Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:05, 12 December 2007

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Recent systematic push of fringe theories at Satanic ritual abuse

First, let me apologize for the length of this posting. This case involves systematic and clever use of system-gaming tactics; you might call it a "stealth POV push". The fringe theories are couched in reasonable language and falsely attributed to credible people; generally the sources invovled are scientific papers which can't be accessed without access to a good research library. I suspect that if I had this access, I could be even more thorough; as it is, Google has enough evidence to expose what's going on here.

User:Biaothanatoi has embarked on an extensive rewrite of this article to conform with his interpretations of WP:NPOV and other policies. In some cases, this has entailed a welcome removal of overly prejudicual language or unencyclopedic presentation of information. However, these edits have also departed severely from WP:NPOV, and often involved original synthesis of source materials. In some cases, statements have been sourced to documents which simply do not make them, violating WP:V in the worst way.

Most seriously, he appears to have cribbed incredible claims from a paranoid-delusional SRA activist, then falsely attributed them to credible sources without having ever read these sources. To avoid making this a user conduct issue I have forked off that part to the article talk page.

Eleland, if you have reason to believe that the information provided in the article was false, then please demonstrate where and make the corrections accordingly. At the moment, you are engaging in purely ad hominen attacks and failing to engage constructively with the article to the benefit of the reader. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the first edits was an addition of information on the Jordan, Minnesota affair. While correctly noting that this case fell apart, the new version of events heavily distorts the issues. It leaves the reader to believe that a probable Satanic conspiracy escaped notice because of mistakes by the prosecutor, and was swept under the rug by state and federal authorities.

I have not made this claim regarding the Minnesota case, nor do I believe this to be the case. Please engage in this debate in good faith. At the moment, you seem to be attributing a range of beliefs and opinions to me that I have never indicated that I hold. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the first edits was an addition of information on the Jordan, Minnesota affair. While correctly noting that this case fell apart, the new version of events heavily distorts the issues. It leaves the reader to believe that a probable Satanic conspiracy escaped notice because of mistakes by the prosecutor, and was swept under the rug by state and federal authorities. In fact, the Supreme Court of the US later noted that "The injustice erroneous testimony can produce is evidenced by the tragic Scott County investigations of 1983-1984, which disrupted the lives of many (as far as we know) innocent people in the small town of Jordan, Minnesota. ... There is no doubt that some sexual abuse took place in Jordan; but there is no reason to believe it was as widespread as charged."

The State Attorney General's report notes that several individuals made false confessions under duress, or falsely incriminated others; one individual was found to be a serial child abuser (although no Satanic or ritual elements were substantiated) and another, a minor, was found to have assaulted his own siblings. It concluded that "The tragedy of Scott County goes beyond the inability to successfully prosecute individuals who may have committed child sexual abuse. Equally tragic is the possibility that some were unjustly accused and forced to endure long separations from their families...the City of Jordan should also be listed among the victims of the so-called sex-ring cases. Over sixty of its citizens were either charged with or suspected of abusing over one hundred children. State/federal investigators simply do not believe that accusations of such wide-spread abuse were accurate."

I feel that all the information you have provided here would be a valuable addition to the article. Why don’t you post it to the article, rather then claim that it's ommission is evidence of my nefarious agenda? --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The next major section rewrite erased an account of the McMartin Beach fiasco based on the majority understanding. Its keystone was an archaeological investigation financed by "true believer" parents, which alleged strong evidence of backfilled tunnels. The archaeoligical investigation ordered by the prosecution, which found no evidence of tunnels, was not mentioned, and it was added in argumentative style that "The significance and accuracy of these findings have been contested in psychological journals but have yet to be refuted by an archaeologist." Apparently it takes an archaeologist to conclude that it would be rather difficult to covertly backfill hundreds of cubic metres of tunnels under a crime scene.

The archeological excavations were undertaken by an UCLA archeologist, and tunnels were found in the configuration disclosed by the children. Dirt taken from the filled tunnels included lolly wrappings with used-by-dates from twenty years after the preschool was built.

To date, we know that an archeological excavation found tunnels under the McMartin preschool, that the tunnels matched the disclosures of the children, and that the tunnels had been backfilled at some point. I fail to see why this information should be withheld from the reader.

Unless you have proof that Dr Gary Stickel (the archeologist), Prof. Roland Summit and the parents of the complainant children engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to fabricate the tunnel findings, then it is clear to me that the tunnel findings are relevant to this article, and that they may be of interest to the reader.

Your argument otherwise presumes an elaborate conspiracy of which you have no proof, which seems like a 'fringe theory' all of your own. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The majority understanding of McMartin, which you can find in any media account or on law prof Douglas Linder's Famous Trials website, was painted as "an advertising campaign", "launched and paid for" by "attorneys for the defendants". Aside from various primary sources which are cherry-picked tendentiously, the sole source was an oral presentation by one Roland Summit, M.D., whom User:Biaothanatoi describes as "a world-renowned expert on child abuse" and " of the best-known names in child abuse research of the last thirty years." Summit is actually known for serving as a star expert witness for the McMarten prosecution, and for inventing something called "Child Abuse Accommodation Syndrome", which the SRA movement seized on as their silver bullet, but which he has since distanced himself from. Biaothanatoi also made much of his belief that the previous, skeptical sources, Paul and Shirley Eberle, are "pro-incest advocates" and "child pornographers"; in fact, they published a hippie sex magazine in 1970s LA which was subject to obsessive police investigation, resulting in no charges. Anyway, the Eberle's conclusions are substantially identical to the conclusions of most other sources, so even if their reliability were in tatters, it would not legitimize the rewrite.

I've provided two sources which quoted the LAPD and a trial judge affirming that the Eberles were engaged in the child sex trade in the 1970s. The fact that you continue to uphold their reputations in the face of this information, whilst slandering respected academics like David Finkelhor and Roland Summit, is deeply concerning, and your pejoraive references to an “SRA movement” and the “invention” of the CAAS shows your own profound bias and POV, Eleland. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Another edit removed the information that the SRA panic basically faded out through the 1990s, and removed a vital 1992 FBI report which basically trashed the concept of SRA in detail.

Lanning’s FBI report (which it is clear that you've never read) stated that ritual child sexual abuse does take place in what he calls ‘multi-dimensional child sex rings’, but that there was no evidence for a ‘Satanic conspiracy’ of any kind. I happen to agree with him. The only reason that the link to his report was removed was because his report doesn’t support the statement that was being attributed to him, and the report is over 15 years old now and of questionable relevance to the debate today. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In place, was a cobbling together of some selective data amid unsourced, prejudicial original-synthesis. "The most comprehensive survey on the subject" was cited, which "found that, among 2,709 members of the American Psychological Association who responded to a poll, one third of psychologists had encountered at least one client with a history of “ritualistic or religion-related” abuse, and over 90% believed their clients." I haven't obtained the full copy of this study, but right in the abstract it is noted that, "the purported evidence for the allegations ... is questionable. Most clients who allege ritual abuse are diagnosed as having multiple personality disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder, two increasingly popular, but controversial, diagnoses." The first paragraph goes on to call SRA "shocking and baffling claims" including "human sacrifice cannibalism" - detail that, elsewhere, the same editor removed as "designed to construe all allegations of ritual abuse as improbable".

I cited the research findings of Bottoms et. Al. accurately, Eleland. They chose to interpret their research findings in a certain way, but other academics have seen their research findings in a different light - see Noblitt and Perskin and their book "Cult and Ritual Abuse". Both Noblitt and Perskin document their clinical experience with patients disclosing a history of ritual abuse, and it may be of interest to you. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A book by Finkelhor and Williams was quoted, which found "270 substantiated cases of sexual abuse in daycare centres throughout America, of which 17% involved multiple perpetrators and 13% involved ritualistic elements". I found a hostile review of the book, which alleged that "Even if the case fell apart, was rejected by the police or prosecutors, or failed to bring a single conviction, the case was nonetheless a "substantiated" case as long as anyone still believed. 'If at least one of the local investigating agencies had decided that abuse had occurred ... then we considered the case substantiated.'" After a crude well-poisoning attack, on the basis that the review was published in a journal run by someone who three years later made comments which could have been interpreted as flattering towards paedophiles, and a boast that the book "contains a full chapter on the methodology of the study" (something already discussed in the linked review), I asked about the accuracy of the review and was told to go read the book myself.

You’ve never actually read the book that you profess to despise, Eleland, a fact that you readily admit.

The author is still one of the leading experts on child abuse in the States, and you are attempting to discredit his work on the basis of a single hostile review from an unknown GP published twenty years ago by an organisation founded by a pro-paedophile activist. Talk about poisoning the well. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

At one point, I noted a weasel-worded "view needing attribution", and proceeded to replace it with a quote from Mary de Young, a prominent (skeptical) researcher into the phenomenon. It was rapidly removed it, on the grounds that some other skeptics used some other terminology. I argued that "the skeptical view is, in fact, also the mainstream view. I'm aware of the burgeoning network of websites, message boards, and activist groups insisting that academia and the media got it all wrong, that SRA is really a widespread, highly organized network spanning the globe, etc. But this is a fringe theory which needs to be treated as such." I received no substantive response.

Your definition of “SRA” as a “widespread, highly organized network spanning the globe” is only one definition – and there are many others evident in the literature on SRA which take a much more balanced view. Claiming that everyone who believes in SRA believes in a global Satanic conspiracy is pejorative, unfounded, and directly contradicted by the literature.

I provided extensive citations of skeptics who disagree with de Young on attributing SRA to “moral panic”, and who instead believe that SRA is attributable to psychotherapeutic malpratice or even organic factors such as neurological disruption. You may agree with de Young's conclusions, but many skeptics do not, and treating de Young as ‘representative’ of the skeptical position simply because you like her (and can access her article via Google) is POV to me. It is better that the article reflect the diversity of skeptical positions on SRA. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The next edit implied that ritual abusers were being let off because trial rules required children to sit in chairs directly facing their tormentors, and that "the convictions of Cheryl and Violet Amirault for offences relating to ritual child sexual abuse were successfully appealed on the basis that two complainant children, aged 5 and 8, were permitted to angle their chairs away from the defendants." A Boston Herald article is cited. It is not mentioned that the issue of seating arrangements was a narrow legal tactic, and the real issues as reported in the media were "frenzied interrogations, the mad pleadings of interviewers exhorting children to tell, of the process by which small children were schooled in details of torments and sexual assaults supposedly inflicted on them in secret rooms-matters, the record of these interviews reveals, that the children clearly knew nothing about." (Wall Street Journal editorial).

The issue of seating arrangements is not a ‘narrow legal tactic’ – today it is a basic feature of child sexual assault trial reform. This would be clear to you if you were at all familiar at all with the legal literature on child sexual assault and legal reforms over the last twenty years. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It was also added that the McMartin case, mentioned above and widely regarded as a bizzare witch-hunt, caused authorities to "recognise the vulnerable and intimidated nature of complainant children in the justice system", a serious inversion of the record. As San Francisco Chronicle notes, "The McMartin preschool case in the mid-1980s was a kind of reverse watershed, she said. That case, in which hundreds of children made increasingly bizarre claims of abuse against the family owners and employers of a preschool in Manhattan Beach (Los Angeles County), eventually fell apart ... medical and legal professionals afterward embraced a more disciplined, cautious approach toward investigating sexual abuse."

That is a quote from ONE journalist, and there are quotes from court reporters at the time who sat in on the trial and commented on the fact that, for instance, young children were on the stand for up to two weeks, and that this was extremely distressing to them.

Today, such an ordeal would be considered to be a serious breach of the court’s duty of care to a child, which is why several states no longer permit children to be cross-examined in such a fashion.

In reviewing the conduct of a child sexual assault trial from twenty years ago, it is worthwile reflecting on the harms sustained by young children in hostile and rigorous cross-examination on sexual matters by adult defence lawyers. Such harms have been extensively documented in the research literature and they are now well recognised by the justice system.

I do not understand what value would be added to this article by withholding mention of the distress of the children in trial, as noted by court reporters at the time. It is verifiable information in accordance with the rules of Misplaced Pages. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing went on to add that "In the 1980's, children and adults with a life history of ritualistic abuse were presenting to healthcare providers with uncanny alterations to their consciousness, memories and identities," treating highly contested claims as objective fact, and sourcing it to an article by an M.D. However, the good doctor in fact stated that, "In the last ten years there have been increasing numbers of reports of ritual cult abuse in children and in adults, remarkably similar in detail ... Unfortunately there is still a dearth of both scientifically controlled studies or good investigative journalism." He went on to add his personal experience of some severely abused patients who responded poorly to treatment, speculating gently that satanic ritual abuse might offer some insight, but adding, "To be perfectly frank, many of us still have a great deal of difficulty accepting the reality of satanic cults...for us to believe that satanic, organized, ritual abuse does not occur, someone is going to have to offer us an explanation that is at least as credible as the eye witness accounts of our adult patients and the child patients of our colleagues...despite the fact that we have no evidence other than the walking evidence of our damaged patients, we do find it possible now to believe that they COULD exist. And to properly investigate this phenomenon we have to get it out of the realm of belief and into the realm of possibility while looking for proof."

It was also added that "Criticisms of MPD (now called Dissociative Identity Disorder) have largely died away following numerous research studies and meta-analyses confirming the construct validity of the diagnosis". Yet, the source is a paper which appears (abstract) to discuss the issue as an active controversy (title: "Three controversies about dissociative identity disorder").

Again, I don't believe that all of the edits involved are awful, and I wouldn't mind an expansion of POV's from the Satanic ritual abuse movement as long as they are attributed and balanced. But overall, the recent editing has been extremely damaging. <eleland/talkedits> 14:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the article appears to be in excellent hands with you, Eleland. --dab (𒁳) 06:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You've done wonderful work to date, Eleland. If you should want any specific help, however, I can try to do what I can. Please contact me directly if you have any specific concerns and or any specific requests for assistance, and I'll at least do what I can. John Carter 15:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Other issues apart, actually, I would say this article is more than a little US-centric. Do we really need all the case studies from all the different states? We've had plenty of allegations of SRA in Europe, for the most part largely later proved to be false, or at least wildly exaggerated. This seems under-explored. Moreschi 10:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement above "Most seriously, he appears to have cribbed incredible claims from a paranoid-delusional SRA activist, then falsely attributed them to credible sources without having ever read these sources." is made without proof or evidence. Furthermore, the actual factual accuracy of the SRA website has never been questioned or debated. The recent editing has added some needed balance to the article. In the actual SRA field, there are numerous peer reviewed articles citing the existence of SRA. This removes the belief of SRA from the category of a fringe theory. Abuse truth 02:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• To avoid making this a user conduct issue I have forked off that part to the article talk page. The gist of it is, Biothanatoi cited exactly the same articles in exactly the same format, letter-for-letter (almost byte-for-byte, except that she fixed the punctuation and used "smart quotes" in places.) <eleland/talkedits> 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Eleland has yet to contradict any of the information that I have added to the article. In a number of cases he indicates that information I have provided is accurate, but that including it in the article is POV - an unreasonable argument. His objections rest on a set of assumptions about who I am and why I am making the changes - assumptions for which he has no evidence other then his pejorative stereotypes about the "SRA industry" which he denounces above. His arguments are based on ad hominen attacks on me, my credibility, and my motivations, and they are therefore without substance.

The changes to this article have been made on the basis of my literature review which I have conducted over this year for my doctoral thesis, and they were drawn from three years of extensive research into both media and academic coverage of organised abuse over the last thirty years. I am currently sitting next to an entire filing cabinet of indexed journal articles on ritual abuse, organised abuse, and research into child pornography and child prostituiton, and a bookshelf of the same - written by both 'believers' and 'skeptics' alike.

In contrast, Eleland's criticisms are based on whatever he can access via Google, and on this basis he attempts to dismiss world-renowned experts that he is unfamiliar with and books he has never read. He accuses me of 'cherry-picking' when I've systematically read the popular and academic literature - a fact clear to anyone who reviews the many citations I've added to the SRA article - and he simply jumps onto webpages that support his pejorative opinions about the existence of an "SRA industry" etc.

Eleland, if you have new information about SRA that you'd like to add (for instance, the qutoes from the Minnesota case above) then please add them to the article. They are interesting and useful to the reader. Your opinions about me, and your conspiracy theories about an "SRA industry", are clearly biased and POV, and best left to yourself. In the future, I'd advise you to engage in debate on the SRA page in good faith and refrain from making presumptions about other editors simply because they disgree with you. --Biaothanatoi 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

it is well known that SRA is mostly in the hysterical imagination of religionists. There may be genuine cases, but in the spirit of "extraordinary claims need extraordinarily strong evidence", the burden of establishing cases of "real SRA" lies entirely on whoever wants to make the claim. dab (𒁳) 10:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing W is certainly enlightening, for I had no idea that people actually, seriously, still believed the claims. given that no clear physical evidence has every been found, that many of the accounts were blatantly fabulous, and that much research has shown the total susceptibility of children and adults to the interviewing tactics used, the possibility of their being real is best treated as a fringe position, not as something that has to be disproved. Not that child sex abuse isn't real--I know personally of hideous instances--but that the net result of the self-sustainng frenzy has made true prosecutions much more difficult. Well, there is nothing so absurd that people wont believe it in denial of evidence, so we have to cover that possibility too. Perhaps in a paragraph. DGG (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

it's just like 16th century sorcery. Of course "folk magic" was practiced, like everywhere else, but the witch scare was produced by the witch-hunters, not by witches. Nevertheless, I can believe that the very witch-hunt in some people inspired the belief that they were in fact part of a wider satanic underground movement. Which of course again fuelled the zeal of the hunters. The same happened with RSA in the 1980s to 1990s. What is really to be discussed is a classic case of mass hysteria. The article currently hides this basic circumstance behind babbling about "prevalence". Of course there were lots of "victims", just like there were lots of "victims" during the witch craze, and there are even a handful of bona fide perpretators, like the crazy grandparents from the Southern US showcased by the article. But that's beside the point. The article should make absolutely clear that it is about a mass hysteria that has now passed its peak before it descends into discussing anecdotes of grandma from hell. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous credible books and peer reviewed articles proving the existence of SRA. There are also many court cases with convictions for SRA. For the article to be accurate, these need to be presented.Abuse truth 02:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In his criticisms, Eleland uses the term "SRA industry" - a phrase which refers to a supposed network of professionals who inflate SRA claims in order to make money. Eleland clearly believes in a conspiracy of people who work together to fabricate outrageous allegations of child abuse for their own financial benefit. His hostile attitude towards myself, and others who do not discount allegations of SRA, suggests that he feels that I may be a member of this conspiracy.

I'm confused as to why Eleland's own conspiratorial beliefs are not an issue on this page, given it's focus. Eleland's beliefs meet all the criteria for a 'fringe theory'. The notion of an "SRA industry" was originally espoused by pro-incest advocate Dr Ralph Underwager and his wife Hollida Wakefield in their book "Return of the Furies", and expanded upon in the book "Victims of Memory" by Mark Pendergrast, who was accused by both his daughters of sexually abusing them. All of these authors are members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, an activist group of people accused of sexual abuse who promote a psychological syndrome ("False Memory Syndrome" that has been rejected by the psychological community on the basis that it has no construct validity.

In contrast to Eleland's conspiratorial beliefs, I don't believe in any conspiracy. I believe that some groups of people band together to abuse children, and some of these groups practice ritualistic torture and other sadomasochistic practices. This has been found to be true in numerous courts of law, police investigations and child protection investigations, and the harms of this form of abuse has been established in numerous research studies. I don't believe that these groups are part of an evil Satanic network (etc) but I understand that some (not all, but some) traumatised survivors feel otherwise - and some religious counsellors are inclined to believe this as well.

It seems that I am being held accountable for a 'fringe theory' that I don't beleive in. Meanwhile, Eleland has made it clear that he holds to a 'fringe theory' of his own - a conspiracy theory that attributes a nefarious agenda to anybody, such as me, that disagrees with him on this issue. I ask that editors here consider the false attributions that have been made to me (e.g. beliefs that I don't hold and never have) and consider instead the conspiratorial and extremist beliefs that Eleland is openly espousing. --Biaothanatoi 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you don't believe in "evil Satanic network", but I'd like a clarification. Did you post on Melbourne Indymedia under the user name Biaothanatoi that "an organised paedophile ring in Melbourne" which "must include cops, corporate & govt types", "is acting internationally ... and has particular reach within the intelligence sector", and is "not simply an organized criminal organization at its heart ... is a cult"? If so, when did you drop these beliefs, and what changed your mind? Are you active on a Canadian conspiracy website, where you have made the same claims, as well as made reference to your editing of Misplaced Pages and the SRA article in particular, and described ritual murders and psychological brainwashing in such detail that even your fellow conspiracy theorists were skeptical? I didn't want to bring this stuff up, because Misplaced Pages editors are judged on their editing, but if you're going to misrepresent your own beliefs I'm gonna call you on it. <eleland/talkedits> 03:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles you referred to are from a few years ago, and, yes, my opinion has changed over that period. At the time, I was trying to understand what was happening to a friend of mine, who was disclosing ongoing abuse by an organised group of men who had abused her as a child. I would later be confronted with material evidence of this abuse. My friends disclosures regarding her childhood abuse were corroborated by an investigative journalist (Gary Hughes) who published a number of articles in The Age in 2004 regarding apparent improprieties in police investigations of organised abuse, and a psychologist who was in contact with other women in the area alleging the same form of abuse, by the same people, in the same manner.

Unfortunately, much of the available material online is fairly conspiracy-minded, and that was my starting point. Over time, I was able to access and read the academic and research material on organised abuse and ritualistic abuse, hence my more balanced and informed opinion now.

I hope this clarifies your concerns that I am lying or misrepresenting my opinions here. That is not the case. --Biaothanatoi 06:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The McMartin Tunnels appear to be more hysteria Adam Cuerden 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof of the existence of tunnels -

The Dark Tunnels of McMartin Dr. Roland C. Summit Journal of Psychohistory 21 (4) Spring 1994 The pattern of tunnels conformed to the architecture of the overlying building but had absolutely no purpose or conformity to expected trenching for foundations or utilities. In fact, the profile of the shallow trench dug to accommodate the waste pipe leading across the main tunnel (Joanie's reach-up- and-touch pipe) was clearly distinguishable as mechanically dug, showing the sharp angulation characteristic of a backhoe, whereas the tunnels had a rounded floor contour and shovel marks, showing that they had been dug by hand, presumably under the pre-existing concrete. The stainless steel pipe clamps joining an angle of the pipe where it crossed through the tunnel space had a different quality from clamps elsewhere which had remained buried since installation. The other clamps were corroded from years of soil contact, while those crossing the tunnel looked shiny and new.

PAIDIKA INTERVIEW: HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD AND RALPH UNDERWAGER Part I Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. . . . Paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will. --Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika, a European pro-pedophile publication.

Messing With Our Minds (5/98) Written by HUSAYN AL-KURDI A quiet but brutal war is being waged on the victims of child abuse, including sexual and even ritual abuse. The battlefields include academia, the courts, professional groups, and society in general. In some cases, the aggressors are the same people accused of perpetuating the violence. They've banded together, forming networks and support groups, most notably the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), which discounts recollections of abuse recovered in later years, making survivors look like complainers and trauma therapists sound like quacks....Ralph Underwager, an early member of the group's (FMSF) professional advisory board, let the pedophile agenda slip when he told British reporters that, according to so-called "scientific evidence," 60 percent of all women who were molested as children believed the experience was "good for them." Both he and another advisory board member, Holida Wakefield, have publicly described pedophilia as a positive lifestyle choice.Abuse truth 01:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh. You're about to be labeled a pedophile apologist; IPT is associated with Ralph Underwager, who once made comments in a Dutch pedophile magazine which were interpreted as pro-pedophile. According to Biaothanatoi, this makes anyone remotely associated with him, anyone who uses the same terminology as him, or anyone who takes their coffee the same way as him a pedo. Including you and me. <eleland/talkedits> 04:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke. I have never called you a 'pedo' or insinuated that anybody associated with the IPT is a 'pedo'. And for Adam's information, Underwager claimed that paedophilia should be decriminalised, that sex with young boys was "loving and intimimate", and that 60% of women who had been sexually abused enjoyed it. If you want more information, you can find it on the SRA discussion page. I've posted the sources there. --Biaothanatoi 06:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It has come to my attention that Eleland was the initial author of the Satanic Ritual Abuse page, which may go some way to explaining his zealous defence of the material. Eleland, I've answered your questions above in some detail. Perhaps you could answer mine.

Eleland, do you believe that there exists a network of people (the "SRA industry") who have conspired to fabricate outrageous allegations of sexual abuse in order to trap innocent people?

This is the conspiracy theory advanced by child pornographers, Paul and Shirley Eberle, in their book "The Abuse of Innocence", whom Eleland quoted in his original article, and he has since gone on to defend the Eberles despite the fact that their activities in the child sex trade have been noted by both the LAPD and a trial judge.

The theory of the Eberles (and, apparently, Eleland) that allegations of SRA are mostly, or wholly, the fabrication of a secret conspiracy of people who seek financial and professional benefit from trapping innocent people in allegations of sexual abuse is a conspiratorial 'fringe theory' by any definition. There is no evidence to support such a theory and it is a belief directly attributable to two authors who believed in 'benign paedophilia' and who have distributed pictures of children having sex with adults.

Please, Eleland, I've let you know what I think and why. Why don't you do us the same courtesy? --Biaothanatoi 06:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

sigh, where has Eleland ever supported a claim that there is a "conspiracy" fabricating SRA evidence? A mass hysteria or moral panic isn't the same as a conspiracy. How is saying that claims that there is a Satanic conspiracy are deluded equivalent to postulating that there is a counter-conspiracy? There is no bleeding conspiracy. The long and short of it is that the USA is full of uneducated hysterical religionists. No conspiracy required to account for that. dab (𒁳) 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, can you tell me where I've used the term "SRA industry"? I can't find it anywhere on the SRA article talk page, and you've used it six times here but I haven't used it once. I have mentioned an SRA movement and SRA "true believers", but this is my own insight, and I didn't need the Eberles or anyone else to tell me about it. By the way, I of course do not claim any special rights or ownership over the SRA article, and you'll notice that I've hardly edited at all in the last several months.

Anyway, the idea that there's a "secret conspiracy" invovled is laughable. Clearly, those who believe in SRA want to tell everyone they can about it. Their conferences are open to the public and their literature is widely distributed. While a few people like Roland Summit may profit from their books, speaking tours, etc, I'm sure that they sincerely and genuinely believe everything they are saying. (The same applies to people like Underwager who used to turn a handsome profit as an expert witness for the defense in child abuse cases.) Indeed, even in the cases where people have lied or fabricated evidence to convict alleged SR-abusers (such as the McMartin parents who attempted to plant "sacrificed" turtle corpses on the crime scene), I'm sure they only did it because they were convinced that the abuse was real, but needed a little extra help to be proven in court.

A moral panic, as Dbachmann has rightly stated, is not the same as a conspiracy. If anything, it's the opposite of a conspiracy. A conspiracy involves a tight-knit group of people secretly following a conscious, rational plan. A moral panic involves a large number of people publicly buying into an irrational hysteria. A conspiracy is entered into for some profit or gain; the vast majority of those involved in the SRA scare have suffered greatly because of it.

And stop talking about Underwager and the Eberles. You've ridden that hobby horse into the ground. We heard you the first twelve times, now please get off your soapbox. <eleland/talkedits> 20:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You used the phrase "SRA industry" in the original draft of the SRA article, now deleted. If you want me to answer to a few articles I wrote two years ago, then surely you can do the same. It's clear that you have read the Eberles (after all, you cited them) and been deeply influenced by their argument, despite their history and repution. I'll stop mentioning that history when you stop defending them and their crackpot conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, Ralph Underwager's publications through his institute-of-one "Institute of Psychological Therapies" continue to be quoted at me by editors who are ignorant of his history and reputation. I would be thrilled to not have to mention his revolting beliefs about sex with children one more time, if only Misplaced Pages editors didn't rely on him so heavily.

As for Summitt, he has never published a book on ritual abuse - his research is more broadly focused on the psychological adaptations that children make in abusive environments. His beliefs about SRA are far more informed and balanced then you bother to give him credit for - but then again, you insult him without knowing who he is, or bothering to read his work. Since neither Summitt nor I dismiss allegations of SRA out of hand, you presume that we must be members of a hysterical "SRA industry", and you attack us accordingly.

I look forward to the day when you are able to engage in this discussion in good faith, and focus on the material in the article rather then attacking the person who made the changes. --Biaothanatoi 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

it has become clear that Biaothanatoi ("violent deaths"?) is here to advocate a conspiracy theory. dab (𒁳) 08:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

no. eleland looks fairly overzealous throughout this whole affair. maybe we should obsessively google his name until we find some old message board posts and see what they say. So far all I'm seeing is a focus on character attack from eleland, and a focus on research and attempted research by biaothanatoi. 66.220.110.83 00:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm stunned by this interchange and how poorly it casts wikipedia. First, I know next to nothing about SRA and am of the popular opinion that it is probably largely a cultural fabrication. However, the attacks on Biaothanatoi are absurd. First, the meaning of his handle is a moot point. Second, he has made clear time and again that he is not advancing a conspiracy theory, rather the opposite in my opinion. So what gives? The guy is clearly trying to add another angle on a controversial topic and he is using reputable sources to do so. Furthermore, he has offered transparency here about the fact that his own views have evolved over time and with better research. Yet opponents here are using pretty dubious sources themselves. For example, the link which proves the McMartin Tunnels are "hysteria" is from an organization founded by someone, Ralph Underwager who, at the very least, has a well-documented checkered past that casts doubt on his intentions and more importantly represents the attempt of a psychologist to disprove an archaeological report. What in the world are people so afraid of here? I seriously do not get it. I'm not even making changes to the page, so please don't call me a conspiracy theorist, etc. But this back and forth speaks for itself. Why in the world is the WP community so resistant to any form of information which credibly argues for the existence of Repressed Memory and/or organized crime related to child sexual abuse? Clearly there are activists on both sides here, but come on, what gives? West world 03:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

how does any of this "cast wikipedia poorly"? This is just an editing dispute like any other. Did you somehow imagine that neutral articles write themselves magically, without friction? This is the hairy process that leads to a smooth article. The internet is a madhouse. Look what happened to Usenet. The WP community is "resistant", that is, skeptical, with good reason. Needless to say, "pro-hysteria" sources need to be met with the same skepticism, but it seems perfectly clear that the "hysteria" characterization has mainstream support, and that the "Satanist conspiracy" people are trying hand-waving tactics to somehow present the case as less clear than it is. "Skepticism" does not include second-guessing an author's private motivations based on his biography. In extends exclusively to questions of WP:RS, i.e. the respectability of the publication in question, and its critical reception. --dab (𒁳) 09:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But with all due respect, are you actually suggesting that "mainstream support" is analogous to good information? There is mainstream support for alot of junk science. And I am not guessing the author in question's motivations based on his "biography," I am doing so based on published interviews and oft-cited examples of his writing that checker his professional past. Further, to believe in the existence of Sadistic Ritual Abuse based on reputable evidence is not, by any stretch, equivalent to believing in a Satanist Conspiracy. West world 10:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

that's nonsense. Misplaced Pages is built to reflect academic mainstream, we simply have no other measure. Inasmuch as you can cite "reputable evidence", you're fine. If you cannot cite "reputable evidence", too bad, it's not for Misplaced Pages. dab (𒁳) 13:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As a somewhat neutral party here, I humbly request that someone for the love of Misplaced Pages go and attach the User iD to the unidentified statements. I simply cannot make sense of this argument. Are they all one user, if so whom and can somebody please get thru to this user that he/she needs to use four tildas to date and time-stamp their comments? Heavens to betsy, just trying to figure out who is saying what is giving me a headache. now - my credentials are as an Anthropologist and, coincidentally, an Archeologist, who has an interest inNew Religious Movements and the entire history of the SRA issue. I take a dim view of people who stand solid on absoultes sides that either none of it took place or it all took place. Child molestation is a complex issue with varying causes and hallmarks. McMartin is important for a number of reasons but I can't even begin to answer questions raised here or in the article when I can't tell who is leaving unsigned comments. This page is too active to go thru all all the edits to see. ThanksLiPollis 11:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

LiPollis, I see no unsigned posts here. You may be confused by Biaothanatoi cutting apart Eleand's long initial posting, which is indeed frowned upon precisely because it confuses people. dab (𒁳) 13:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Eleland's initial post was very long, and he raised numerous points. Responding comprehensively to all his attacks required me to cut his post.

Eleland's conduct here is similar to his behaviour on the SRA page. He has made wide-ranging and general criticisms of me, and my changes to the article, but these criticisms have not been designed to develop the quality of the SRA article. Instead, he has consistently tried to "prove" that I am the conspiracy theorist that he has presumed me to be since he first engaged me in dialogue.

You have engaged in similar conduct throughout this discussion. Rather then presume good faith and worked collaboratively, you have raised the spectre of numerous WP etiquette violations in order to characterise me as a person deserving of ad hominem attack.

Thankfully, the article now has the attention of some even-handed editors who have been able to move beyond the edit-wars sparked by yourself and Eleland. --Biaothanatoi 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

what gives? I just pointed out LiPollis may have been confused by you, I didn't attack you for it, let alone allege bad faith or "characterise" you in any way. Calm down. Thankfully, the article now has the attention of some even-handed editors -- coming from you, I admit this sounds scary. More attention will need to be directed towards this. dab (𒁳) 10:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The thesis of my original posting, clearly expressed, was that the extensive rewrites of the article improved some aspects, but also departed severely from WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V, and elevated minority and fringe viewpoints to the status of facts. That's an assertion about the nature of your contributions, not an ad hominem attack of any kind. Mind you, your assertions about my conduct have been hostile and wholly unsupported by evidence or logic; you've accused me of "slandering respected academics like David Finkelhor and Roland Summit", failing to read source material which I cite, promulgating "pejorative stereotypes about the 'SRA industry'" and "conspiracy theories", mocked me for lacking access to a university library, and repeatedly implied bad faith. All this after I clearly demonstrated that you had copy-pasted text from a mentally ill SRA activist, almost certainly without ever having read the sources which you cited (you've still never indicated whether you did). If you feel that my conduct is problematic, I would be more than willing to participate in any form of dispute resolution which you might suggest. (I think you've already entertained the idea?) <eleland/talkedits> 12:02, 3 December 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)

I have put Tyr (journal) up for deletion, for clear failure to meet WP:BK. It turns out that Tyr is a vehicle of Michael Moynihan (journalist) presenting neo-fascism without the "fascism" stigma, and "Radical Traditionalism" is Moynihan's private term for his ideology. This doesn't seem to pass any sort of notability threshold at present, and it can all safely be discussed within the Michael Moynihan (journalist) article. Once this stuff appears on the radar of any notable reviewer, it can be delegated to Neo-völkisch movements. dab (𒁳) 08:48, 10 December 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 explaining 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 controversy, 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)

Please don't abuse WP:Fringe in order to give WP:UNDUE weight to a certain point of view. The Kurgan hypothesis has its own article. To a language topic like Indo-European languages an extensive promotion of an archeological theory is hopelessly off-topic, since the extensive special Kurgan section (a subsection already exists in the same article!) does not even give insight into the linguistic matters addressed in the article. Try to be helpful in the proper application of WP policy. My WP:UNDUE correction to Indo-European languages does not have anything to do with boosting another archeological view, just to correct fanatism on the Kurgan theory within an article about linguistics. Rokus01 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

To the contrary, your censorship of scholarly views is getting worse. Please restrain from WP:OR to damage the reputation of scholars and motivated editors in order to impose the Kurgan model on every "soundbite" instead.Rokus01 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this: I never discussed unscientific approaches and un-academic theories being labeled "fringe", still the fanatism displayed by Dab to rout or contradict scholarly views is turning counter productive. This is a long term mutual issue. It is wrong to call something "fringe" for no other reason that it appears to contradict some kind of loosely defined "mainstream" opinion - especially when this "mainstream opinion" coincides with the personal point of view of a rogue administrator. Scholars are a minority by definition, so abusing the word "mainstream" for promoting popular views will compromise the quality of WP as a source of neutral information. Fighting the presentation of multiple scholarly views will only achieve the opposite of what WP:Fringe its really intended for. In reality exclusive attention to some conservative views advocates the violation of WP:NPOV. Note, it can't be neutral to push alternative scholarly views out altogether. The POV intention of some would-be "fringe-figthers" becomes obvious when they reject to discuss WP:UNDUE information that serve their views, and deem anything else "not allowed". Rokus01 (talk) 23:13, 23 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)

To say the true, conspiracy theories like this one are always to suffer from being unreliable- so it doesn't really matter who you are sourcing to support them. Any why, regarding M. Aviv, as he was the official investigator of Pan Am I assume that to consider him as a primary source, or something close to that, wouldn't be too exaggerated and so, yes, he should be used with caution. About the italics, why do you think that I was hypersensitive? it had no special meaning, just to distinguish between what you wrote and what I did and to make it notable so you could refer to it, it really should rise no commotion.--Gilisa (talk) 17:23, 21 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)

Have you tried WP:NPOV, where if it's of such a small view it may even be excluded? --FR Soliloquy 06:38, 4 December 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)

I'm part of the astrology project, so I have reason to watch the article. My exact place of residence is probably open to question on that basis though. If you've got specific concerns regarding reliability or other matters, leave them with me on my talk page and I'll either try to verify the reliability of the sources or bring the phrasing back down to real world levels. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 27 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)

I had never guessed the depths of human credulity, naiveté, and outright stupidity before I started editing Misplaced Pages. If nothing else, the project is a real eye-opener in this respect. dab (𒁳) 15:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked now. As with many of my admin actions, the refrain to "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?" is going through my head. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they will learn when those involved in science education in various ways at various levels start doing a better job of it (& I'm one of them, so I include myself)-- and one aspect of that is maintaining quality here, which is a very large part of why I and you and the rest of us at this noticeboard are here. However, even if someone goes away stubbornly persistent, receiving him politely here can have a delayed effect.--I've seen it sometimes. The first step in converting someone taking them seriously, not ridiculing them. Anyone can ridicule, but only the people with the correct knowledge can present truly convincing arguments. Agreed, this guy made it pretty hard, and I think we've been as patient about it as possible. But I do not like to see subsequent gloating. Like Arritt, what I feel is a sad regret. DGG (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He's back. The history tab is a mess, and if he's avoided 3RR, I'd be surprised. Relata refero (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see the discussion at WP:ANI#Please show this user the door where User:ScienceApologist has asked for a community ban. Relata refero (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Moreschi 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

John Michell (writer)

More of a neutrality than a "fringe theory" issue, but since the topic is an author on "Fortean phenomena" I still think it's appropriate to be listed here. A fresh account with apparent insider knowledge on the author with a tendency towards {{fansite}} (and WP:CRYSTAL). More eyes (and opinions) appreciated. dab (𒁳) 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

now even progressed to sock fun. dab (𒁳) 22:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Correctness

This article is trash and because of the controversial nature, those who are seemingly radicals have made the article very subjective and opinionated. It needs some serious work and then needs to become protected. Cobrapete (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is trash. The claim that usage of the term is "hotly contested" certainly needs qualification. It seems to hark back to early 1990s, when the term may actually have been "hotly contested". By some people. Who were widely thought fools even then. I feel the article is largely beating dead horses. The allegation that "'political correctness' is a straw man invented by the New Right to discredit progressive social change" is hilarious, even though it is "referenced" to three sources (of course not giving a single page number). Not really about fringe theories, just your regular awful article. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked in to it. There are some POV issues with the article (but this seems to be the case with most articles) and the sources all need to be checked, but I don't understand why this is posted here? The ideas in the article about political correctness aren't "fringe theories" as much as they are opinions that need proper attribution. This board isn't the right place for this issue. futurebird (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it too. Seems like a reasonably informative article that is more into defining the term and its history/usage than pushing a POV. Incidentally, it's the *usage* of the term, not the term itself that the article says is contested. One persons calls something PC that's another deeply held person's dogma. All three follow ups agree your complaint doesn't belong here. Best wishes, Keith Henson (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

you are right. Of course, there is no clear line between "mere" WP:UNDUE and full-fledged WP:FRINGE. I have a feeling the concept is relevant to discussions of pseudo-scholarship because sometimes proponents will play the "PC card" to dodge criticism. I get this a lot, just look at my talkpage ("no, there is no scholarly support for your idea of 'indigenous Aryans'" -- "you horrible racist, what a politically incorrect evil imperialist thing to say!"-- I guess it's a special kind of appeal to motive that was allowed to thrive in the USA in particular). My latest talkpage section is almost a textbook case. dab (𒁳) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Stay on topic. futurebird (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

the topic isn't "fringe theories on Misplaced Pages"? I can assure you, if you patrol the relevant troll magnets for a few months, you'll share my experiences. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Speciesism

I don't know if this is a fringe theory or not so I'm hoping that someone can help me out. The theory is the idea that "early hunter-gatherer societies such as the Makah" and people who subscribe to "animist religions" have "have lacked a concept of humanity and have placed non human animals and plants on an equal footing with humans." --this sounds dubious to me as I don't know how any group of people could have had no concept of "humanity" -- There are sources given from some pro-animal rights people. But, what do anthropologists an sociologists have to say about this idea? See the criticism section. futurebird (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

you are right. This is complete nonsense. Off the top of my head, serious discussions on the topic of totemism can be found in Burkert's Homo Necans and Tolkien's On Fairy Stories. The part about "lacked a concept of humanity" should be removed asap as blatant nonsense. The point the paragraph seems to be trying to make is that there is, in fact, a fundamental identification of human and animal nature in tribal mythologies, totemism, etc., but that isn't because these "savages" somehow cannot distinguish humans from animals, or place animals on "equal footing" with humans -- what would be the point of identifying with an animal if you cannot tell the difference between yourself and an animal? The opposite applies. Just like people do not identify with gods because they cannot tell the difference, but rather because they do perceive a large difference, and see qualities they aspire to. dab (𒁳) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that the statement in question is not made in Misplaced Pages's voice, but is rather attributed to p. 138 of "Ideas That Changed the World" by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto. This changes everything of course. Since I have no idea what is actually on this page, I cannot tell if the article gives an adequate paraphrase. The basic gist of the statement is sensible, and I suspect that there is a possibility that the "lacked a concept of humanity" is to be blamed on a Misplaced Pages editor, not on Fernandez-Armesto. This would deserve some verification. dab (𒁳) 14:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I'm just hoping that someone can take a look to see if it is what he says. Also, if that is what this guy says, I imagine he's in the minority among people who study and write about such things and that should be made clear. futurebird (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also agreed. The phrasing strikes me as incredibly dubious and POV, although if it's a quote or accurate paraphrase from a source it probably could be included if it's the best such available statement. I could agree that it seems certain societies did not place as great an emphasis on the "separateness" of humanity, but rather considered it one of many possibly equivalent "animals" or parts of nature, which that statment could be seen as trying to imply. I'd change the text myself if I could verify the source didn't say that, or if I found a source which said it better, but am unfortunately probably tied up with other things for a while. I will try to check the libraries here for the book, though. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

looking into Fernandez-Armesto, I find it very likely he is being misquoted. I'll add a {{dubious}} to the paraphrase until it can be substantiated by a verbatim quote. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Austrian Chronicle" and Assyria-Germany

Not a problem (yet), but a truly beautiful example of textbook crackpottery I've just come across, listed here for those enjoying this sort of thing :)

Talk:Assyria-Germany_connection#Austrian_Chronicle

dab (𒁳) 14:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Anthon01

Anthon01 (talk · contribs)

Keep an eye on this one, he looks rather funny, and quacks like a sock. Adam Cuerden 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mandibular decubitus syndrome

This reads like someone's pet theory. The only Google hit for this term which doesn't appear to be a Misplaced Pages mirror, is the link given in External links - and that site is offline/unavailable. What is available in the Google cache from that site reads like Original Research. --Versageek 01:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "mandibular decubitus syndrome" gets zero PubMed hits - a sure sign that it is not a real, recognized disease entity. The only source is a promotional one. I've PRODded it as I think this is an uncontroversial deletion for lack of notability. MastCell 20:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it - if you looked into it a bit, you found out that it was largely meaningless. The entire second paragraph was talking about spontaneous swallowing of saliva, in as obtruse and complicated manner as possible. Adam Cuerden 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Potassium dichromate, Oscillococcinum

Oscillococcinum is a POV-pushing mess, Potassium dichromate has a homeopathic section that seems to serve no purpose other than to make homeopathy look that tiny bit more respectable. I don't feel up to dealing with them. Adam Cuerden 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed the section in the potassium article, left a comment on the talk. The other article certainly needs some fixing up but I'm not the man to deal with it. Moreschi 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I was going to say that perhaps the POV here has to deal with removing the information. Mind you the citation could be better formated per WP:CITE but I really think the information concerning Homeopathy has it's place within that article. --FR Soliloquy 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s.: I think I missed the issue here because Moreschi move the information on Oscillococcinum? Meuh! I don't know anymore. --FR Soliloquy 06:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it was removed, heavily reworked for neutrality, then readded. The Oscillococcinum mess remains a mess. Adam Cuerden 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion related AfDs

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Polyneutron, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mizuno experiment, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CETI Patterson Power Cell

These articles are currently under an AfD initiated by me. I consider them to be essentially original research and a soapbox promotion for ideas that have not received enough recognition for inclusion in our encyclopedia. Please comment. ScienceApologist 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

the question is purely notability and reliable sources in my view. The fringyness is less important. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Profg

Just a warning that he seems to be back. Creationist troll who got blocked, but was then unblocked by now absent admin User:B, who was going to monitor him, except he then promptly disappeared. Keep an eye out. Adam Cuerden 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on WP:ANI#User:Profg ScienceApologist (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, weren't there CoI problems with him? Adam Cuerden 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosniaks and related articles

Promotion of the following fringe theory has been ongoing for quite some time, but in recent weeks, a few users have been shamelessly promoting a completely baseless and racist theory about Bosniaks (The users are User talk:83.67.3.166, User talk:83.67.73.117, and User:NeutralBosnian. All three are most likely the same editor, due to the same edit patters, same writing style, similar IP addresses). The very dispute is laughable, and most level headed Bosniaks would not agree with it. No prominent Bosniak Wiki-editors, (such as Kseferovic), have ever made any such ridiculous claims, and never will, because they accept, and our proud of, the truth, which is, Bosniaks are Slavs. This is 100% factually accurate, and only those who operate on the very fringes of science try to suggest that Bosniaks are anything other than Slavs.

The fringe theory that keep getting inserted suggests ridiculous pseudo-historical "facts" about Bosniaks being "100% Illyrian/Aryan/Blonde-haired blue eyed Scandinavians but we just speak Slavic language". Basically, these editors are trying to "prove" that Bosniaks are not Slav, but are in fact the descendants of the Illyrians. People who support this view make outrageous claims, such as "Bosniaks can't be Slavs, because Serbs look like Gypsies, but Bosniaks look like Scandinavians"; this is not only completely untrue, but extremely racist/xenophobic. After the war in BiH, Bosniaks reasserted themselves as a nation; something which we can all be proud of. But, the bad side of this is, there are some people with extremist views out there who try and differentiate themselves from Serbs so much (because of all the residual hate after the war) that they resort to making such stupid claims as this. The baseless "Illyrian theory" has no support from mainstream academia, and is not even covered by mainstream academia even as a pseudoscience, as it so erroneous.

It's a fact that all peoples of the Balkans have some traces of Illyrian blood in them, but to suggest that Bosniaks are the direct descendants when they have as much Illyrian as Croats, Serbs and other Balkan people is laughable. Furthermore, ethnicity is not all about genetics anyway - it is mainly about culture and language; and Bosniaks share culture, heritage and language with the other South Slavs for the simple fact that they are Slavs.

There are a lot of people who believe many of the lies and half truths presented on Misplaced Pages, but no one in his right mind would ever believe anything so blatantly erroneous. So I am requesting one or more admins step in and stop the promotion of such ridiculous fringe theories. - Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

oh dear. We've had the Albanians, the Macedonians, the Armenians and the Assyrians, and now the Bosniaks? Is there some sort of infantility force field hovering over the region? "100% Illyrian/Aryan/Scandinavian" is rather funny in fact. How about we just settle for "100% organic"? It will be less controversial, and just about as informative. dab (𒁳) 09:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnians are "organic"? Are they "free range" as well? Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, organic free range Bosniaks. Personally, I think we need to resurrect Tito as a zombie and have him police Misplaced Pages articles on the former Yugoslavia. "You are all one people! Your brains all taste the same!" :-) <eleland/talkedits> 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't pay as much interest in Balkan matters as I used to, but isn't this a claim by most Albanians and many right wing Croats? I'm fairly sure Noel Malcolm made this claim about the Kosovan Albanians. There must be other Balkan groups that make these claims. Could it be an idea to set up a page on claims of Illyrian ancestry and point everyone who makes the claim about their particular nationality on to the page. They may counterbalance each other. (Oh and hello Blueboar, you lurk on this board as well). JASpencer (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if creating that page would help at all. I think doing so would probably cause even more additions about this "theory" on other pages. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a notable fringe theory then it could be added to Illyrians#Later claims. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm is someone Bosniaks often quote when regarding their history. In his book "Bosnia A Short History", Malcolm clearly states that Bosniaks were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia. Not Illyrians, or Aryans, or any other anachronistic claim. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. (I vaguely remember that) Noel Malcolm made the claim that Kosovan Albanians were originally Illyrians. I really have to dig out that book. On another note I am just starting John Julius Norwich's book on Venice where he reports the idea that the Venetians were descended from the Illyrians and in another place writes that the Latin speakers on the Adriatic coast (who bacame part of the Italian speaking culture on the Adriatic coast) were descendants of the Illyrians. So two more claims! (Good book, if you're not too worried about the Illyrian blood line). JASpencer (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yo daawwwwggzz, what's happening? Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion

There is now a protracted fight at cold fusion over references with a 64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs). This person is Jed Rothwell, the librarian for LENR-CANR.org who has devoted his time over the last few days to making sure that cold fusion is "properly" advocated on Misplaced Pages, in particular by trying to include vanity press books that he has helped to write/translate/publish. I have reported his particular conflict of interest here and left a warning on his talkpage, but more pairs of eyes would be appreciated. There seems to be a concerted effort by pro-cold fusion advocates to get the article to state something along the lines of "cold fusion exists". We need to make sure that Misplaced Pages does not accomodate such POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a scientist but have some basic scientific literacy and by now am reasonably familiar with WP policies. I'll have a look. I'm not really sure (yet) that cold fusion is a fringe theory, more a marginal area of research. But as I don't have a strong POV on the question myself I'll try to ensure that the article is as NPOV as possible. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that since the above was posted cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion have been semi-protected to prevent Rothwell from flaming. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold - United States Cold War Funding

I believe the re-interpretation of history in this article to be a conspiracy thierory:

"The Seagraves and other historians have claimed that United States military intelligence operatives located much of the loot; colluded with Hirohito and other senior Japanese figures to conceal its existence, and; used it to finance US covert intelligence operations around the world during the Cold War"

The Seagraves book contends that:

Shortly after the Japanese surrender of the Philippine Islands, U.S. Forces found thousands of tons of gold bullion the Japanese forces hid on the Islands. The gold bullion came about from the looting/plundering of Southeast Asia pre-WWII and during WWII.

The then President of the United States (Truman), General Douglas MacArthur, OSS (now CIA) officials and other high-ranking Military Officers decided to keep the gold bullion, and not return it to the countries to which it came, unlike the “Nazi Gold” found in Europe that was returned to the rightful owners.

The several billion dollars worth of gold was eventually used to fund the Cold War and other CIA covert operations. Every President and every CIA Head has known about this secret funding and source of gold bullion since the end of WWII.

See: Gold Warriors: America’s Secret Recovery of Yamashita’s Gold (2003, Seagraves, Verso pub.)

This conspiracy theory is based around an urban legend created in the Philippines. I think the accusation cast against the American Government, United States Military is unjustified and the book used to source this information is a questionable source. The Yamashita's gold article is controversial (at best), and the edit warring continues Jim (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

after looking at the article, the talk page, and these comments....I think I agree with profmarginalia, this is an underdeveloped draft article. I'll try and do something to put some structure to it, then those with more subject knowledge can expand fill it in. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for "checking us out"...I liked the sections and placement you did, right off the bat. Unfortunately, it was edited and heading back to confusion straight away. “The Greater East Asia War looting and the post-war cover-up” is kind of confusing…I’ve never heard of The Greater East Asia War and the Treasure section got canned, too. :::sigh::: Jim (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, Rocksanddirt...but, the article has again digressed into a book report, hosted on Misplaced Pages. Jim (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding

Background: Just an FYI, if a few people could watchlist this page it would be VASTLY appreciated. A consensus is forming to downgrade the article to semi-protection after being fully protected for a very long time. Previously, literal hordes of random IP users had aggressively and completely uncivilly edit warred and flamed each other, alternately vandalizing the page, and getting into gross POV battles, while the then-handful of logged in users could only ask for protection. At one point, it was something like 100+ edits in two hours, until Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) locked it down.

Why I'm posting here: In the slow consensus building on Talk after, not one single IP editor chimed in that I can recall, at all. Finally, the only real consensus matter left was whether or not to call Waterboarding an act of torture or not. Since everyone seemed to just repeat and advocate their personal views, which wasn't of any use to us, I posted a section here asking for people to list all sources on either side of the fence--is it, or isn't it torture? The consensus based on the presented sources was 100% incontrovertable. The world considers waterboarding an act of torture. That section for sources opposing this notion sat empty for nearly two weeks. Today, we have two sources from two pundits, opinion columns both. One says its not torture. The other says it's up the American legislature to decide (which, of course, it isn't, except for the purposes of US law).

Based on this, please read this section. In an odd situation, the supposed view of the current United States government (supposed, since they won't really comment either way) is "believed" to be that waterboarding is not torture. Many of us therefore have a firm belief that the idea, based on sources and verifiable facts, that waterboarding is not torture needs to be limited in the article, per WP:WEIGHT, and because it is a WP:FRINGE view held by few authorities on torture, related law, and experts that have actually spoken up. Please watchlist this article, in case anyone tries to advocate or advance unreasonable fringe or wild views on this article. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

One of those annoyingly circular discussions has started there, to the point of a full page protection:

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"Well, yes, but they never claimed to be. Do you have any reliable source in a notable publication mentioning that?"

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"Without a source, that's original research and a violation of WP:SYNTH"

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"ARRRGH!"

Please help. Adam Cuerden 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not much anyone can do while it's protected. Current version seems OK. Pleased to help when it becomes possible and if necessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Itsmejudith.

P.S. A quick read through the lengthy discussions at Talk:Quackwatch reveals that Adam Cuerdan's depiction of events there is a vast misrepresentation. -- Levine2112 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Walled gardens of woo

Category:Ascended_Master_Teachings Category:Theosophy. Check out such lovely pages as Master Jesus, Secret Chiefs, HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, "I AM" Activity and many, many more! Adam Cuerden 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

what's the issue? it's nutjob philosophy. are there references to regular philosophical works? Are there issues with notability or excess fringe pov weight? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability, POV, and a great deal of describing fringe beliefs as standard, or even true. Adam Cuerden 06:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Theosophy and Madame Blavatsky did have an influence in the late 19th-early 20th centuries, extending as far as a small part in the development of black religious-political organizations such as the Nation of Islam. But this is going overboard. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite. I wouldn't object to a few articles, but this is beyond excessive. Fringe theories have a habit of multiplying to hundreds of articles, which are impossible to maintain. Adam Cuerden 08:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, crap. This is one massive walled garden and there's plenty of notability issues to be sorted out. We've also got excess weight/POV-issues - see here for a (now thankfully deleted) example. I suspect it's redirect-and-prod time again. Moreschi 20:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Yes, pruning pseudo-philosophy has been one of the major accomplishments of this noticeboard. (Back in Integral thought land I just deleted about two pages of self-published criticism from Ken Wilber's article.) Fireplace (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This from the Los Angeles Times (The mighty I Am; cult led by Guy Ballard Los Angeles Magazine April 1, 1997):

Guy Ballard founded the I Am cult in southern California in the 1930s, claiming to be a reincarnation of St Germain and George Washington, among others. Ballard died in 1939 and his wife and son were indicted for fraud the following year.

On a blistering evening in August 1935, a bizarre rite took placeat the Shrine Auditorium. A crowd of nearly 6,000 gazed upon a brightly lit stage flanked by large paintings of Jesus and St. Germain. Onthe stage, a man who called himself Godfre Ray King read messages hesaid had been passed down from divine entities. Written in "living letters of Light" only King and his wife, "Lotus," could see, the words expressed love for the devoted audience members and hatred for their numerous enemies. Then Godfre and Lotus led their disciples in the chanting of decrees, sometimes beseeching their gods for "ONE MILLIONDOLLARS IN CASH! TAX-FREE!"

This service was a coming-out party of sorts for the Los Angeles-based I Am movement, which may have been one of the kookiest cults inAmerican history. Southern California historian Carey McWilliams described the group as "a witch's cauldron of the inconceivable, the incredible and the fantastic."

"Godfre Ray King" was the two-bit alias of Guy Ballard, who claimed religion had found him in 1930 during a hike on Mount Shasta when a young man offered him a cup filled with a strange, creamy liquid--"a much more refreshing drink than springwater," Ballard recalled. Theyoung man then transmogrified into St. Germain: eighteenth-century French politician, adviser to Louis XV and leader of the Ascended Masters, an elite group that included Jesus, Hercules and the God of the Swiss Alps, among others.

Thank heavon Master Jesus for reliable sources. Fireplace (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some redirects, rewritten "I AM" Activity, and left a proposal to redirect/merge everything else at Talk:Ascended Master Teachings#Time for an overhaul, in case anyone here wants to comment. Fireplace (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little merging and deletion, but this is a huge article set... Adam Cuerden 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And there's been resistance from the followers of this movement. I suspect this will end up at AFD. Fireplace (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a follower of any of these movements, but after checking out some of the pages, I don't think it's a walled garden. There are inbound links and some of them are plenty notable. Theosophy , its founders, and its many spinoffs for example, had a significant effect on Western society in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and several notable authors and poets were members or followers (ie, WB Yeats as one prominent example).

Also, they're not exactly WP:FRINGE theories, in the sense of needing a noticeboard report - they are not scientific, or pseudoscientific, or being used in that way. They're religious or philosophical systems, and many books have been published about them, making them notable. I'm not saying at all that we should present the content of the philosophies as "truth", but if they're notable, what's the problem with having an article about them, as long as the article has references to support the notability? An example of that would be something like Flat Earth Society. No-one thinks Misplaced Pages is actually saying the Earth is flat, but the organization that propounds that idea has made itself notable enough to have an article, even if it gets a chuckle every time someone looks at it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "many books about them" is that if you look closely, you'll see that most of the references in these articles come from publishing houses involved with the movements. There do seem to be a few independent, reliable books talking about these things (with titles like "These also believe: A study of modern American cults and minority religious movements"), but I suspect that insofar as they are notable, they are notable for their sociological aspects and the controversies surrounding them, not for their doctrinal views. As written, all of these articles are focused almost entirely on using wikipedia as a forum for their "fringe" metaphysical views, thus raising WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues (as well as WP:N issues for the large web of articles they have created). Fireplace (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are good points, and if it turns out that the topics are not notable beyond self-published materials, that would be a concern. But the articles in the lists and categories above are not a monolithic whole where they are all the same. Some of them may be fringe metaphysical views as you described, but some are articles about philosophies or people who have influenced other people, had an effect on society, and do have non-self-published materials written about them. I'm not an expert on the topics, so I can't pull a bunch of references out of my hat right now. But it seems to me those are article content issues that should be discussed on the talk page of the articles, not discussed in detail here - unless we invite the people editing those articles here to participate in the discussion. If there is an article where you feel all of the references are self-published, wouldn't the usual method be to discuss your concerns on that article's talk page? I am not saying which of those articles is OK, and which may be off-track, I have not studied them enough to know the answer to that. As I understand it, the consensus process is one of the most central policies. So if decisions are made about those articles, the people working on them should be included in the process. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Those discussions are already occurring. See Talk:Ascended Master Teachings, Talk:"I AM" Activity, Talk:Seven rays. Fireplace (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure - there's quite a lot here that is notable - but there's also a fair chunk that's not and that's only referenced to self-published ("vanity") books. It's just a question of separating the wheat from the chaff. And, as we saw at the Count of St Germain, POV concerns are also an issue. Moreschi 21:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The desire to censor that which appears "nutty" or "fringe" or not "notable" in one's own subjective judgement has no place in a general reference encyclopedia. If you do not want to read about various religious movements, philosophies, scientific theories, social and cultural developments, then don't. Imposing your standards on others by wanting to exclude that information, if it is not to your liking, is known as censorship. Arion (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The free interchange of information is how advancement in science and humanity in general occurs. Censorship has never led to progress. Just look at the "dark age" of Europe when the "all-powerful" church decided that it would control what people said or thought, all in the name of superstitions that it proclaimed to be the whole "truth" and all that it disapproved of to be "heresy".

Look at what censorship did in Nazi Germany where mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals occurred and no one even knew until much later how extensive it had been. Look at Iran today where homosexuals are being widely executed and the government censorship merely parrots the line that "there are no homosexuals in Iran"!

Today that same mentality would smother access to subjects that it deems "fringe" and "pseudoscience". You have no right to make that value judgement when dealing with sourced and referenced articles, no matter what the subject matter. Using that tactic is simply not the way to build Misplaced Pages into the academic and NPOV encyclopedia that it is intended to be.

After the "thought police" go after the new religious movements of the last 150 years, what will be next? Excising all the "irrational beliefs" and superstitions in Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. etc.? However about removing all articles based on various world mythologies and the individual figures in those mythologies? Where will the censorship end? Arion (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen. —Whig (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that we've established that the people wanting to keep Misplaced Pages a reliable, verifiable, neutral, referenced source are censors who are leading us to the dark ages, Nazi Germany, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, I'd like to point out that you both seem to think Misplaced Pages is something that it is not, namely it is not a free repository of information. If you don't like the constraints that Misplaced Pages has on sourcing, notability, or inclusion, then you are free to start your own wiki. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:RAmesbury

There is currently a blocked user RAmesbury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is trying to promote quite a lot of fringe views. I saw him first at the clairvoyance article, but today I received this notice:

== Leadbeater and Besant ==

You might want to have a look at what happened to the Charles Webster Leadbeater article as well. Ditto for this on the Annie Besant article. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone really needs to go through this user's contributions and see what kind of nonsense he has been inserting into Misplaced Pages. I'm passing this information on here as I don't think I'll have time to fully investigate the matter. Cheers.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards