Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:32, 9 January 2008

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!

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)

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)

My initial suspicions above have proved to be correct - this article has been shown to be the original research of conspiracy theorist Patrick Haseldine under the alias Phase4. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes "original research" doesn't seem to really be "research", but "making thing up"! :-) Bubba73 (talk), 23:54, 23 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)

• There are a number of related arguments whihc have been skewed to reflect the tiny minority pro cold fusion view, including pathological science, Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Steven E Jones, Timeline of cold fusion, Georeactor and 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion, which I have nominated for deletion as not obviously being significant other than as an object of hatred and loathing for the pro-LENR camp. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 26 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)

To add a bit more to what Lawrence says. The talk pages are long and involved and may be hard to get through. The gist of the issue is this: A good number of sources describe waterboarding as torture. A smaller number say it is not torture. (A poll by CNN shows that there is disagreement in the US population with a ratio of 1:2, with the majority believing it is torture). There are three positions being advanced:

1.The article should firmly say that Waterboarding is Torture

2.The article should avoid connecting waterboarding with Torture.

3.The article should mention its connection with torture but also that this connection is disputed.

Generally, people who believe position #1 should prevail, strongly reject both option 2 and option 3 and believe that WP:Fringe should prevail above WP:ASF despite the fact that ASF is a policy and fringe is a guideline. There also seems to be a rejection of the principle that consensus can change and that per WP:CON consensus on an individual talk page really cannot violate fundamental policies. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note there is further discussion on this topic below in this section #Waterboarding (2). It might be better to note your comments there; whatever you prefer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2008 (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)

Somebody here forgot what it means to follow WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Please refactor. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not an accurate depiction. —Whig (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with me by not using the same uncivil language. --Ronz (talk) 03:33, 13 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)

This Los Angeles Magazine article was an opinion piece with grossly inaccurate information. To call this a "reliable source" is simply incorrect, and to use it as a source of accurate information on the beliefs of this religious organization to single-handedly rewrite the "I AM" Activity article into a POV piece is wrong. Arion (talk) 15:47, 14 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)

• I happen to be a Misplaced Pages editor who is absolutely committed to keeping Misplaced Pages a reliable, verifiable, neutral, referenced encyclopedia. However censorship is not, and was never intended to be, a role for Misplaced Pages editors to engage in.

• There appear to be individuals on Misplaced Pages that have no hesitation to use labels like "fringe" and "pseudoscience" in order to discredit anything they disagree with or do not understand, and to go so far as to censor and delete that information.

• This is no different than the Taliban in Afghanistan destroying the large Buddhist statues, since they disagreed with that religion.

• This is no different than Christianity, not so long ago, labeling those who disagreed with the mainstream religious superstitions to be "heretics" and deserving of being eliminated by any and all means. Arion (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

what absolute nonsense. I keep hearing accusations of "censorship" when the entire debate surrounds WP:NOTE. Misplaced Pages doesn't carry your nephew's garage band -- "censorship"? The one policy you fail to list as being "absolutely committed" to is notability, perhaps you should give that some thought. Nobody suggested Ascended Master Teachings for deletion, alright? Everybody here is fully prepared to carry articles on fringy nutcases just as long as they meet basic notability criteria. This doesn't mean we accept the inflating of fringe pseudo-philosophies into a whole compendium. For some reason, Blavatskian "Theosophy" is vastly and unduly over-represented on Misplaced Pages. The comparison with Taliban vandalism or Christian inquisition is so far out of line that you are really just establishing your complete failure to understand this debate. Perhaps you should re-read WP:FRINGE, slowly and deliberately. dab (𒁳) 12:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding censorship, see the first observation by Antandrus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I wrote about censorship attempts is in response to specific actions that were undertaken yesterday. Two editors discovered a way to eliminate articles they did not like by placing "redirect" tags on them. This was an attempt to make articles that each unilaterally decided he did not want to appear in Misplaced Pages, to - in effect - no longer exist on Misplaced Pages. I do not believe this is a sign of the greatest respect for fellow editors. The issue is not a "merge debate", since the action on this and another article were taken WITHOUT DEBATE. It was only after I personally reverted the redirects, with a comment that redirects should not be done without discussion or consensus, that comments began.

To make this very clear, unilaterally creating a redirect on an article to another article that does not have the same content, results in that article no longer able to be accessed. This happened to the "Djwal Khul" article and the "Guy Ballard" article. These articles, until I reverted the redirects, were suddenly unavailable. If I had not had them on my watchlist, I would not have known how to undo these unilateral actions.

Using the "notability" WP:N argument can be a convenient way of eliminating articles that one happens to not like. The "notability" principle was and is intended to prevent some local group, for example a neighborhood Baptist congregation, from creating a Misplaced Pages article and portraying themselves as having national or international scope. If a scholar, researcher, or author has written about the subject of an article, then it is notable and can have an article in Misplaced Pages.

I have observed an unusual amount of derision and negativity directed against articles related to the "Ascended Master Teachings" and "Theosophy" - an example of this is the title of this section ("Walled gardens of woo"). Before considering how to eliminate these few articles on subjects that many people consider spiritually significant to their lives, how about first considering the elimination of the hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles on comic book characters from Marvel Comics and DC Comics - for example: List_of_DC_Comics_characters. How about considering the eliminating the hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles on Catholic saints (List_of_saints) and hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles on Hindu gods and goddesses (List_of_Hindu_deities)? Arion (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

there is nothing wrong with healthy mergism, especially in fringe topics. This has nothing to do with like or dislike, the burden of establishing notability lies with those who want to keep the article separate. No, "notability" is not sufficiently established if there is a citation of some academic paper. Otherwise, we'll end up with one article per every paper ever published. Yes, healthy mergism also applies to comics characters. Pointing to a perceived attitude of laxness in another field is the WP:OTHERCRAP fallacy and doesn't help. But I take it you have not really been involved in comic strip topics recently? There have been positive outcries over the strict notability policing in 2007. How about comics books enthusiasts point to the Theosophy clutter budding on WP in order to bolster their position? That would be as fallacious as the inverse. Aburesz, there can be bona fide debate over merging or not merging. So far, with your ranting about Taliban censorship, "elimination", allegations of bad faith etc., you haven't even begun to participate in such a debate. You should reconsider and try an approach more based on factual, down-to-earth argument than hysteria, now. If you do that, people might be inclined to respect your position and seek a compromise. As long as you keep ranting about censorship, you won't have much of an effect. dab (𒁳) 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you avoid personal attacks using such language as "ranting" and "hysteria". You conveniently responded to my pointing out the hundreds of individual comic book character articles on Misplaced Pages, but ignored the more to the point examples of the HUNDREDS of Misplaced Pages articles on Catholic saints (List_of_saints) and HUNDREDS of Misplaced Pages articles on Hindu gods and goddesses (List_of_Hindu_deities)? If these can be justified in having their own articles - and they are justified (just look at any other encyclopedia which also lists individual entries) - then a dozen entries on Theosophical and Ascended Master saints are also justified. Arion (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to highlight a pattern of behavior, in addition to comparing us to Hitler and the Taliban, this user has already been blocked twice for 3RR, and once for this: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Aburesz (2nd nomination) (subsequently unblocked). Fireplace (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, two points regarding his last comment: Many, if not most, Catholic Saints are notable outside of sainthood. Edward the Confessor for instance. Also, due to several thousand years of literary tradition, many of the Hindu gods are notable in their own right. However, Theosophy is a funny case: It's massive reinterpretation of notable figures done in a very few books, by a very few (if not, in some cases, one) authors. There's a religion of homeless children in Florida that claims, among other things, the Virgin Mary killed Jesus and went insane, and then became Bloody Mary. Fascinating stuff, but that doesn't change that it's a fringe interpretation, and probably not notable enough to be mentioned in Jesus or Virgin Mary, or to have all the aspects covered in separate articles. Adam Cuerden 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Distorting what I wrote does not change what I wrote. I wrote about the dangerous potential effects that censorship has demonstrated in totalitarian regimes, and the beauty of Misplaced Pages is the FREE ACCESS to reliably sourced information.

The effort by Fireplace to discredit me is not helpful to this discussion, to say the least. Arion (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither accusations of censorship nor displays of TYPOGRAPHICAL EXUBERANCE will help your case. Please make your points in a framework relevant to Misplaced Pages policy, and engage constructively with other editors. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In the last 132 years, hundreds of books have been written about "Theosophy" and the "Ascended Master Teachings", in various languages and by many publishers. These have described their religious / philosophical theories, their "saints" and adepts, and the social phenomena of the 19th and 20th century organizations that developed from the foundations of the writings of Helena Blavatsky, Rudolph Steiner, Alice Bailey, Guy Ballard, and various others. Arion (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

this is still beside the point. Nobody suggested the Theosophy article should be deleted. Try to debate on topic and avoid pointless tangents. dab (𒁳) 09:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That Theosophy is important and merits and article (or a few) isn't disputed. The question is whether every minute aspect of Theosophy and related topics should be in its own article. A small number of strong articles would be preferable to a large number of stubby and fragmentary articles. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

religious beliefs are not fringe theories

First for context - My approach is as a rational skeptic. I am not a follower of these beliefs, and I've never edited those articles. My comments here are the result of reading this discussion, checking some of the articles, and reviewing the relevant guideline and policy pages. I have no agenda for the articles, but I do have an agenda for fairness and the core policies.

• These articles are not a WP:walled garden. One can follow links from many articles not directly related to these, on a variety of topics, and in just a few clicks be in the midst of the most esoteric articles on Theosophy, various unusual religions, and Western Hermetic traditions in general. Examples of articles that link to these in just a few steps include: Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Alchemy, Mysticism, Humanism, Metaphysics, Philosophy of religion, Esoteric Christianity; and, links on the pages of such notable people as Carl Jung, WB Yeats, Alexander Scriabin, Rudolf Steiner, William James, Emanuel Swedenborg, Arthur Schopenhauer. (I'm not implying these people all followed those beliefs, this is just to show that the articles reported in this notice are not a walled garden, they are part of the interconnected encyclopedia).

• Another series of religion articles has been listed below in the section titled #Golden Dawn. Those articles are related to the ones in this section, so this discussion applies to them as well.

• The title of this section, Walled gardens of woo is insulting to the people who believe in those religions and to the editors working on the listed articles . Many religions have precepts that may appear as "woo" to non-believers, but that doesn't mean they should be made fun of on a Misplaced Pages noticeboard.

• Editors working on articles should be informed when there is a discussion of those articles on this noticeboard. If discussion is also started on the article talk pages of the affected articles, or if various tags are placed, such as notability, POV, etc - a link to the report here should be made part of the record in the talk page discussion of the article - especially if there is any chance that the article may be nominated for deletion. We should respect the work of our fellow contributors enough to at least mention to them that their work has been reported on a noticeboard.

• WP:FRINGE does not apply to religious philosophy. It's purpose is to protect science, politics and history articles from viewpoints that have no realistic mainstream support. The words "religion" and "philosophy" do not even appear in the guideline.

...Even major religions have elements that sound like fringe theories. Should we have sections in the scientific article about Death on Resurrection or Reincarnation? Those would be "fringe theories" and could not be supported in a scientific context. But as religious beliefs, those are are appropriate for separate articles. Similarly, a story like Feeding the multitude, which works fine as a theological article about one story in the Bible, would be a fringe idea if it were used in an article about solving the world's hunger problem.

We also have articles about Christian fringe ideas, like Necedah Shrine, or Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena in which the Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich is described, among many other clearly non-mainstream expressions. Should those articles be reported here?

Are minority religious beliefs to be treated as "fringe theories" and excluded from Misplaced Pages? I don't think anyone is trying to do that, but it could be an unintended result.

The questions about this group of articles are not about WP:FRINGE, they are based in the NPOV/N/V policies and should be addressed through the usual procedures - discussed on talk pages; references found and added if they exist; posted for an RFC; or nominated for deletion if not notable enough. Or, bring them up at WP:SKEPTICS or one of the other relevant projects.

But this noticeboard should not be used for philosophy or religion articles, it should be used to keep fringe theories from disturbing science, politics, history and similar academic topics.

If people want this noticeboard to moderate religion or philosophy articles, then I suggest that the WP:FRINGE guideline would need to be changed to set out clear parameters on those issues. As it is written now, those topics are not part of its mandate. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Something as obvious as minority religious beliefs should not be treated as "fringe theories" should not have to have been stated here. Thank you for stating it!

Besides the redirecting of articles to another Misplaced Pages article in order to make them disappear - which has been done in the last 2 days - there has also been the sudden disappearance of an article on my watchlist, and I have not been able to recover it. I saw no discussion for deletion. It simply was deleted. Again, it is related to one of these Theosophical "minority religious beliefs"! I will be looking into this further. Arion (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe: I agree that several comments made in this thread have been uncivil. I don't agree that New Age religious movements are outside the scope of WP:FRINGE, as they make plenty of claims that are inconsistent with mainstream science. But most importantly, consensus on solutions is not achieved here -- that's not the point of a notice board (the point is to cast light on dark areas of Misplaced Pages). If you look around at the articles that have been highlighted here, you'll notice that the "usual procedures" you advocate are humming along nicely -- articles are being tagged, improved, discussed in the appropriate places. I've seen you posting courtesy notices directing editors to this page (which is perfectly fine) -- but this page *isn't* the place to discuss the articles, as you rightly point out. And that's not how this noticeboard has been used. Fireplace (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an RfC/A on this noticeboard if that is appropriate. Or in any case to find a way to get outside comments in a proper fashion, because I think Jack-A-Roe makes a great point here and what was done was invisible to any normal process, articles on theosophy (a major branch of hermetic religion/philosophy) seemed to just disappear from Misplaced Pages without prior discussion. —Whig (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

this noticeboard is just a convenient place to alert interested editors of problem articles. It doesn't replace debate on article talkpages. All debate taking place here could just as well have been conducted on user talkpages or privately off-wiki. Further debate on the purpose of this noticeboard goes to the talkpage please. Redirecting or merging is not "deletion". These are simple edits which can be both made and reverted by any user. Disagreement on whether an article should be merged is a regular content dispute like any other and needs to be discussed on article talkpages. dab (𒁳) 09:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the events of the last several days, I have questions as to what is actually going on. But to call all this a "regular content dispute like any other" ignores what has been going on, even in the last hour.

I am a homeopathic physician with 27 years clinical experience. One week ago on 6 December I saw that the tone of the Homeopathy article was so POV that it was as if it was a non-encyclopedia article that would be better titled "Criticism of Homeopathy". I wrote a number of comments and suggestions on how the the article could be improved to NPOV standards.

Then in the last several days some of the anti-homeopathy editors went to my user page and checked out my "user contributions". The harrassment started as they started messing with those esoteric/Theosophy/Ascended Master Teachings articles I had worked on - with derision and mockery, and eliminating 3 of them by "redirects" to other not identical articles (which I reverted) with no discussion or consensus. Each of these 2 editors had essentially made those articles unavailable. One of those articles was completely deleted without any discussion or consensus on a deletion. Arion (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

you essentially state your WP:COI, and re-state your failure to understand basic Misplaced Pages process. Redirection isn't "deletion": you can revert it, and are discussing it even now. WP:NPOV means "weighted by mainstream academic opinion". Inasmuch as your personal opinion diverges from academic mainstream, I hope you find Misplaced Pages articles biased against your views: that's as it should be per the very policy you cite. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The policy that I cite is the Misplaced Pages policy (and that of all general reference encyclopedias) that there should be no personal bias for or against the subject of the article. An article should be edited by Misplaced Pages editors in such a way that the wording does not reflect our own personal beliefs and views. Arion (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

indeed. The emphasis is on personal. There should be bias informed by academic expertise. Aburesz, if you want to continue discussing Misplaced Pages core policy, please go to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view. Also note the "sympathetic point of view" policy taken by Wikinfo, which may be closer to what you are looking for. dab (𒁳) 16:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been a researcher for the past 4 decades of the new religious movements of the 20th century, especially the ones born from the foundations of Esoteric Buddhism, "New Thought", Theosophical and Ascended Master Teachings. Our university department has especially examined the historical and social contexts of those minority religions. To exclude relevant data from Misplaced Pages on their beliefs, key religious "saints" known as "Ascended Masters", and the individuals who helped shape these organizations would be unthinkable. Arion (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the massive pruning of these articles down. I think, like many above, that it is, in effect, a Walled Garden. It might have a gate at each compass point, but it's still defended rigorously by a small group of editors who have some POV interest in the topic, and who apparently defend the garden with Godwin's Law, comparing any who want it pruned to Nazis and Big Brother. Fireplace's rewrites should continue, and strip out all the vanity press stuff going on in these articles, merging anything that gets to stub length back into the bigger articles. ThuranX (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• NPOV is the basis of WP. We do not differentiate between one religious movement and another in the way we deal with them. We do not decide which religious teachings are true, or even which religious teachings are respectable. The Theosophist movement was a religion of some slight importance now, but much more in previous years. It deserves articles on the same basis as any other religion.
  

Proportional weight is relevant. There is a vastly greater literature of the Christian Jesus than the Theosophist Ascended Jesus, and this is appropriately reflected in the number and length of the articles on each. But the major theological bases of each religion deserve articles. I commented elsewhere that theosophist sources can be used for theosophist concepts. We do not insist on having non christian views of Christian saints, of non-Jewish views of Jewish rabbis. so if we had hundreds of articles on theosophist luminaries, earthly or otherwise, it might be a cause for concern. A mere dozen or so articles? that's in proportion.
I hope nobody is absurd enough to think i am likely to have the least intellectual or emotional attachment to movements such as these. Yet i regard them as fully appropriate to an encyclopedia. There is no true or false in religion in the same way there is on some other topics--there are beliefs and opinions, but some think their beliefs rise to the level of truth confirmed far beyond the level of mere empirical evidence. Therefore we can report only what people think and say, and what they do. For the thinking and saying part, their own religion's primary sources are the Reliable sources. DGG 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Help me understand how "I am activity", Secret Doctrine and Secret Chief are problematic as their own articles? All three fairly major works/ideas. The Secret Chef idea shows up all over the place in various occult teachings.  ? Sethie (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The way you establish that a subject is notable is by finding reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. Do such sources exist for the articles you name? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What I have noticed in many of these "notability" and "reliable sources" arguments is that there is a double standard repeatedly being applied by some. If the article references support their POV, then they argue for their inclusion. If the article references are contrary to their POV, they argue for their exclusion. That is my observation over the last 14 months of editing.

I find it absurd that anyone thinks that the way to document a religious belief from a particular religion is that you go to "outside sources". Often outside sources do not have a clue as to what those beliefs are, but they will do some sloppy quick research to see what other sloppy researchers have previously written, and then grind out an article (like the above quoted Los Angeles Magazine article) full of factual inaccuracies that other sloppy researchers will then quote from in the future for their so-called "article". Arion 3x3 (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What we're talking about here is whether a particular religious belief is notable. If no one outside the community that holds a particular belief has bothered to take notice of it, that's good evidence that the belief shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is probably better had at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, where the fangs have really come out. Several editors have asked us not to debate policy or content on noticeboards, and I tend to agree. Fireplace (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read half the above, but wanted to comment on the topic suggested by the header. Minority religious beliefs can be fringe views, and this guideline can help editors decide how much weight to give a minority religious belief's viewpoint. The WP:FRINGE guideline is based on the NPOV WP:WEIGHT guideline, which calls for viewpoints to be weighted by notability in articles. A minority religion that (just as an example) believes Jesus was an alien, has no weight to place that view in the Jesus article. That doesn't mean that the view that Jesus was an alien is "wrong", just that it's not notable in weight comparison to the orthodox Christian view that (rightly) dominates the Jesus article. The intent behind WP:FRINGE may have been to protect science articles from fringe science, and protect history articles from fringe history, but it can also (by virtue of being based on WP:WEIGHT) protect mainstream religious articles from fringe religious views. Even if there's not consensus to do that, WP:WEIGHT is still in effect. Sorry if that offends anyone, but minority religious views are (by definition) minority views, and less notable. They carry the appropriate weight that they've earned, especially in how they are presented in mainstream religious articles, for example Jesus, if they are notable enough to be presented at all. --Nealparr 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about applying WP:WEIGHT in those situations, but WP:FRINGE is not needed for that, and it's not appropriate there. WP:WEIGHT is enough on its own to address those concerns, and it does - there are several alternate views of Jesus in that article -not UFOs, but there are Buddhist, Hindu, and New Age/Theosophical paragraphs. Appropriately, they are short, since the have small weight in that topic.

But aside from that... This discussion (that you said you didn't read all of... ) was not about including unusual religions within articles about mainstream religions. This thread is discussing the idea of separate articles about topics of interest to minority religions, maybe even small ones, and that they should not be considered "fringe theories" because they are not science; they are separate philosophical topics that don't intrude on any other topics. There's no reason to delete their articles just because they are not mainstream. And that's what was shown in the AfDs that were tried - there was overwhelming support for keeping those articles.

For example, Master Jesus is a page about a belief of another religion, Theosophy, that considers Master Jesus to be an Ascended Master. It's not part of the Jesus page, so it does not intrude at all on Christianity's ideas and does not introduce any problems of WP:WEIGHT. Minority religion's beliefs should not be censored from Misplaced Pages as "fringe", as long as they are not inserted with too much weight into other topics, and as long as their separate topic is notable and verifiable (as was confirmed for the articles in the above thread with the AfD results). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with the above. However, that's pretty much WP:FRINGE in a nutshell. People interpret these guidelines in all sorts of weird ways, but WP:FRINGE is just an application of WP:WEIGHT. My comment was about how WP:FRINGE applies to fringe religious views (which it does), but that's more about fringe views in articles about orthodox religious topics rather than in stand-alone articles. Neither WP:WEIGHT nor WP:FRINGE call for deleting articles, that's WP:N. What you're describing above has nothing to do with fringe views, and is solely about whether the topic has enough notability for a stand-alone article, completely WP:N and not related to WP:FRINGE in any way. A fringe view needs a corresponding mainstream view and as a stand-alone topic there is none in the cases we're talking about here. In short, I agree.

I took the time to read through all the comments. There are so many things wrong here. "Walled gardens of woo"? Woo-woo (never understood why they called it that) is defined as

adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.

I understand the concerns about putting pseudoscience in context so that readers aren't misguided into thinking it is actual science, but when did Misplaced Pages become a vehicle or tool for promoting materialism? Who decided that material is mainstream and emotional, mystical, or spiritual beliefs that don't purport to be scientific is fringe? Misplaced Pages is not a tool to promote pseudoscience, but neither it is a tool for promoting scientism or atheism or general skepticism about strictly belief-related topics either. If you see an obscure term that's associated to a minor religion, and you don't know anything about it other than it's "woo-woo", leave it alone. It has nothing to do with you if your goal is just to protect science from pseudoscience. If your goal is to remove "woo-woo" from Misplaced Pages, that's no less pov-pushing than the pseudoscience pushers. Woo-woo (as defined above) is not automatically pseudoscience. The above rant is aimed at no one in particular, just a general irritation. I'm glad the AfDs weren't successful. --Nealparr 11:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

what you say is correct, but you need to take into account that as a rule, it is the woo-woo side that doesn't respect the boundary between rationalism and irrationalism. The rationalists (materialists, atheists) are merely fighting in defence, trying to keep the "quantum quacks" off their turf. It is the the woo-woo side that usually has trouble understanding WP:TRUTH, while the scientifically minded are mostly perfectly aware of the limitations of a hypothesis. dab (𒁳) 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages going to truly be "neutral" about world views, or will it adopt politically-supported conceptions of "mainstream science" as its "religion", and relentlessly persecute all other world views about the Universe as "fringe"??? I remind you again that if Misplaced Pages had been around a century ago, and embraced the politically-supported conceptions of "mainstream science" as they existed then, many people here would probably be agreeing that an argument for the sterilizing of non-whites is "neutrality", being backed by the "mainstream science" of 1908. "Science" today is being "sponsored" and misused just as much for political or ideological ends as 100 or even 50 years ago, and the majority of people around the world instinctively seem to know this, which is the real reason we see even today much frustration among "scientists" that so many fail to accept without question all their claims passed off as "undisputed scientific consensus" -- which "consensus" seems to still rest on the same ostracization tactics that have always been practised, rather than on the free and unfettered testing of independent hypotheses, or even acknowledgement of those who pursue these "unapproved" hypotheses. Blockinblox (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A big part of the problem when religion wants to stick its nose in science, and claim it is scientifically based, or has scientific support for its claims. As long as religion does not claim to be science or to be supported by science, etc then there is no problem.

Once religion starts to claim it is science, there is a problem. Keep the religion out of science.

As an example: Suppose that churches were required to preach how inconsistent their beliefs were with science regularly. Would that be fair? I am sure you would object to having science intrude on your religion.

Fair: (1) No science in religion, No religion in science (2) Religion in science, Science in religion

Unfair: Religion in science

The current scenario which is causing problems is the unfair one above. Religion is trying to use science to push its beliefs. It of course causes problems. The solution? One of the two fair scenarios. You pick.--Filll (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (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)

well...I don't understand DVdm's concerns with the Annie Besant article. The changes made only fairly minor changes to text that if anything clarified Mrs. Besant's beliefs/affiliations. The article has some larger sourcing and formatting issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Golden Dawn

The articles at Category:Golden Dawn need attention. Some of these are clearly notable (such as the main Golden Dawn page), while others are of dubious notability: Lesser ritual of the pentagram, The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, Tattva vision, The Middle Pillar, the articles within Category:Rosicrucian organizations, etc. Those that are notable suffer from the expected NPOV problems. Fireplace (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the article on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, one of its three founders was a Theosophist (and all three of them were Freemasons). So, these articles are related to the ones listed in the section above, #Walled gardens of woo, therefore that discussion applies to these articles as well. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In the recent past (August 2007 or so) there was also some ownership issues with some of these articles, I don't recall exaclty what happened. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Kambojas}} / Category:Kambojas

another frightening case of unchecked article metastasis. Most of the articles linked from this template set off all sorts of bullshit alerts. It is already unclear what the difference in scope is between Kambojas and Language and ethnicity of Kambojas. The articles completely conflate hypotheses on a historical people and lengthy expositions of the Kambojas in the Mahabharata and Puranas.

• Kamboja Kingdom / Kamboja ("Kamboja is one of the western kingdoms in the epic Mahabharata. Western kingdoms were cold countries and people used blankets")
• Kamboja Location ("there is no unanimity on the location of Kamboja")
• Republican Kambojas ("there are several ancient literary and inscriptional references which testify that the ancient Kambojas were a republican people")
• Alexander's Conflict with the Kambojas / Ancient India and Central Asia
• Kamboj in Muslim and British Era
• Migration of Kambojas ("References to Kambojas abound in ancient literature, and this may have been just the expansion of an Indo-Iranian tribe")
  • Kamboja colonists of Sri Lanka
• Kamboja (name)
  • Kambojas and Kambodia
  • Epic Kamboja, Iranian Kambujiya
• Kambojas in Indian Literature / Kambojas in Indian Traditions
  • Kurukshetra War and the Kambojas
  • Kambojas of Panini
  • Kambojas and Manusmriti
  • Kambojas in Kautiliya's Arthashastra
• Brahmanism of the ancient Kambojas

the prospect of even the most superficial cleanup job on this mess is mind-boggling... This entire ... feat seems to be the work of an anonymous editor in Sacramento, CA (69.19.150.106 (talk · contribs), 66.81.184.230 (talk · contribs), 69.19.150.106 (talk · contribs), 66.81.185.8 (talk · contribs), 69.19.204.237 (talk · contribs), 66.81.185.55 (talk · contribs) etc.) in 2005-2006. In late 2006 apparently moving to New Jersey (24.23.18.136 (talk · contribs), 76.105.50.27 (talk · contribs)). It appears likely that these are all identical with Sze cavalry01 (talk · contribs) who showed similarly single-minded obsession with "Kambojas" in the same period. dab (𒁳) 15:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Not knowing anything about Indian history or culture, it's hard to assess how much of this is bs vs merely rambling. Perhaps this should be cross-posted at WP:INDIA where they might have more background knowledge. Fireplace (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I know. A lot of work went into this, and there is value buried in there, but it should be reduced to about a tenth in length and number of articles... There is also a fair amount of fringecruft in there, e.g. the claim that Kamboja is Sumerian Aratta (to name just the most obvious). dab (𒁳) 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Mahabharata is considered one of the great epics in Hindu - and, I think, Buddhist - tradition. So, covering aspects of it, particularly ones expanded by later authors, is reasonable. However, these articles are so badly written so as to border on patent nonsense, e.g. "Pāṇini (पाणिन) was an ancient Sanskrit grammarian born in Shalātura, modern Lahur of North-West Frontier province of Pakistan. The place is situated at a distance of four miles from Ohind near Attock on the right bank of Indus River in the ancient Kambojan/Gandharan territory." - What?! Adam Cuerden 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kambojas of Panini is easy to deal with - We have Panini, so it can safely be deleted as patent nonsense. So... badly written. Adam Cuerden 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

most of it is, of course, appallingly badly written. But the articles are an excellent database of literature snippets. It's a gargantuan task to morph them into something readable (which I am not holding my breath for our detractors "sitting back" to enjoy the "neanderthal mentality" to get their hands dirty with), so I don't recommend deletion. Much material is copy-pasted over half a dozen near-identical articles. the "Kambojas according to $TEXT" articles can rather just be redirected to Kambojas in Indian literature. Even that is largely overlapping with Kambojas. The first step must be to produce something readable at the main Kambojas article and see where it goes from there. dab (𒁳) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

btw, Adam, "Kambojas in Panini" is a valid topic, although it is fully summed up here:

• Panini 4.1.168-175 notes Kamboja as one of the fifteen prominent Kshatriya Janapadas in north-west.
• Ganapatha 2.1.72 attestes that both the Kambojas and the Yavanas had short hair (Kamboja.mundah Yavana.mundah. "shaved-headed like Kambojas, shaved-headed like Yavanas").

that's it. The remainder was coatracking about Kambojas in general. In fact, if you don't mind, I take the liberty of undeleting the article and redirecting it. I appreciate its content is pure gibberish to the uninitiated, but it does contain some valid factoids that may be deciphered by those with a Paninaean background :) dab (𒁳) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough =) But it's a wee bit difficult when two sentences are the only good part of the article. I'm passingly familiar with parts of the Mahabhatarata, so I know that Kshatriya is some type of warrior or noble - can't recall the details - so I can see how that part's relevant. But it's going to be a nightmare. Adam Cuerden 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I know :) I have now converted at least the lead at Kambojas into something human-readable, so that non-experts can guess at the scope of the topic. I've also re-arranged the ToC into something half sensible, but I haven't attacked the actual content yet. This whole thing is essentially a giant case of WP:SYN / WP:UNDUE, but at least our anonymous has left useful references to literature, so that this can be fixed, given enough time... dab (𒁳) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

to illustrate the insane inflation of notability in this flurry of articles,

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

the Kambojas get some 400 hits on google scholar and google books each, and a full 20 hits on jstor.org. Britannica has no dedicated article, but mentions them in passing under "Pre-Mauryan states". A good and detailed Kambojas article will certainly do Misplaced Pages credit, but the current Category:Kambojas is simply insane in the light of this. dab (𒁳) 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Light causes cancer

There's been a report in the UK newspaper "The Telegraph" suggesting links between artificial light and some forms of cancer. The report says that shift working at night may be 'offically labled' as a probable carcinogen. Here's the telegraph report, and Google has plenty more. I mention this on this notice board because it's the kind of thing that's easy for people to skew, and because there are links to "electric power lines cause cancer". Dan Beale-Cocks 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you go ahead and create the wikipedia article. Likely it is going to end up notable enough for an article, we might as well try to make it coherant and referenced. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear that "artifical light" is the culprit per se, but there is a growing body of literature on night shift work leading to a higher incidence of cancer, possibly because of dysregulation of the Circadian rhythm. Certainly there are enough good sources for an article, and better to head it off with good sourcing now than wait for the inevitable mess. MastCell 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to add the material to existing articles such as ones on shift work and on cancer in the first instance? Telegraph is generally considered a reliable newspaper and it presumably is reporting on a published research report. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph's reporting of scientific issues often is dodgy. Better to get closer to the source. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Citing a corollation such as this in for a group that is clearly physiologically fighting their circadian cloak is just bad science. You could as easily say eating meals at night is the cause of cancer. I'm sure the article in the primary literature is much more guarded with their conclusions. David D. (Talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The prompt for the article is this call for information from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. They are interested only in the health effects if any of environmental artificial light (street lights), not indoor lighting. The shift working and cancer issue is pretty much separate, despite the juxtaposition in the Telegraph report. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr132.htm that cites the original study and gives a link to the study.

"A 'potential mechanism for a relation between shift work and breast cancer risk would be via an effect of altered light exposure at night on levels of melatonin or other hormones that might affect cancer risk; this mechanism has not been established, however."

Note the word "potential" i.e. they have no idea. The actual report (linked PDF at above url) is even more cautious:

"Overall, the evidence for an association of breast cancer risk with shift work is appreciable but not definitive, and it remains unclear whether any association is casual or a consequence of confounding".

So, given they are not even sure if shift work is a carcinogen, how could they possibly label artificial light as the cause? Sounds like handwaving to me. The light connection they are trying to make appears to be due to a hypothesis presented in 1987 (Stevens RG. Electric power use and breast cancer: a hypothesis. Am J Epidemiol 1987;125:556-61.) and another study (Davis S, Mirick DK, Stevens RG. Night shift work, light at night, and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1557-62.) but this might be an example of conformation bias. David D. (Talk) 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, lists night work as a "probable cause" of cancer since December 5, 2007."

FYI: quote from Shift work --Hordaland (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

References

1. IARC: Press Release Nr. 180 «Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption is “probably carcinogenic to humans”.»
2. WNPR, Connecticut Public Radio. "The health of night shift workers". Connecticut Public Radio, WNPR. Retrieved 2007-11-30.

Talk:Quackery

BIG influx of woos here. "Homeopathy is mainstream! Hahnemann was a wonderful and caring physician, how dare you criticise him! Why are we saying Pasteur is now considered mainstream?! LIES!" Adam Cuerden 11:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know

Article is at a standstill, primarily because of a dispute between editors as to whether NPOV requires us to state in the lead that the movie misrepresents science, or whether we have to give this as an attribution to the handful of scientists that noticed the movie. The group that favors the former believes the latter gives undue weight to the theories presented in the movie, while the latter group believes the former gives undue weight to science. Comments at the talk page] welcome.Kww (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather depressing revision history, that. One sees all the usual names in one big tangled edit-war. Yuck. Speaking for myself, I really can't see the big bother. There is this massive "controversy" section. If the film is a bit cranky and silly, any intelligent reader can work it out for themselves from the rest of the article. I simply don't see the need for a big edit-war over the lede. Philosophus's compromise wording actually looks quite nice. Either way, I think the crucial thing is not to assume our readers are idiots. As a general rule, they aren't. Moreschi 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

still, if WP:FRINGE means anything at all, the article needs to state up front that the movie is occultist pseudoscience. Of course our intelligent readers can work this out also by reading between the lines, but that's hardly what is envisaged by our guidelines. In my book, editors who are trying to obfuscate the movie's status by a campaign of hand-waving and weasling are acting disruptively and are obstructing straightforward encyclopedic discussion. It is absolutely non-negotiable that Ramtha's School of Enlightenment be mentioned in the intro. It isn't acceptable to expect readers to read the entire article before it is revealed who is actually behind this. The phrasing "John Gorenfeld reports that three directors are devotees of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment and JZ Knight/Ramtha" is disingenious: since it is compeltely undisputed that these directors are in fact Ramtha devotees, it is irrelevant who is "reporting" this, and the article needs to state it as a fact unless and until a counter-position can be quoted. dab (𒁳) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, true enough. The actual Ramtha's School of Enlightenment article itself is, oddly, much more honest and upfront as to what's really going on here. I don't see a need to bring the whole scientific-consensus arguments into the lead, however - there's the "controversies" section for that, and we can work it out for ourselves, anyway. Moreschi 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Kww got it wrong: the controversy is whether a scientific consensus can be included when the film was hardly noticed by science at all. Yeah, we know that if there were a scientific consensus on Bleep, it would be negative. But that's OR.

As far as the Ramtha thing, this is correct, but must be phrased neutrally as a mere fact- nothing like "which is known to be a quack cult" or some such. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the theories espoused in the film are so fringe as to not merit a scientific consensus, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE have much to say on the matter. Antelan 05:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right. And in the article on QM, I'm sure they are not given much WEIGHT. You need to put your knowledge of WP rules into the context of the encyclopedia. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure - so long as the What the Bleep Do We Know article is perfectly clear that the movie is only notable for its pop culture relevance, and not any of its purported science, this isn't a problem. However, Martinphi, you updated the lead of the article to label the scientists in the movie "experts" (a misuse of the term as applied to these controversial figures, IMHO). By highlighting the scientific relevance of the movie, you have make WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE germane to the article. So the choice, as I see it, is to select one of the following:

1. modify the article to make it clear that the movie is a pop culture phenomenon, largely avoiding Misplaced Pages's FRINGE/UNDUE rules by assiduously keeping away from the "science" of the movie, or
2. accept the film as an explanation of science from a fringe viewpoint that has little to no mainstream acceptance, applying Misplaced Pages's FRINGE/UNDUE policies appropriately.

Which choice is better for this article? Antelan 06:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First: I did not originally add the word "experts."

Second: an expert is someone who has letters after his name, not someone we respect. Ever hear of complimentary medicine? It should be called insult medicine, because it basically says we don't believe the experts.

Third: the policies you cite are relative to the subject of the article. In an article on QM, we give no weight to Bleep ideas. In bleep, we give minority weight to mainstream sources, merely making sure that the reader knows that the mainstream thinks this is pseudoscience. In other words, we discuss the topic of the article in the article on the topic, not primarily what the mainstream thinks of it. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to your numbered points:

1. You reverted my removal of the term. I.e., you added the term "experts."
2. God help us if "letters after his name" is how experts are defined. Hell, by that definition, I'll soon be as much of an expert as Benjamin Carson.
3. I think this point shows a gross conceptual error on your part. Giving "minority weight to mainstream sources" is supported by policy... how? Antelan 08:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that Martin, in response, edited WP:FRINGE to try to get included a phrase that in articles devoted to dealing with minority POVs, the minority POV may be the largest part of the article and still not violate WP:WEIGHT. While true in some sense, this idea is easily misinterpreted to mean "minority weight to mainstream sources" which is an idea Martin has been advocating for some time. I removed the offending sentence. I hope Martin doesn't make a habit of editing policy/guidelines to justify his opinions about Misplaced Pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In an article about occultism, the article is expected to be about occultism. As long as the views of those who think it nonsense is adequately expressed, it is perfectly reasonable for most of the article to adopt an occultist perspective--that is the very subject. The content of this film is outright occultism, prepared by occultists, and normally that would pose no problems. The problem is that the particular point of the film is to make claims that their views are supported by science. Obviously, no scientist agrees, and the range of opinions varies mainly in the strength to which it is expressed. Why be concerned with what view is predominant? A equal emphasis on the actual science will be enough to convince anyone rational, and no amount of emphasis will convince the others. DGG (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Antelan asked me to clarify. I mean primarily the relevant amount of space devoted to the debunking. I do not consider it necessary to waste much effort on scientific views of subjects which clearly have nothing at all to do with science. If a book of subject says it is dealing with psychic phenomena, it says enough. It's like trying to add a full analysis of why the Bible is scientifically unreliable to every article on anything from the Bible. I also mean that it is only fair to present a theory, however weird, in sufficient and uninterrupted detail to let it show itself to whatever advantage it has. FRINGE is not a license to attack in the name of objectivity. DGG (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where DGG and I diverge. I think that it is not unreasonable to take every claim about observable reality that is contrary to science (no matter how small) and point out, plainly, that it is contrary to science. This needn't be huge, just enough to make sure that the reader is aware. In the case of this article, there are definitely points made in the movie that are contradicted by scientific fact. Plainly stating this and referencing a standard text on the subject, for example, should be sufficient. We don't need to make a big deal about it, we just need to make sure that editors who want to see such statements included are not scared off by editors who want to preserve a sympathetic point-of-view in the article. Note that this is not Wikinfo. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with SciencApologist. It's not appropriate for most of the article to adopt an occultist (sympathetic) point of view. It should all be NPOV. And since the film does not present itself as occultism, but rather pretends the mantle of science, if should be neutrally covered using a scientific perspective. It's therefore very important (lead worthy) to note that even some of the fringe-y scientists involved in the film repudiated it as a radical misinterpretation of physics, along with virtually all scientists commenting on it. If the film actually presented itself as occultism, I would agree with DGG, but it does not. Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right to the extent that the article is about science rather than a movie review. But first, some of the science was good, as acknowledged by the Physics Today source. And second, we already do that, and in the lead, to the extent that the sources cover it. We say "Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, and the film features extensive interviews with the school's director Judy Zebra Knight. Parts of the film that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience, and David Albert, one of the scientists featured in the movie, says that his views were intentionally misrepresented."

This should give the reader a very good handle on things. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the good science had no evident connection to the conclusions being drawn from it. I have seen this before; what they are doing is analogy not deductive reasoning. The movie claims to present a scientific argument, but that claims fails to stand up to any kind of academic scrutiny, plausible though it may sound. I suspect that the veneer of respectability is the main reason it is considered problematic - if they removed the pretence of support from mainstream quantum physics it would just be another presentation of wacky new age beliefs. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Russian apartment bombings conspiracy theory

A series of bombings occurred across Russia in 1999, during the Second Chechen war. 300 people were killed and the official investigation found two Chechen militants to be responsible: Amir Khattab and Abu Umar. Later on Chechens went on to commit further acts of terrorism -- most notably the Beslan massacre and the Moscow theater hostage crisis.

Various anti-Putin partisans have since come forward to accuse the Putin government of perpetrating the bombing via the FSB agency in order to gain popularity for the Chechen war. The only notable person among these partisans is the recently deceased former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko who was employed by former oligarch Boris Berezovsky, the man who appointed Putin to power.

Litvinenko has little credibility: he also claimed that Vladimir Putin is a pedophile and that the FSB has tapes of him having sex with underage boys. His employer, Berezovsky, has been publicly campaigning against Putin ever since Putin exiled him from Russia.

The one piece of evidence this conspiracy theory hangs upon is an incident in which the FSB was implicated via a mobile phone to bags of powder being placed under an apartment. The connection to the FSB is so complicated and long-winded that I'll paste it here:

On the evening of September 22, 1999, an alert resident of an apartment building in the town of Ryazan noticed strangers moving heavy sugar sacks into the basement from a car. Militsiya (the local police) were called to the site and all residents were evacuated. The first test of the powder from the sacks showed the presence of an explosive. All roads from the town were brought under heavy surveillance but no leads were found. A telephone service employee tapped into long-distance phone conversations managed to detect a conversation in which an out-of-town person suggested to take care and to watch for patrols. That person's number was found to belong to an FSB office in Moscow.

Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti declared that the incident was a training exercise forty-eight hours later. The original chemical test was declared inaccurate due to contamination of the analysis apparatus from a previous test. The public inquiry committee could not come to a complete conclusion on this and other incidents due to incoherent answers from federal bodies. The General Prosecutor's office has closed the criminal investigation of the Ryazan incident in April 2000.

And the sacks didn't even contain explosives:

To remove the controversy, three 3 kg samples were taken from the sacks in question and blown up at the testing area; in all cases no explosion followed. During the additional investigation ordered by the General Prosecutor's Office, an explosives examination was made which showd that "the sacks contained sucrose — disaccharide based on glucopyranose and fructofuranose. No traces of tertiary explosives (TNT, RDX, HMX, PETN, nitroglycerin, tetryl, picric acid) were found in the examined substance. Investigation of clocks, elements of power supply, shell, bulb and wires showd that although these items constituted a single electronic block, it wasn't capable of giving voltage when alarm of the timer was triggered and isn't a blasting device".al bodies. The General Prosecutor's office has closed the criminal investigation of the Ryazan incident in April 2000.

To me this seems like a particularly ill-founded conspiracy theory, but it's been given an enormous amount of attention and undue weight on wikipedia. It seems it may be a case of systemic bias against the Russian government; people seem to be very credulous when it comes to claims of conspiracies by foreign as opposed to Western governments. Compare, for example, how the 9/11 conspiracy theories are dealt with. The whole thing reeks of WP:OR as well.

Amaliq (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, blimey, I can see a whole host of problems lining up here. This really is the sort of thing the English Misplaced Pages does not do well. Best solution might be to delete the article altogether as more trouble than it's worth, but I can see that's an obvious non-starter.

I'll state right upfront my biases here. I'm a UK citizen, born and bred, who keeps up to date with my country's political scene. Putin is not terribly popular over here (nor, I think, in the States) for a number of reasons, one of which is probably the murder of Litvinenko, who everyone seems quite sure was bumped off on Kremlin orders (I think so too, but that's irrelevant). The theory is that he was got rid because of his role in propagating this "conspiracy theory" (for want of a better word) over here. A book was published on this subject after Litvinenko was killed, written in part, AFAICR, by Litvinenko and his co-workers. It was quite extensively reviewed in the UK press. Now, again AFAICR, most people seemed to think the book had a point but weren't entirely convinced. That was the reaction in the UK - I can well imagine the reaction in Russia, and don't need to be told.

The real problem here is not necessarily systemic bias - it's the fact that Misplaced Pages is just too damn well up-to-date. In a normal encyclopaedia, with a "30-year rule", this recent event would not get coverage until it was possible for historians to have assessed the situation and for academic consensus to have formed. At the moment all we really have to go on as regards sourcing is the different point of two opposing camps of journalists. This sucks, mais c'est la vie.

My general take on this one is this - the article should lean towards the official Russian government viewpoint (per Misplaced Pages:Undue weight), as this is probably more mainstream than not. However, the "conspiracy theory" viewpoint is highly notable (has received significant press attention etc) and not to be sneered at, and it should be represented fairly and at some length. Hope this will help. Moreschi 10:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with Moreschi here, the assessment of "majority" or "minority" views must be based on reliable sources. This is certainly a majority view that Litvinenko was killed by the Kremlin's agents. With regard to apartment bombings, the involvement of FSB was described in several books published by David Satter, Alexander Litvinenko, Yuri Felshtinsky, Alex Goldfarb, Vladimir Pribylovsky and numerous TV interviews and articles. Hence there are multiple reliable primary and secondary sources claiming the involvemnt of FSB to be true. So, I would like to see an equally impressive list of reliable English language sources (so a reader can check) that claim the opposite. There are no such in my knowledge.Biophys (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As Moreschi says, this is politics , not history. But there is no main-stream view in this sort of politics. We can't lean towards anything. Ordinary NPOV will deal with it. We report on the supporters and opponents of the theory, and the reader will judge--and eventually history. DGG (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean "lean" in the sense of "give space to", not advocate for. Moreschi 11:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should simply folow NPOV, as always. It means: (a) to describe the factual side of the events - what had actually happened, and (b) to represent all existing views on the remaining controversies per sources. I have made a few edits in this article to reflect that. You are welcome to look at my edits and make corrections if needed. But I still do not think it should be categorized as a "conspiracy theory".Biophys (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Paranormalterms

Template:Infobox Paranormalterms (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) includes fields for "definition" and "signature" (argument "characteristics") both of whihc are, when used in article space, used to present the information as defined by believers. In any case this should be in the lead of the article. I think those parameters need to go, what do others think? Guy (Help!) 13:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The documentation of the infobox specifies it should only be used when the material is verifiable and notable. It seems well within policy.

By the way, in checking this out, I found an extended discussion of the same infobox in the archive of this page from just a couple months ago, at this link. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, paranormal believers think it is verifiable. They think that it's perfectly reasonable to state the definition, but per WP:NPOV to state that something is defined as, say, the ability to manipulate fire, is a serious problem, because it's only defined as that by proponents, most people define it as a load of codswallop. Reading that debate, the primary proponent of using the infoboxes was an editor who is a proponent of paranormal concepts. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply the debate was completely decided, I linked it just to note that this has come up before and provide continuity.

Regarding verifiability, there is a difference between saying a particular psychic ability is verifiable, and saying that the description of the ability is verifiable in literature about paranormal phenomena. If the phenomena is presented as science, then it would not be verifiable and no NPOV. But in these infoboxes, the information is presented only as a set of terminology used by people who believe in that stuff, and in that sense, it is verifiable. (I'm not a believer by the way, just looking at this as a policy issue).

Here are some ArbCom comments that turned up in the prior Fringe debate I found interesting:

• adequate framing
• cultural artifacts
• effective tag

Based on the ArbCom comments, it seems that adding the words "paranormal" and/or "parapsychology" to the main title of the infobox would fulfill the requirement of effective tagging, indicating that the terminology in the infobox is not "science".

I've made the edit to the template to add the "effective tagging" for "adequate framing". Please take a look and see if you agree this is a good solution. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with these, especially after Jack-A-Roe's edit. I noticed at Psychic surgery someone added a "Status" field that reports the mainstream scientific view of the subject (poorly implemented in that article, but the idea is sound). Maybe that should be added to the template and implemented across the board. Fireplace (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Feh, I only just noticed: the person making virtually all arguments in favour of the template last time round is also the creator of the template and a long-time promoter of undue weight in fringe subjects. I think there is a big problem legitimising the in-universe definitions in this way, when they are always in the lead already. It means the in-universe definition is presented twice, once without the context of the fact that science considers it twaddle. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1) This is not the appropriate board for this discussion, it should be happening on the PRoject Paranormal board as the template belongs to the project. For a start, this board should be used for "fringe science" and related hypothesis, whereas most of the entries that this is used for are popular culture, not science.

2) That particular template is also used in Ufology and debunking, which aren't appropriately framed under the modified heading.

3) The suggested title is WAY too loooooooong. If you have a small screen or are browsing on a mobile device it takes up too much space.

I'm recoding the template to make the title "completely variable". The user simply has to put the most appropriate framing word in place. It's much neater, You can add cryptozoology, Ufology, Parapsychology, whatever you feel is most appropriate. - perfectblue (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution to me. I had added the "paranormal" heading based on the title of the template page, I didn't realize it was used for so many things. I have no problem with the variable usage idea at all. It does seem like a good idea though to make sure there is a context heading, for "effective tagging" per the arbcom finding. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The template doesn't "belong" to anyone other than Misplaced Pages, and taking it to the place where most True Believers are to be found may not be the best way to ensure WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

When I thought that the infobox was only used for paranormal-related topics, adding that heading as "effective tagging" seemed like a good solution.

But if the same infobox is used for Ufology, debunking in general, or other similar topics, then the specific heading doesn't work. If we insist on keep it that way, new infoboxes can easily be made specifically for each of the topics anyway, so that solution won't work.

According to arbcom, these kinds of topics are "cultural artifacts" and not science, and that matches what perfectblue wrote also.

I suggest leaving the infobox as a general-use paranormal template, while strengthening the documentation of the template to make the heading parameter at the top of the infobox a "required" parameter, to identify the topic covered by the infobox. As long as it's clear that it's not a science topic, then it would not be a problem with WP:FRINGE. For example, "Ufology" is not science, it's popular culture, and if presented that way is not a Fringe problem.

One more thing, as I've mentioned in other discussions on this page, and on the talk page here, if a debate on a particular topic starts to extend on this page, then either it should be moved to the talk page of the incident where the fringe question is happening, or the editors on that article should be informed so they can participate, by a post on that talk page. That would be the fair and transparent way to proceed. We don't need that if we can and perfectblue can agree to the required-heading parameter documentation change as a solution, but it we continue the discussion further, this report should be either announced on the template talk page and the debate moved there, or the people there invited to participate here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe is correct, half of Project Paranormal deals with culture and not science. In many cases there's very little that even pretends to approach science, and in those cases it's often somebody trying to make something sound scientific rather than an actual scientific hypothesis. Much of it is about urban legends, modern mythology and hoaxes. I propose that in order for something to be really applicable on this board it has to have notable support or controversy as a scientific hypothesis. With real true scientists supporting it, but as a minority. This would mean, for example, that Earthquake prediction experiments could be counted, but that campfire ghost stories wouldn't. - perfectblue (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the heading being user completely definable. It will allow a user to frame the topic as required while providing the template with the flexibility that it needs. - perfectblue (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An important RfC

Vital for the survival of science textbooks as reliable sources about scientific statements:

Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?#RfC: Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie even if the textbook is not about the movie and doesn't mention it? Does this violate WP:NOR policy?.

Please comment. We need to get consensus on this matter.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Digestive Enzymes

Is any one here familiar enough with the German medical Journal ‘Fortschr. Med.’ to say whether it is considered a mainstream medical publication unlikely to publish fringe science papers? The accusation was made here having discovered and had reversed the vandalism to my posting above I now propose to address the allegations. Jagra (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. It's Fortschritte der Medizin, and seems to do some work on CAM, but how fringy, I don't know. Edzard Ernst has published in it, so it's probably not awful. However, one study can never stand as the final word on a scientific subject anyway. Adam Cuerden 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ernst certainly seems mainstream, and CAM in Europe is more mainstream. So I guess I am looking for a more definative answer, anyone there read German that could give an opinion on the actual paper I have no way of checking the German paper PMID 7713467 it has an English abstract that reads well and I also posted a paper PMID 16813460 that gives a short review in the full text and more details of the type of trial in English, that also reads well. So is the reveiw an accurate description of the primary paper, and is the journal considered mainstream ? Jagra (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Polyphasic sleep

There's been a tame (mostly civil) war going on for a couple of years on the Talk page for Polyphasic sleep. I hope this is an appropriate place to ask for someone uninvolved to take a look. I've written (most of) the lead paragraph and put the IMO whacky stuff under the heading "Intentional polyphasic sleep", and I've just written a long comment at the bottom of the Talk page. So far no one has removed the lead paragraph nor that heading, so we're being pretty polite about it. But some of us are never going to believe that the "online polyphasic sleeping community", referencing primarily involved bloggers, belongs in an encyclopedia. They admit that there's no research on their system, and blame the scientists for not doing something about that. Related pages: Uberman's sleep schedule and Everyman sleep schedule.

This has been a one-sided presentation. Comments welcome. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That links section was out of control. I removed a bunch of stuff. futurebird (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hough Riots: Commie conspiracy??

I ought to know because I (informally) study riots, but I'm having a hard time figuring out if this article is giving undue weight to the idea that this riot was "started by communists." Some of the sources cited seem really old (old sources on race-related topics tend to be problematic) --and not that great (a badly scanned pdf of something put out by a Cleveland church? ) Can someone stop by and share their thoughts on the quality of the sources? The communist theory should be mentioned, I'm asking about how much weight we should give it? futurebird (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out there are major problems with the content of the article. I've tried to fix what I can, but I could really use some help. futurebird (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously need help with this one. I can just start hacking away at it and removing most the "it was communists" stuff and hope I'm being fair about it, but I really would like some outside input on the quality of these sources first. I'll admit I have an view about this matter, and it is based on fact, but I don't want to act alone. So, I know it's tedious but could someone kindly stop by and see what you think of the sources that suggest that the riot was "communist" in origin. Thanks. futurebird (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Central Banking Conspiracy Theories

There has been some POV-pushing in the following articles.

• Debt-based monetary system - This article was proposed for AfD, but kept on the belief that it would be improved. That never happened. Many citations were added , but this did nothing to improve the quality of the article. As of now, a pov-pushing mob involving Karmaisking (talk · contribs) (identified as a puppeteer) , Sm8900 (talk · contribs), and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) needs to be dealt with in order to get vandalism removed. Except for Karmaisking, they seem to be editing in good faith, but they are not making constructive edits and have the ridiculous expectation that we include unreliable sources and "discuss" whether to remove Karma's POV pushing.
• Debt money - See the AfD discussion on this one.
• Debt-free money - There's a deletion tag on the front that's been there uncontested for nearly five days. One more day and this article should be gone, but do please keep an eye on it, regardless.

All three of these articles were primarily maintained by Karmaisking's gang of sockpuppets as POV forks of other articles on monetary theory. They attempt to push the fringe theory (often tied in with the New World Order conspiracy theory) that central banks under fractional-reserve steal wealth from the public, based upon the heterodox economics of the Austrian school. Zenwhat (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, a heavy barrow is being pushed up a steep hill. It is likely that one article on this could be supported as per the general support for articles on "notable quackery" but it's not clear to me which article should stand. AfDs are in process, but should not impede a clueful merge and redirect. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that this can all be consolidated into a section of the New World Order page. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This theory is often associated with the anti-semitic Rothschild family conspiracy and the NWO, but not always. Some adhere to banking conspiracy theories without believing in the NWO or anti-semitism, though they're all political extremists and fringe economists. See Austrian economics. Some radical Marxist Anarchists also believe in such theories. I initially supported deleting the article because it was clearly a POV fork, but since the term is somewhat widely-used , I think that fixing the article or redirecting it to fractional-reserve banking would make more sense. Zenwhat (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's currently an edit war going on between me and Sm8900 (talk · contribs) between the original version and my revision . Since the article was created by Karma as a POV fork of fractional-reserve banking, I'm going to keep reverting per WP:IAR and since the 3RR doesn't apply to bad-faith edits, such as vandalism. Zenwhat (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Cannabis-related articles

There seems to be a fair amount of stoners putting forth original research. The "cannabis resources" template is extremely questionable. At the very least, anything on that template without a citation (especially the "strains") should be deleted. Zenwhat (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• And the various articles on bongs, which are massive screeds of OR and HOWTO, should probably be merged. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding (2)

There is an ongoing difference of opinion as to how to interpret this on the article Waterboarding. Most editors are in favour of stating in the lead: Waterboarding is a form of torture. As I understand it the views on this are:

1. Most experts (>140) consider waterboarding torture,
2. A very small group experts (<4) and notable individuals consider it not torture,
3. The fact some oppose the majority view this is torture proves there is a dispute.

Regarding the above I am interested to hear how to interpret this. Do we, as in Intelligent Design, start with the consensus among experts (it is torture) and continue to explain in the article body what a notable minority thinks? Does opposing a similar stance as with ID violate WP:FRINGE/WP:WEIGHT? Respectfully Nomen Nescio 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As well as the individual experts considering it tortur is the Council of Europe. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This question should be placed on the main noticeboard page, not on the talk page. Here on the talk page the discussions address how to organize and use the noticeboard. Comments here are not answered as quickly. I suggest you move your question to the main page at WP:FT/N. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(moved here from talk page Nomen Nescio 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Fringe is often defined as at the edge or outside of the mainstream or prevailing view. Mainstream is typically seen as the most popular view, but I don't think that's necessarily always true. Take the debate on creationism for example. In America we have a large portion of the population who subscribe to the Christian religion and statistics show that apparently there are more people here that don't believe in evolution than those who do. The prevailing view, however, the one that wins out, is that evolution should be taught versus creationism. I don't think it's always a numbers thing, and instead should be looked at as which view is more dominant. I don't know which is in waterboarding, but I can give you a hypothetical example that might help. If there are more military experts who do not feel that waterboarding is a form of torture, but waterboarding is illegal and people have been prosecuted for doing it, then the prevailing view is that waterboarding is a form of torture despite that not being the popular view. I don't know if any of that is actually the case in waterboarding, it's just an example of what I'm talking about. --Nealparr 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire debate (over whether waterboarding is torture or not) is not really FRINGE. Both views have been expressed by multiple mainstream sources. This is a debate that is taking place within the mainstream and not on the Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an issue that the term "torture" is defined through humanistic rather than materialistic constraints. The key here is the legal definition and precedent: if courts have ruled waterboarding to be "torture" and no court has ruled to the contrary, then you are in business for applying WP:FRINGE to the idea that waterboarding is not torture, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean, from the POV of the US courts. It is still an international debate. Nigel Barristoat (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

in fringe theories along the lines of "Troy was in Britain", it is neither the meaning of "Troy" nor of "Britain" that is under dispute, but the actual claim. What we have here is political hand-waving surrounding the term "torture", not fringe claims about what waterboarding is or is not. In this sense, this isn't about waterboarding at all, but about hte propagandistic uses of terms like "torture". We had a similar case involving "genocide" before. dab (𒁳) 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In '67, prominent British philosopher Bertrand Russell convened the Russell Tribunal in Stockholm that was critical of US war actions. Numerous other prominent persons for instance Dr. Benjamin Spock were also outspoken critics of US foreign policy. No doubt the US government had a definite political interest in marginalizing such viewpoints by presenting them as "fringe", but our interest is remaining neutral, since the Russell Tribunal et. al certainly represented a significant POV at the time. Things in the world today have not changed much for the better since then, so naturally the dispute continues. Nigel Barristoat (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems at Waterboarding is that one group of editors seems to think that any questioning that involves the use of water is both waterboarding and torture, since they can find many sources that do this confounding, while others object to this confounding and want the article to be about the specific (if vague) topic of waterboarding. htom (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This content dispute contains issues for NPOV, RS, V and a host of other policies and guidelines, but not one for WP:FRINGE. The idea that Waterboarding is torture is simply not a Fringe theory... and neither is the idea that it might not be torture. These are both opinions that are discussed heavily by mainstream media, in the political arena, by religious leaders, etc. etc. etc. People may (and do) disagree as to whether waterboarding is or is not a form of torture... but there is nothing even remotely FRINGE about the debate. OK... The Waterboarding of Bigfoot by Illuminati Space Aliens to discover whether he was the second gunman on the grassy noll, might be fringe... but not the topic in general. I realize that the various parties to the dispute would like to be able to point to a Misplaced Pages Policy to back their particular view point... but this simply is not the right policy to point to. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly my question was too vague. Confronted with a dispute consisting of 150+ sourced consensus against 2-5 people being unable take a position, does the 5- side fall within WP:FRINGE? Nomen Nescio 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In this specific case, no. Neither side in the dispute falls under WP:Fringe... because the entire topic itself simply isn't a WP:Fringe issue. What you are discussing is more properly a question of weight, two legitimate points of view that have an uneven number of adhearants. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it a fringe issue if the scholarly opinion on the matter is fairly clear? (I know nothing of the issue, but I get the sense that this is yet another instance of a lively "popular" debate being mistaken for scholarly disagreement. We can't use the "debate in media" to gauge if an issue is settled among experts. Lots of things are debated publicly about which the experts see little need for debate. Could that be the case here?) futurebird (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing there isn't a theory involved here. Waterboarding isn't a theory, nor is torture. Whether waterboarding is a form of torture is not a theory... it is a point of view. And while published scholarly opinion may lean heavily in favor of a particular POV on the issue... you also have to take into account non-scholarly published opinion (such as political opinion, the opinion of the media, etc.) This isn't just a scholarly issue. It isn't Fringe to adhear to one view or the other... and it isn't a Fringe theory to state view either. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)The problem (well, part of the problem) is that many of the 150 sources confound waterboarding with other water tortures, and so it may not be that they are actually talking about waterboarding (whatever waterboarding is; the definition of that seems to have changed several times over the last fifty years, but there are many other water tortures as well.) Since there are these many different things swept up in this popular confounded "waterboarding" it is only natural for people who know particulars about the things swept up into it to have differing ideas, it is not so much fringe as it is confusion. htom (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

←This is not an issue of WP:FRINGE, which applies to fringe theories of science, including social and political sciences. The policy that covers the issue you asked about is WP:NPOV, and in particular the section on undue weight, found here: WP:UNDUE.

After reviewing the article, my first impression was that the coverage space given to people saying it's not torture is out of proportion, because the vast majority of sources say that it is torture. But then I saw the poll that found 29% of Americans polled did not think it's a form of torture. Wow, that's an eye-opener! So I read the article about the poll, on CNN's website. Clearly it's a reliable source, so with 30% that's not a tiny minority, it's a significant minority and their views are relevant to the article in some way. But it should be in proportion - and, as someone above mentioned, it should only be in the part of the article about policy/legal debate.

There's no dout that the majority of sources defining it as torture among scientists and academics turns out to be much larger than 70%, so the minority view among the population in general that it's not torture should not receive undue weight. If you need stronger references, try using Google Books and Google Scholar, with search terms like "Waterboarding +torture +history" and other combinations. Instead of leaving the references on this to the popular press or political magazines, find some scholars to make it clear that there is no question about it being a form of torture, in any forum other than political debates where it is not truly a debate about the truth of what waterboarding is, the debate there is actually about whether or not the method can continue to be used. The only way it can be used is if it's not called "torture"; that's a clouding technique being used in the public forum and does nto apply to the actual definition of the procedure. That's why I suggest finding scholars discussing this from outside the present day policy arguments.

Here's a few sources I found that may be helpful - there are many more in the searches:

• NPR analysis
• google books Democracy in Chile: The Legacy of September 11, 1973
• google books The Phenomenon of Torture: Readings and Commentary
• google books Human Rights Watch World Report 2006

If the pages with the details don't come up in the link, just search for the term inside the book and they will appear. Apparently in Latin America, the call the technique "the Submarine". Good luck with the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The NPR Report you list above is one of those that confounds waterboarding with water cure. htom (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At some point, the harping on confounding becomes nitpicking. While is appropriate for Misplaced Pages to carefully disambiguate, it is not our place to discard sources simply because they haven't done as good of a job researching as we have. The standard for Misplaced Pages is verifiability and not truth, after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At some point, the use of reliable but inaccurate sources becomes WP:SYN. htom (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It may generate problems with verifiability, but it's not original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This should be easy to resolve, in theory. Simply state: "Waterboarding is considered by many groups to be a form of torture, though some have defended its use as a legitimate interrogation tactic." Of course, as Homer Simpson once pointed out, communism works in theory. MastCell 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love for it to be so simple, but I don't know if that would fly at this point. Each conversation there now upon reading them can be summed up as d'oh. I can only imagine the state it will be in by November if water boarding stays a hot potato. Lawrence Cohen 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bell

I've nominated this article about an alleged Nazi antigravity experiment for deletion. If sufficent notability could be asserted (I'm doubting this for the moment), a sober rewrite would be a fine alternative. Note that the article started quite opposite to its current state, but the reference on which that version rested is a dead link now. --Pjacobi (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

V.T. Rajshekar and Dalit Voice

I was involved in these articles a while ago when there was some very intense POV-pushing by a now-banned sockpuppeteer, but I never quite felt I knew what I was doing. One is a BLP of the editor of the other. Both really need attention from more editors who understand how to deal with very controversial issues. Dalit Voice probably qualifies as an extremist source, so should be "handled with care" even in the article about itself. I'm not quite sure what that care should be. It is incredibly easy to trawl through its online archive and pull out statements on all kinds of issues, much harder to do that in any systematic or balanced way. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, i recall those issues a while back. generally this is not so much fringe issues, as reliable source and misuse of sources issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ask for comment on the RS noticeboard. If anyone would like to cast an eye over it I'd appreciate it. Itsmejudith (talk)

Cydonia Mensae

Some fringe theories are being added at Cydonia Mensae. I've reverted it twice. Bubba73 (talk), 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg references

Peter Duesberg is a scientist who claims that HIV is harmless and not the cause of AIDS. Needless to say, this view is universally rejected by the scientific community. We already give an undue amount of weight to his fringe views on Misplaced Pages (see Duesberg hypothesis, Peter Duesberg, and AIDS reappraisal). Recently, Eye.earth (talk · contribs) has been adding references to Duesberg's book Inventing the AIDS Virus, published by a small conspiracy-driven publishing house, across several articles. On Paul Gann, Duesberg's book is being used to refute the cause of death given by, among others, the New York Times (). The same user is rewriting parts of our article on AZT in an impenetrable fashion, citing Duesberg's book as a source (). Can I ask for some outside views and/or eyes, as this is clearly not a reliable source nor particuarly WP:WEIGHTy, yet is being used across several articles to contradict reliable sources or support questionable scientific pronouncements? MastCell 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard (WP:RSN) and ask themn to declare i an unreliable source. Then you can simply revert additions that are only justified by it. Adam Cuerden 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry

There is currently a discussion about whether the existing content regarding Freemasonry may be strongly biased in favor of one particular form of Freemasonry at Talk:Freemasonry#Systemic Bias?. Any party who has any interest in the subject is certainly more than welcome to express opinions there. Thank you. Also, there is a matter of some weight regarding this and all such societies which, by definition, keep their information confidential. How reliable, if at all, can sources from outside an organization, or sources who have since left the organization for some purpose or other, be seen as being? This is particularly important if the only other extant sources are the organizations themselves, or their adherents. Any input on that matter would be welcome as well. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kwanzaa is a racist holiday

The is an on-going dispute over if the view, espoused by Front Page Magazine that Kwanzaa "is a racist holiday" is notable or fringe. Thus far, no solid mainstream sources have been offered, but now there is an NPOV tag on the article because of this. futurebird (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bah, not Ann Coulter again! That wretched woman causes far more trouble on Misplaced Pages than she's worth. Humbug!

More seriously - shrug. None of the sources that are directly cited would appear to be especially good ones, but that's nothing unusual. The article doesn't appear particularly POV, it just needs better sourcing. Coulter's opinion is worthy of inclusion in the criticism section, yes: she's a highly notable figure. Front Page Magazine - hmm, certainly not the world's most reliable source, and the opinion published there is doubtless fringe, but it may also be notable. I'll remove the POV tag and leave a note somewhere about improved sourcing. Moreschi 12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While Coulter is notable for other stuff, her views on Kwanzaa may not be notable. Notability is in relation to the topic of the article, in this case Kwanzaa, not Coulter. Would this sentence make sense: "It is noteworthy that Ann Coulter criticizes Kwanzaa as being a racist holiday". No, not really in my opinion. Just being famous doesn't make one's views notable. They have to be notable to the topic at hand. --Nealparr 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Coulter strikes me as just one of the most conspicuous of a large set of US far-right windbags. She has her own WP article, to which she's welcome. Within something purporting to be an encyclopedia, why must the article on her every target write up her nutty view about it? -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nooo idea. Still, she's a notable US far-right windbag, and something's got to go in the jolly old criticism section. Misplaced Pages has worse problems than Ann Coulter over-representation :) Cheers, Moreschi 13:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone is wikilawyering in order to insert personal views onto an article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. This clearly violates WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Frontpage magazine is not a "maisntream source," but fits the definition of "extremist sources of a political nature." Nevermind. Noting the political criticism of Kwanzaa as a racist holiday does not by itself violate WP:FRINGE provided that it's simply acknowledged as merely "criticism by Conservatives." To address possible NPOV issues, I added a lead. Zenwhat (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Zenwhat. But, I noticed you took out Ann's name, I think it's more neutral if her ideas are attributed directly to her. Ie. Coulter writes that... blah blah blah etc. (Since she's not an expert on holidays or anything I still wonder if it's notable, but as long as we give the source properly it's not that big of a deal provided we don't give undue weight to these things.) futurebird (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I hate to ask, but a lot of this RfC is dealing with actions taken back before this noticeboard was created, when battling fringe theories could be an even more lonely and thankless job. So I'd appreciate commentary on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden Adam Cuerden 09:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

This article right now seems to go a bit overboard in attempting to describe the pseudoscience of this instrument. Some help would be appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, the article is a bit rough....I don't have time to look into it today, but I'll try to check back and look again. It does appear that some folks are working on it the last few days, hopefully they'll make some headway also. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe website used as a mainstream source

This is copied from Talk:Force

The link to an online copy of Maxwell's A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field points to a website run by an over-unity zero-point energy group. Admittedly, they are simply hosting a copy of Maxwell's treatise, but still... bad. I'll see if I can find a better site to link to tonight. At worst, we can remove the links altogether, since it's the book that's the reference, not the website. — BillC 19:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, Bill! We should also remove all the links elsewhere at Misplaced Pages. Here's a place to help us find them all: . ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous human combustion

This article is a mess. (No flames, please.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, at least it says that "The possibility that spontaneous human combustion takes place is remote." Take that, Brittanica! MastCell 02:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

god bless america....that's quite a treatise on the subject....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments

I was toying with the idea of running for admin and since I often participate in discussions about fringe topics, I was hoping to get some feedback on my editing. Anyone interested can participate in my RfC at User:Nealparr/RfC. Thank you in advance. --Nealparr 06:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian fringe garden

From Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact sprouts another voluminous collection of articles all of the "rejected by the vast majority of scholars" kind.

• Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories
• Olmec alternative origin speculations ("speculations" actually as part of the article title!)
• Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact -- note entries like "3500 BC - Japanese arrive at Ecuador after being blown off course" labelled with "A" for "ahistorical". Why do we need "ahistorical" list entries?? (fixed, c.f. history)
• Solutrean hypothesis
• Pre-Columbian Islamic contact theories
• Archaeology and the Book of Mormon (weighs 112k!)

mind, there is nothing wrong with mentioning this stuff, but we should not allow such non-issues to sprawl like that. A succinct Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact would be more than sufficient. Somehow, it appears Misplaced Pages is a free webhost for fringe authors after all, just as long as they stash a "rejected by almost everybody... nonetheless, alternative historians maintain their convictions" somewhere. I don't have the heart to tackle this, but it is a problem. dab (𒁳) 12:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

In 1939 the SS produced two prototypes of an EMG powered flying saucer called Haunebu I with a diameter of 24.95 meters and able to reach a speed of 4,800 km/h...
<eleland/talkedits> 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with an article

We meed people willing to push back against New Age psuedoscience pushers at Talk:Consciousness causes collapse. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

quantum quackery, eh? That's soo 1980s :p dab (𒁳) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On first glance, the article in its 20:26 9 January revision looks reasonable. What exactly are the woo-woo crowd trying to push? <eleland/talkedits> 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, they're trying to argue against calling this subject pseudoscience. I've been fighting, but they're getting more tenacious. See, for example, User talk:ScienceApologist#Consciouness causes collapse. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards