur with that sentiment, and recall that either on this page or on a similar "we suffered most" page there was a table, with tons of references, including the Holocaust, the Ukranian famine, and what not, but leading it off at the top was (to paraphrase) the simple words: Genocide-Flood; Perpetrator-God; Victims-All but eight. It was referenced to Genesis, and had stayed in for a while. I couldn't make up my mind if it was subversive or not. Relata refero 19:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

term-hijacking at Category:Traditionalism

I came across this highly suspect walled garden, Category:Traditionalism. What I can make of it so far is that there is a valid topic, Traditionalist School, surrounding some sort of occultist-neofascist-ethnocentric ideology. From that article, stuff spills over to

• Radical Traditionalism
• Perennial philosophy
• Sophia Perennis
• Study of Traditionalism
• Paleoconservatism (Category:Paleoconservatism!)
• Paleoconservative worldview
• Perennial psychology
• Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism

Apart from the familiar inflating of a minor topic across half a dozen articles, we get the problem of hijacking the term "Traditionalism" in the sense of this specific occultist/neo-nazi concept. I am trying to figure this one out, but I would welcome judicious input. This may or may not be related to the Integral thought stuff we have discussed earlier. dab (𒁳) 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is. Check out the history of Perennial psychology, which I've just redirected. Looked to be a blurb for the views of Ken Wilber, where I redirected it to. No prizes for guessing what Ken Wilber is all about. Integral thought. Here we go again...Moreschi 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

the mention of Wilber on that article is what made me suspect a connection. He remains however unmentioned on Perennial philosophy. I am not sure of the status of Paleoconservatism - this may be a valid topic that just fell victim to the "spillover". But the existence of a full Paleoconservative worldview besides Paleoconservatism seems to betray that the same inflationary "spillover" tactics are at work in this topic as well. What a mess. dab (𒁳) 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, I suppose Paleoconservatism is a valid topic of US politics, as a 1990s to 2000s counter-movement to neoconservatism within conservative discourse. WP coverage still appears frightfully inflated and contorted. Some insight may be gained from the conservapedia article. But this seems largely unrelated to the real "fringe" problems of Category:Traditionalism. dab (𒁳) 17:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, check out Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles Upton. Also, check out the language and "thoughts" expressed while comparing Sophia Perennis and Integral thought. It's the same concept of cross-cultural mish-mash of "universal truths". I agree that Paleoconservatism looks more valid than not, but the rest...blimey. Moreschi 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've rougely deleted Sophia Perennis. If you want a laugh I'll email you the deleted content. Serious trash, needs rewriting completely from scratch, if at all. Moreschi 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, I think you are overdoing it with the speedy-deletions. Remember, you can just blank articles, no admin buttons involved. I would see nothing wrong with blanking the article, but keeping the edit history available, and turning it into a disambig page along the lines of

Sophia Perennis may refer to

• perennial philosophy
• sanatana dharma
• Sophia Perennis Books

dab (𒁳) 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

True, a disambig would also work. Then again, is the publishing house notable? And speaking of publishing houses, what about World Wisdom? The awards list is impressive, but then all the awards are from independent publishing associations. Do we not require something a little more mainstream? Moreschi 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the general shape of this now, and have mostly fixed it. Traditionalist School was horribly dishonest about the situation. I've now provided the general framework, but the topic of course still needs much work. dab (𒁳) 11:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident Iran cover-up theory

A long section has been added to this article asserting a single, but sourced opinion that this incident wasn't actually an accident but an internal rebellion by US Air Force officers to preempt a possible nuclear strike on Iran. My concerns are whether the sources meet the notability guidelines, and if they do, whether the section is too long and gives undue weight to the theory and if it's written neutrally. Thank-you in advance for any perpective you might provide on the issue. Cla68 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether the conspiracy has merit or not is one thing, however the conspiracy takes up about half of the article and isn't properly formatted to begin with which to my eyes is undue weight considering the sources use the tested trial of "noted critics" and then linking to that on persons articles repeatedly as an indicator of a unified view other than one mans. –– Lid 14:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious violation of WP:UNDUE, this sort of stuff is made to be nuked. The military deliberately sending their own nukes off into the sunset just to say "fuck you" to the politicians...amusing, but no. Silly fringe stuff that can't be properly sourced, get rid of it. Moreschi 22:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There are precisely two sources claim any linkage, both carrying bylines of what appear to be fairly crusader-y investigative reporters. If not completely non-notable, the theory deserves at best a paragraphg, not the long involved discussion it gets now. Relata refero 19:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel people who testified before congress, counterterrorism experts, NSA analysts and investigative journalists are expert sources.

"Misplaced Pages articles must be based on reliable sources

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately."

For some reason investigative journalists who have won major awards exposing military/intelligence coverups, intelligence experts and military officials are not qualified to discuss issues of military, intelligence or coverups. You all are holding me to an absurd level of 'evidence'.

If my sources are too partisan I can understand why the article was deleted (luckily I saved it since I figured it would be deleted for being controversial). But I posted citations from the new yorker, counterterrorism experts, military officials, NSA analyists, people who have testified before congress and award winning investigative journalists with decades of experience.

Here are my source on topics of military, intelligence and investigative journalism.

Wayne Madsen - NSA analyst and ex-Navy intelligence officer who has testified before congress written for the Village Voice and Wired who has worked with congressman Bob Barr on privacy legislation.

Dave Lindorff - investigative journalist who has won a project censored award for exposing information on reinstatement of the draft, 30 years of experience in journalism, written for publications like the Nation and Counterpunch

Larry C. Johnson - counterterrorism expert and ex-CIA member

Dana Priest - Pulitzer prize winning intelligence and military expert for the Washington Post with over 20 years of experience. She won the prize for exposing information on secret US prisons.

Salon magazine

The New Yorker magazine

The Times (UK) magazine

these are reliable sources for military, intelligence or investigative journalism. What am I supposed to do? What more evidence do I need? Legitimate magazines, award winning journalists who expose intelligence/military coverups, intelligence officials and military officials are adequate sources for intelligence/military coverups.

As far as the fringe theory claim, there is merit there, I will grant that. Some of my sources do express a political bias. Is there any way to express this information (which I feel is important) while explainig that there may be a polticial bias to it? To claim that an encyclopedia entry that is 'only' based on pulitzer prize winning journalists, award winning investigative journalists, intelligence/military experts and well known magazines as unreliable is extremely false at best.

Dana Priest and Dave Lindorff have both won major awards for uncovering controversial facts involving intelligence and military actions. Lindorff for info on the draft, Priest for info on secret prisons.

Who is better at exposing controversial military/intelligence issues than award winning journalists who have won awards for doing that exact thing?

I feel these are prominent adherents. But due to the UNDUE issue I can see the controvery, no matter what the evidence. Should a new article be created that is solely devoted to this subject?

Jenkem

From a cursory glance, the article on jenkem looks like it needs attention for both WP:FRINGE issues and reliable sources. This has a strong whiff (pardon the pun) of an urban legend. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is part real, part urban legend, part internet meme, part OMG! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! type article. Jenkem is real and confirmed by the BBC and Children of Africa reliable/verifiable sources. That is where the real part ends, period. Internet meme and urban legend comes into play with the flux64 part. The OMG! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! part comes in when the media start using it as a "moral panic incitement" type article which takes a relatively minor and obscure "high" and turns it into the next drug of choice for teens. This article contains all three parts. I think the proposed split it a good one (real from the Internet Meme/OMG! PANIC! part). spryde | talk 14:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And I was bold and did the split. spryde | talk 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

This article has been tagged with {{Totally disputed}} for a year because it omits theories that the Spanish police were behind the bottom. In looking into this closer it turns out large chunks of the article have been in hidden comments since a February edit war. At a quick glance it appears to have been a "if my unsourced conspiracy text is not allowed then no unsourced text is allowed" sort of edit war. This is turning out to be more involved problem than I first thought it to be.--BirgitteSB 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the hidden stuff. Granted, it's not sourced, but that could be so easily fixed with an hour or so rootling around in newspaper archives. Appears reasonable material - certainly, without it, the article is horribly disjointed, whackily spaced, and annoyingly shite. Moreschi 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories WikiProject?

I do get the impression that there are a real mess of articles dealing with fringe theories. Maybe we could try to create a nominal Project for the purpose of dealing with these theories, something along the lines of the Rational Skepticism project. It would at least give the chance of creating an article list which could be monitored for changes. John Carter 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know....every subject has its fringe. I tend to think a notice board where folks check up on stuff and report stuff that seems odd is a more workable solution. but that's my original research and sythesis....;) --Rocksanddirt 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on the downside, every single encyclopedic subject would probably be of interest to such a group. On the upside, the idea is inherently neutral. It's not an anti-fringe project, just a project that watches the fringe (which could well be inclusive of members of the fringe). Antelan 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think there already is one, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative Views. I'm going to create an articles page for that project at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles and list all those articles which are listed on this page right now. Then, we can at least use the recent changes function which I'll add to the project page to keep updated on these articles. John Carter 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

there is also WikiProject Rational Skepticism -- sort of the same goal approached from the other end. While the Alternative Views seems to have the intention of pushing coverage of Fringe views as far as policy will allow, the Rational Skepticism one is trying to cut the crap and fix articles that tout fringe topics. I ask you, which is more needed in the real world? Do we have to worry more that a fringe topic will unduly remain unreported, or do we have to worry more that fringe topics will be unduly over-reported and given more credibility than they deserve? The answer is at Misplaced Pages:Sword-skeleton theory. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but the RS already had a separate article list. Trust me, I've worked on it. Having said that, I wouldn't mind perhaps seeing the Alternative Views project discuss whether it should or should not change its stated scope. And, at least for myself, I joined the project not so much to push fringe theories, but to try to find if there would be any way to perhaps create a place where content regarding fringe theories could be placed so as to not receive undue weight elsewhere, like in an article about a given book, for instance. Personally, I'd love to see the AV project changed to being the effective project equivalent of the noticeboard here, or maybe merged into another, similar project. But I don't think that right now the project has enough members with that inclination for it to be successful. John Carter 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

so, do you think there would be a point in merging RS and AV? This noticeboard could then be part of the resulting "Due Weight" project. We can also keep things as they are, but we need to prominently crosslink projects with overlapping scopes. dab (𒁳) 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging might be difficult, and probably would be down the line a bit. There is now, however, a proposal at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Due weight for the creation of a "parent" project for the various projects related to fringe theories and undue weight considerations. Certainly, in time the various child projects could be merged in if the parent is viable. John Carter 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

There's a fellow who keeps adding a POV-pushing coatrack about how awful Dawkins is. Never mind that the claims of deception were made by at least three people so far. Adam Cuerden 13:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

maybe someone could add more facts about the deception? such as the registration of the website prior to requests for interviews? The movie sounds dreadful, imo. --Rocksanddirt 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Lots of attempts to remove criticism from the lead. So far, they've tried to remove the bit about no molecules remaining in many common homeopathic dilutions, and set out Hahnemann's thoughts as if he was right. I'm off to class. Adam Cuerden 08:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any difference between having no criticism and being all criticism? In the first paragraph alone there were four instances of "Homeopaths contend......". Is this article about homeopathy or should it be retitled critcisms of homeopathy? David D. (Talk) 19:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with David D. The LEAD should summarize the subject. The criticism should be included in the main text of the article. Whig 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. It should stand as a mini-article such that one could read it and know the important outlines of the subject. The lead uses NPOV just like the rest of the article. There is no policy that says we revert to sympathetic point of view in the lead, while using NPOV elsewhere.

Therefore, if a subject has very notable criticism, the outline of that criticism must be in the lead. We do not believe in content forks on wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that criticims must be outlined in the lead. The fact that there is criticism should certaily be part of the lead, and I would agree that if that criticism can be summarized in one or two sentence in the lead we can and should do so. But I don't think it is a "must" to outline it in the lead. Blueboar 20:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On most subjects, there is no need for criticism in the lead because the criticisms are not a weighty part of the topic. Say, something like Calvin and Hobbes. Other subjects are almost defined by the reliably-sourced criticism about them, say Iraq War. (These are not perfect articles, but they were just some examples that cam to mind.) Homeopathy is the latter, and omitting all criticism from the lead would run afoul of NPOV. It must be included for this topic. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that "briefly describing notable controversies" is appropriate and in fact necessary in a good lead (per WP:LEAD). You can't accurately and neutrally summarize homeopathy without mentioning the fact that it's widely considered to be scientifically unfounded. I think David's point was simply that the lead may be going too far overboard and being solely critical. MastCell 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. I agree with all the criticisms. I am very cynical about homeopathy and all alternative medicine in general. However, I still see the current lead as over-the-top criticism and unbalanced in this sense. It's a common flaw I see in many controversial articles in wikipedia. There is no good reason to rebutt each and every claim in the following sentence. There is no good reason to use a phrase like "Homeopaths contend..." so often. It's incredibly tedious to read such repetition, it's also tedious to have the description of homoepathy broken up by continual rebuttals. Are we really so insecure that we cannot allow the opening paragraph to explain the principles of homeopathy in a flowing and interesting narrative? David D. (Talk) 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David D. and would point out that there are editors who seem to need all articles with either unproven or out right pseudoscience to be nothing but criticism, and resist all attempts make readable, verified, neutral articles. --Rocksanddirt 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I understand his point, I also agree. "Contend...contend...contend..." is a style that we don't even employ in articles recounting controversial religious experiences. It's very negative in tone, although the substance is essentially good. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree especially with David D. I wonder how generally it is considered pseudoscience, given that the mainstream sources which criticize it also say that it is widely used. The lead needs to have criticism, but needs to have a neutral tone. For example, more than one sentence stating categorically that it is in conflict with scientific knowledge is overkill. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of "contend" was an amicable solution to the previous use of "claim". A number of statements in the lead left the impression that they were proven fact, when that wasn't the case. Since an NPOV article and lead can't state untruths without some type of qualifier, or unproven claims as if they are facts, this was the best term that editors from both sides could agree upon, and, IIRC, that solution was proposed by a pro-homeopathy editor. It was a consensus solution and I would suggest that David D. read the earlier discussion on the talk page and then respect the consensus that ended an edit war. We don't need to start that edit war again.

Otherwise, the use of straw man arguments like "nothing but criticism" and "solely critical" are not helpful to a serious discussion, since that is certainly not the case. The salient points describing basic homeopathic theory and practice are told clearly in the lead and the criticisms likewise. That makes it an NPOV lead that sums up the whole article. The constant push for an article that tells about homeopathy only from the POV of homeopaths, while relegating criticisms to a small part of the article, is a plea for violation of weight and NPOV. Articles at Misplaced Pages are significantly different than articles on other websites. Here we tell "the whole story" about a subject, including opposing POV and controversies.

Misplaced Pages's "Law of Unintended Consequences" certainly applies here:

• If you write in Misplaced Pages about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing. Attempts to cover-up criticisms, keep them out of articles, whitewash the subject, etc. only end up causing the criticisms to be better sourced and strengthened. Right now this article covers the subject pretty well, but if necessary the appropriate weight that the scientific POV deserves could be improved. -- Fyslee / talk 00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. COI applies only where editing is not NPOV. Now, "Contend" is not a WP:WTA- though I intend to add it, as it is much like "Insist, maintain, protest" and is un-necessary because "argue" does just as well. But there is no reason for using it where "say" works just as well. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue of words to avoid, at least, should be easy to resolve. I've taken a shot at it. We can say that "homeopaths believe x and y" without making a judgement about whether x and y are true or scientifically valid. Instead of a somewhat tortured construction about how homeopaths "contend" the process works, we can just say that homeopathy "proposes to treat imbalances in a vital source". As to the proper amount of criticism to include in the lead, I have no opinion at this juncture. MastCell 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your change was good. Adam is currently making a lot of the changes, more or less, that he tried to block me for a week for making. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

People can change their minds if the argument is based on solid ground. A willingness to change an opinion is a good thing so let's see this progression in a positive light. David D. (Talk) 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT)

Rokus01 (talk · contribs) believes the Nordwestblock (viz., the Netherlands) is the "cradle of civilization", the origin of the "Nordic race", or something to that effect. He is quite difficult to figure out, since most of his contribution are intelligent and based on academic sources, but presented subtly out of context to appear to establish claims they do not in fact make. This needs close attention and judicious involvement, something I am not capable of doing right now, both due to RL tasks, and due to frustration over being painted a "rouge admin" over my efforts to combat the national mysticist fringe. Moreschi's Plague: WP is very badly equipped to deal with these things, and even shows signs of auto-immunity, with confused T-cells having at the few active ones instead of recognizing the infection. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That thing reads like an essay. I'll try to at least text edit the essay-ness down, but I won't have time for a while. I've got to do my IRL original research that I get paid for....--Rocksanddirt 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have some time ATM, and am willing to help Rokus01 get the article into shape. I think it's best to have him involved in the process rather than going over his head with reverts and commando-type edits. Of course, anyone with more experience and clout can jump in at any time if they see it as necessary. Just give us some time to work through the material and get it into something resembling an encyclopedia entry. Aryaman (☼) 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the first part discussion on the appropriate text style certainly needs to include Roksus01, whether some of the factual/verifiablity issues can be worked on with his input seems an open question. --Rocksanddirt 21:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. I am assuming good faith on his part, as well as his ability to accept views contrary to his own - especially on matters pertaining to policy. I often see experienced editors slap a few references to policy in a discussion thread just prior to going gung-ho with the undo-button without taking the time to explain what a particular policy is supposed to mean in the specific context. And this regularly leads to all kinds of trouble that no one needs to waste their time on. I think a combination of strict adherence to policy with clear explanations of the requirements those policies entail with regards to the actual article would go a long way towards diffusing potentially nasty situations. But, you're right. Time will tell in this particular case. Aryaman (☼) 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He's now written an entirely new page on what is apparently a fringe theory called the Broad Homeland hypothesis and attempted to rewrite Indo-European languages to push it (the Kurgan hypothesis article and its references make it clear its the predominant theory in this area). I cleaned up the latter, leaving the section he added but putting it in a more appropriate place; I'm not even sure it deserves its own section. Others please keep an eye on this. - Merzbow (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

this is getting worse. close supervision is necessary. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

Anyone taken a look at this article? Looks extremely suspect to me - unverified claims, theories presented as facts, original research, weasel words, logic errors, unreliable sources, biased point of view... Socrates2008 (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, by definition it appears to be an article on conspiracy theories. Similar to the Masonic consipracy theories article being discussed on WP:RS/N, some of the stuff in there is going to be pretty flaky. While the article's too long and there's a bit of OR-synth, there appear to be a reasonable number of references for the claims themselves. (Naturally, as in all such articles, the otherwise impressive list of references is padded with reliable sources that don't actually deal with the specific subject.) Relata refero (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you know Relata refero-it's not about the amount of the sources but about their reliability-which is very low in this specific case. For example, citing Yuval Aviv as a reliable source is quite far from being natural or standing in academic standards as his writing is widely considered, by experts, to be unreliable.--Gilisa (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do know Aviv's reputation, which was discussed widely even outside Israel at the time of the Spielberg movie, and I would doubt that he counts as anything close to a mainstream view for extensive inclusion in the main article on PA103. However, I imagine that he counts as a reliable source for "alternative theories", since his received a certain amount of publicity, and he was Pan Am's official investigator. Relata refero (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is a relevant extract from Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103:

"This article contains citations that do not support the statements, lacks citations for (disputed) facts, cites unreliable sources, presents conjecture as fact, has logic errors, contains weasel words, and does not present a balanced view of the subject matter. In short, a very dubious article for an encyclopedia. Socrates2008 (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"A pretty damning critique, Socrates2008! I agree with some of what you say but do not accept much of it, including the dubiety point. Here's a little bit of the history:

• two years ago, Pan Am Flight 103 had become an article of unwieldy length;
• three sections were split from the main article: Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial and Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103;
• the "alternative theories" section was moved verbatim to this new article along with the very few inline supporting references at the time. Although most statements in this section had originally been sourced (to a book, newspaper article) in the parent article, it was not obvious (to me who did most of the transfer) which statement related to which source; and,
• as the new article was expanded, inline references were of course added.

From a brief look at your tags, it seems that the following The Scotsman article provides many of the required citations: http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=184&id=1014782007 But if he didn't do it, who did? The other theories. (Incidentally, this Scotsman piece is quoted above as an example of media citing this Misplaced Pages article as a source!).Phase4 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)"

I find it very odd that Socrates2008 did not include this "fringe theory" notion in the catalogue of complaints about the article. If the convicted Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi succeeds in his upcoming second appeal and has the Lockerbie bombing conviction overturned, I believe that this "alternative theories" article is going to be required reading for UK and US government investigators, who will then have to find the real saboteurs of Pan Am Flight 103.Phase4 (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The article now has 62 inline references to primary sources and all the tags added by Socrates2008 have been removed.Phase4 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Relata refero, you wrote: " I do know Aviv's reputation, which was discussed widely even outside Israel at the time of the Spielberg movie ". I, however, didn't said nothing about Israel in connection with Aviv's reputation, and since it might be that I didn't understand your answer well-i.e. if their is any story behind this issue -please explain me so I would understand your meaning better and we can take the discussion further. Nonetheless, I did knew that his reputation was discussed outside Israel and any why, I think that there is a difference between well known source and a well established source-meaning reliable one, and Aviv's reputation should be mentioned any where he is cited as an authority--Gilisa (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, Aviv's Israeli, and is best known within Israel. He was noted outside Israel at the time his book was published, but was only really talked about when Munich came out. That is what I meant, and this is the second time I have to remind you that hypersensitivity in bold italics is never helpful for the atmosphere here. (I do know - and the WP article on him agrees - that he is considered less reliable within Israel than he is outside.) In any case, regardless of the geographical specifics, he is a valid source for an article on alternative theories, since he discussed one of the major ones, as Pan Am's chosen investigator. If you wish to claim that instead he is a primary source, and so should be used with caution, that's another matter. Relata refero (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Swastika

User:Bkobres has for some time now been trying to insert material in this and other articles relating to his personal theory that swastikas originated as representations of bird tracks or bird-gods. While it's perfectly reasonable to state that bird tracks may be represented in swastika-like forms (a "swastika" is a rather loose concept), Bob is now pushing a mini-essay in the lead, footnoted to keyword searches in Google Books which add any book that links the terms "swastika" and "bird" in a way that seems to support his theory. I think this is a clear case of WP:SYN and of Undue Weight. Comments on the talk page would be welcome. I have cut and pasted his mini-essay to the Talk:Swastika page. Paul B (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bkobres is an old regular. See also Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Comets_and_the_swastika_motif. dab (𒁳) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Astrology

Could use more eyes, especially from editors who reside in the physical world. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

/me watches Astrology article. Sheffield Steel_stalk 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo!#Shark finning controversy

A handful of IPs and new users appear to be POV-pushing to ensure that an issue regarding Yahoo's involvement in a company that enables shark finning gets added to the Yahoo! article's controversy section. Some seems to be POV original research - other parts of it might be ok. Just could use a third party review to ensure it is not too "fringe". --ZimZalaBim 03:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like they're giving undue weight to the issue (a short paragraph at the end of a long section of controversy) and the sources seem to be reliable and independent enough. No comment on the users including the material - highly motivated editors may yet be productive ones, and if there are conduct issues, they can be addressed. Just my 2 metasyntactic currency subdivisions. Sheffield Steel_stalk 06:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I actually did some cleanup to get it to its current state. --ZimZalaBim 14:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tired light

User:Harald88 continues to insist that certain extremely fringe publications that are only cited by the authors get included at tired light which was a proposal made by Fritz Zwicky o so many years ago and now has been consigned to the dustbin of history. As it is, these references look very much to me like soapboxing. I'm not sure if Harald is associated with Marmet, Masreliez , or Accardi, but he seems to be peculiarly convinced that their papers have relevance to physics beyond the astrophysics community where these cranks have received little to no recognition for their ideas. I would appreciate a third opinion on the matter as I cannot seem to get Harald to understand that these references do not belong in a legitimate encyclopedia. Thanks. Please comment at Talk:Tired light. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Immanuel Velikovsky

Please check the activity on Immanuel Velikovsky where a User:Icebear1946 seems intent on spamming for a particular fringe website of limited notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see Ages in Chaos for an article similarly fringe-y. Relata refero (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone still believe in Velikovsky? I know Stephen Jay Gould talked about him, but I always presumed he was now only of historical interest. Adam Cuerden 11:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd be amazed at the things people are willing to believe in. (Or maybe not.) Anyway, I gave Icebear1946 a spam4im warning. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)