Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:28, 10 June 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!

Pseudohistory

Those of us who regularly watch this page are quick to spot pseudoscience and label it as such. We are much slower off the mark as to pseudohistory (Probably more scientists watch this page than historians). In any case, a slow boil edit war (ie it changes back and forth about once a month) is going on at the article on Robert Lomas, the author of "The Hyram Key" (basic premise for those not familiar with the book: The ancient Egyptians had ritual certain practices; The early Christians in Jerusalem followed these practices, and by the way Jesus did not die on the cross; Suppose they hid documents to this effect in the ruins of the Temple. The Knights Templars are said to have found something in the ruins of the Temple, therefore what they found were these documents. Since the Freemasons might be descendants of the Templars, the Masons are directly connected to the Ancient Egyptians.) To me this has so many suppositions and conjectures that it can only be called pseudohistory. However, attepts to categorize Lomas as a pseudohistorian and his label his work as pseudohistory are reverted. Note... the book was a best seller and helped inspire The DaVinci Code... so it is notable. Those of us arguing to call it pseudohistory are not attempting to delete the article... only to make it clear that this is not history. Some assistance by those who care about historical Fringe Theories is needed. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is even pseudohistory. Category:Fantasy writers may fit better. I mean, I do not hope anyone is suggesting any of this has anything to do with actual history. It may still be interesting as "alternate history" literature. --dab (𒁳) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This actually goes to a larger issue. Currently up for review at CfD is Category:Historians of Freemasonry. I don't really care whether the category is deleted or kept (I created it, but have agreed that it should probably be deleted based on the nomination's rational). However, since being nominated, there has been a flurry of activity... those who wish to keep the category have been adding it to articles on any author who has ever written something mentioning Freemasonry, be it speculative fiction, pseudohistory, or anti-Masonic rants and exposés. They are also adding it to anyone who wrote a legitimate history of something else... but who happen to include some passing discussion of Freemasonry while doing so. This bothers me. It gives legitimacy to the works and their authors. I have removed the categorization from most of the articles added, but in several cases I have been reverted (and I don't really want to get into an edit war). I suppose the underlying question is... what qualifies someone to be called a historian... and more specifically a "Historian of Freemasonry"? Advice would be appreciated (and feel free to comment at the CfD... no pressure to vote either way). Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

we should only call a "historian" somebody with an academic degree in history who publishes academically (WP:PROF). Plus ancient historians like Herodotus of course. dab (𒁳) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with dab, but here I think he's being too concerned with credentials. I'm a historian of science with an academic degree in it, but I know scientists who have published academically respectable historical studies about their discipline. I'd emphasize the places they've published as much as the formal credentials. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Cassi article blithely states By the 1st C AD, the Cassi had become known as the Catuvellauni (“Battle Superiors”). and cites Daithi O Hogan's "The Celts: A History" as its source. The first problem is that this seems pure conjecture based on the name Cassivellaunus and the second is that I understand O Hogan is a folklorist rather than a historian and that his book has had some pretty savage reviews. Does anyone know any more? Paul S (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just now searched Google Books for "Cassi" and "Catuvellauni", and am immediately satisfied that historians have consistently connected the two for well over a hundred years. But, even if only O Hogan had said it, this page is not Wikiversity; all we do is attribute ideas to the source, not totally dissect them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Connected" is vague; can you be more specific? What we need to know is whether O hOgain's apparent assertion (and he is primarily a folklorist rather than a historian) is a fringe theory... I've heard it suggested on the basis of the name that Cassivellaunus was a member of the Cassi before, but never heard it put forward that the Cassi had become the Catuvellauni - in fact, that seems impossible because both are mentioned by Caesar. The only people I've heard tell this story are creators of the Europa Barbarorum mod for Rome: Total War. PsychoV is the forum nickname of one of them. Are fringe theories being promoted, or indeed are EB modders sneaking their fantasy history into Misplaced Pages? Paul S (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew next to nothing about this, and have no opinion to push, but I was easily able to get answers to all these questions after reading a few of the Google Books pages I mentioned above. Why don't you try it? Again, we do have plenty of sources, and finding sources to attribute ideas to is our job, not dissecting them with our own 'expertise' and original counter-rebuttals, because this is an encyclopedia, not a university! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the relationship between the Cassi and the various Casses? And I am very suspicious of the translatins, such as 'Agile strikers'. As for the capital, see

And Catuvellauni “Battle Superiors” -- Google books shows up only Daithi O’Hogain, and Google scholar, nothing. And although I have nothing against Daithi O’Hogain, if he is the sole source, something seems wrong.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just now looked into that, and soon found that other historians (eg. Rhys) translate it as "Battle rulers", "War kings", "Battle princes" and similar... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem isn't with the rendering of Catuvellauni as "Battle Superiors" it's with the assertion that the Cassi became the Catuvellauni, not to mention the dubious linking of the British Cassi with the various Gaulish tribal names ending in -casses which is unsourced. Also - is O hOgain simply the source for the meaning of Catuvellauni or for the assertion that they used to be the Cassi? Paul S (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And those claims are back. I agree entirely about the dubious linking of Cassi with casses, and the question of any link between the Cassi and the Catuvellauni. And I'll take Webster and Cunliffe any day over O'Hogain.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Found some sources for the Cassi-Catuvellauni link, mainly Keith Brannigan.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And have now rewritten it. It turns out that Dáithí Ó hÓgáin doesn't mention the Cassi, I've put a link on the article's Talk page showing the page that Psycho referenced.

Prem Rawat

Prem Rawat is the Indian-born head of a spritual movement. He was once known as "Guru Maharaj Ji" and led the Divine Light Mission. He and his movement were the subject of numerous scholarly and journalistic articles during their heyday. One scholar's book has been accused of making exceptional claims, trigering WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so in addition to deciding that the claims are exceptional we need to decide that the source is not a "high-quality reliable source". The debate is at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Van der Lans. As currently drafted, the assertions of Jan van der Lans are summarized thus:

• Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Radboud University Nijmegen, wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health. Van der Lans wrote that Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life. On the one hand, he tried to remain loyal to the role and to the expectations of his students, yet on the other hand, his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders. According to van der Lans, one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings.
  • KSGV: Objectives
    "Het KSGV onderneemt zijn activiteiten vanuit een christelijke inspiratie."
  • Lans, Jan van der (Dutch language) Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland page 117, written upon request for the KSGV published by Ambo, Baarn, 1981 ISBN 90-263-0521-4

The specific objections are "that he's a charlatan leading a double life" and that "his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders". FWIW, everyone agrees that the subject led a life of luxury and opulence.

To rebut the assertion that these are exceptional claims, I've done research on news clippings from the era, and find that these claims are confirmed by comments from friends, family, and associates (some ofthem estranged).

• Rawat's mother accused him of living like a playboy and adopting a despicable, nonspiritual way of life. Susan Butcher, speaking on behalf of Shri Mataji, said, He has not ben practicing what he has been preaching....He has always preached and recommend to his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy, and abstention from alcohol, and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations, and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life. He's being a playboy.
• Mishler, the organization's former president, said tight security surrounding the house is part of 'elaborate precautions' Maharaj Ji has taken to hide his private life from followers...Mishler said Maharaj Ji's ban on alcohol and marijuana for his followers was ignored at the estate...Mishler said he left the group because 'there was no way of accomplishing the ideals expounded by the mission.' In addition, he said more and more of the church money began to go for personal use and he was concerned that the Divine Light Mission was becoming a 'tax evasion for the guru.'
• Back in India, his colleagues were also sceptical: "The fact is that some Indian leaders - religous and lay- consider Maharaj Ji a fraud and his mission a gigantic ripoff.
• But his personal physician and disciple, Dr. John Horton, attributes the boy's weight to a sedentary life of making decisions.

In light of this information, is it reasonable to say that van der Lans represents a fringe viewpoint, and that his scholarly research makes exceptional claims, or are his assertions consistent with statements by other parties, meaning that they are not exceptional? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a one sided presentation of the dispute, which omits important facts. WP:REDFLAG applies for the 1973 Mother's claims: A devotee of Satguru, of God, he liquidates himself, or dissolved himself, or effaces himself on the Lotus Feet of the Lord". (referring to her son, Prem Rawat, age 13) and a November 1972, Time Magazine which reported that his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet as a demonstration of worship. Compare with the statement made after the rift (caused by the marriage of PR to a non-hindu against his mother's wishes) about "leading a despicable life", only three years later (!!!). Clearly a report of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. (from WP:REDFLAG).

WP:REDFLAG also applies for the absurd claim (conveniently omitted by Will Beback) about "colleagues in India", who claimed he was a fraud as Rawat was a 22 years old, instead of 16 years old at the time. The full quote; The fact is that some Indian leaders - religous and lay- consider Maharaj Ji a fraud and his mission a gigantic ripoff. A group of religious leaders met in New Delhi to demand that the boy guru be examined by a panel of doctors to determine his true age, which they claimed is at least 22.

WP:REDFLAG, also applies to Mishler, who made these claims after leaving the organization due to conflicts. This Mishler went to the extent to make outrageous claims, such as that "that practices Maharaj Ji employed, theoretically to subdue the ego, included 'stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools." A claim that is not included in any of the many scholarly sources available on the subject. There is one mention of Mishler's name in one source, that omits that information for very obvious reasons.

The text attributed to van der Lans, is not accurate. It was published is in a book published by an Protestant Evangelical organization that presents information from a "Christian inspired perspective" (my translation, as Will omits the translation of the KSGV objectives), who caters to pastors and churches. Clearly a Christian apologetic source, which needs to be assessed in that context (btw, there are no sources or references in that publication). The source is in Dutch and not available for verification, although some editors are making efforts to obtain a copy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposed draft fully attributes the assertions to their author. It is not being presented as an omniscient viewpoint, but rather as the viewpoint of a notable Dutch scholar. The KSGV is linked in the text, which also describes the publisher as, ...a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith... I asked you several times if you objected to the scholar in general or just this book and you never responded so it'd be helpful if you could give your opinion on that matter here.

The source for Mishler is the L.A. Times., and the subject's mother's accusations were carried by the wire services and at least dozens of newspapers printed them. It's entirely verifiable that they said said those things. We're not in a position to judge whether they are correct or incorrect. They do show that Jan van der Lans did not simply make up the assertions that are being objected to. While it can be argued that quoting them would be a primary source, he is a scholar and a secondary source.

Regarding the subject's age, that isn't in dispute here so it appears to be a WP:REDHERRING. Jossi appears to be arguing that these assertions are so wildly false that we can't even report that they were made. On the contrary, I think they are a mere summation of widely-reported assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The age issue is certainly important, as it shows the necessary context to evaluate that source. I have no problems with van der Lans articles published by non-partisan publications, my argument is about the application of WP:REDFLAG to the sources you have brought to support your contention. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to impeach the Indian leaders, reigious and lay, that called the subject a "fraud" then you're welcome to do so. But, combined with the subject's mother and former associate, they show that it's not an exceptional claim to say that van der Lans has accused Rawat of being a charlatan, or to include that accusation in the article. I mean, it's an even more exceptional claim to say that the subject was the "Lord of the Universe", yet we report that assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The calling of "Lord of the Universe" by his devotees in the 70's is widely reported. There is even a parody documentary Lord of the Universe (documentary), and my argument about WP:REDFLAG, was not about van der Lans accusations, but about the sources you brought to support your argument. Remove these sources that are obvious redflags, and what have you got? Not much. The problem with van der Lans quote is related to the fact that it is published in a partisan source, and that (a) it repeats claims that have, per my evidence, raise WP:REDFLAG concerns; (b) There is no scholarly source (and there are many) that repeat these claims; and (c) this is a WP:BLP, and the quality of sources is paramount for such claims. Basically, how can we call that a significant viewpoint? We can't≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(What this was placed in this noticeboard? The correct noticeboard seems to be Misplaced Pages:V/N.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG says to see Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, which in turns points here. You seem to be arguing that van der Lans is promoting a fringe theory. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Will. I am arguing about applying WP:REDFLAG as it relates to Misplaced Pages:V#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument on the talk hasn't been that the source is unrelaible, it's been that the claim is outlandish. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Differences in perception

Cultural differences US-Europe

Schnabel points to a difference in appreciation between northern America, the eastern world and Europe (p 104):

Crossing the line

A bit simplistic, but this is more or less the picture: in Europe a religious leader would cross a line from the moment he lives in luxury, or alternatively when he teaches something different as to what he applies to himself (for this point see Schnabel p 101, this makes a charismatic leader a fraud/"bedrieger"); the US has more tolerance in that respect: neither does affluence in and by itself, nor the charismatic leader putting himself apart from the flock carry a necessary connotation of condemnation. There, affluence is admired; "fraud" would only apply when appropriating money in mischievous ways, etc.

For all Dutch authors from the early 1980s we've been considering regarding Rawat (Haan, Van der Lans, Kranenborg, Lammers, Schnabel,...) there's no doubt, Rawat crossed a line he shouldn't have crossed (in a European perspective) - that is the mainstream opinion there; For US/northern American authors of roughly the same period the mainstream opinion is that he's a quite successful religious leader, and that accusations from former adherents and disgraced family members are "fringe".

Conclusions

1. For sources from the Netherlands of the early 1980s REDFLAG applies to those sources that would contend that Rawat didn't cross a line of appropriatness — not the other way around;
2. Regarding the underlying differences of appreciation between Northern America and Europe (...and the East): I have no clearcut solution as to how to present that in Misplaced Pages. Anyway on the one side I suppose we should try to avoid the pitfalls of a too US-centred view (compare WP:NPOV/FAQ#Anglo-American focus and systematic bias); on the other hand the Prem Rawat article (and by extention the "Criticism" article) are hardly the place to start expounding on these general cultural differences: these are biographical articles, BLP's even, that leaves little room for the interpretation of the worldwide connotations of terms like "fraud" (which, according to any Dutch-English dictionary, is the correct English translation of "bedrieger").

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I am reminded of an interesting comparison between US and European attitudes in reguards to the concept of "Equality" that I once read in an Op-Ed collumn in a newspaper (I no longer remember which paper)... A poor man sees a rich man drive by in a fancy automobile... if the poor man is an American, he will say to himself: "Someday, I will ride in a fancy car just like that guy". If the poor man is a European, he will say to himself: "Someday I will make that guy get out and walk just like me". Not sure if this has anything to do with the current debate... it just came to mind. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Since we're OT, I can add that there are a couple of economics papers demonstrating why both beliefs, as well a moral standard of the sort Francis talks about above, could be simultaneously rational and self-reinforcing. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Schnabel points out that in the US (and the East but with more nuance there) richess is seen as a positive sign; In Europe (with the Netherlands as an example), money has a "bad odour", in general - or: Europeans have an ambivalent attitude w.r.t. richess."

Gee, you'd think there are two groups serving two different masters. One group loves and serves Mammon, and lives to accumulate it in this temporal world, while the other group hates it. 70.105.57.250 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

When Rawat married in 1974 his followers gave him a Maserati and a boat. Scholars who compare him unfavorably to the penniless celibate monk are judging him by the wrong measure. His followers wanted him to live a life of luxury and therefore he is not being duplicitous by obliging them.Momento (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

...which completely misses the point. Van der Lans didn't compare to "the penniless celibate monk", nor would he very likely have done:

• There were comparatively few monks in the Netherlands, that wouldn't have been an image that suited his target public very well;
• The Netherlands were sexually quite liberated at the time: I didn't read any of the sources discussed here criticising Rawat for having a soulmate, even less for being married: most clergy in the Netherlands could marry, and those who couldn't (...for instance Catholic priests), were rather criticised because their religion didn't allow them to marry - that criticism was even prominent within their own ranks at the time (and place), don't underestimate the post Vaticanum II atmosphere which made even most Catholics believe that pretty soon obligatory celibate for priests would come to an end;
• "Penniless": at the time (and place) abbeys and their inhabitants were rather cricicised for their richess, not for being penniless (which nobody would believe).

Really, please address the sources and not a figment of your imagination.

Apart from this complete cultural misappreciation, you even more fundamentally miss the point in your defense of what Rawat "was" or "was not". There's no merit in that discussion (aka: "verifiability not truth" per WP:V). How did reliable sources describe him, that's what Misplaced Pages is about: the sources discussed here described Rawat at least as "ambiguous", to which no REDFLAG applies (again: REDFLAG would apply if they would have failed to point out that ambiguity). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that what Paul Schnabel wrote then about the differences was and is still true. For example, the opulent lifestyle of Jeremiah Wright would be widely condemned in the Netherlands. Andries (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that I am about the only one who has read most of the book "Followers of the guru"/"Volgelingen van de goeroe" by Jan van der Lans and I can only repeat my opinion that Jossi is wrong when he says that the book is Christian apologetic. I introduced this book to Misplaced Pages and I generally dislike Christian apologetic sources. This could be added to the long list of specious allegations that Jossi makes about sources and their paraphrasing that he does not like regarding Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission. Andries (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Take back to Criticism of Prem Rawat?

This discussion originated at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Van der Lans. Maybe it's time to take it back there.

In the mean while Jayen provided a context analysis there (Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#van der Lans: context - "The text on Andries' page was essentially correct ...") – the apparent context being a fairly standard description of disciple-guru relationship, as pointed out by Jossi.

Is anyone still contending a REDFLAG re. Van der Lans? In other words, can we get rid of (Criticism of Prem Rawat#Observations from scholars):

Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Radboud University Nijmegen, wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health<ref>KSGV: Objectives<br>"Het KSGV onderneemt zijn activiteiten vanuit een christelijke inspiratie."</ref>. Van der Lans wrote that...

... and replace it by:

Jan van der Lans, a Dutch professor of psychology of religion wrote in 1981...

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Child Sexual Abuse

User:PetraSchelm has reverted (without prior discussion or consensus) a long-standing, sourced section on "Controversial Research", citing WP:COATRACK:

I'd like to invite discussion from other editors. My own view is that CSA has seen more than its fair share of "controversial" research, in addition to the non-controversial research carried out in the spirit of Kinsey, before the CSA paradigm became powerful as it is today. There is also lots of critical literature outside of the medical field that isn't even mentioned.

In this sense, coatrack does not justify the removal of whole sections, and the way that this was done was less than civil. Lambton /_C 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An extreme fringe of researchers--including a pedophilia advocate who "analyzed" a hand-selected sample of 25 people 30 years ago--allege that child sexual abuse is harmless, and/or "the negative effects are not pervasive or long lasting, therefore some adults retain positive feelings about their childhood experience of sexual abuse." Two editors at this article believe that this fringe research constitutes a "controversy," that should be described in a lengthy paragraph in the article. I think this is undue weight, and a coatrack. Also, that dubious, discredited 10 and 30 + year old research doesn't belong in the article at all, and certainly doesn't rise to the level of a controversy meriting a paragraph. More input is welcome.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this version of the article, I agree some coatracking is going on and that the "Controversial research" section is too lengthy. Some mention of the most notable research is fine, with due discussion and rebuttals: three whole hefty paragraphs is probably not. Make it short and sweet. Certainly, this research is very fringy stuff, and should be dealt with as such. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur; a short summary of the conflict in context with rebuttals is appropriate, but the section as it was, was excessive. Care is needed to avoid undue weight for the fringe theories that have been derailing this and related articles for quite a while. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Articles relating to child sex abuse are a bit of a problem generally. We either get one extreme or the other: "abuse is everywhere" (the fights over Satanic ritual abuse) or "abuse is no problem" (not here, but the fights over Adult-child sex would be one example). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that any research seen as controversial is almost excluded from the rest of the article, the removal of this section was improper. It leaves the article reflecting only one end of the spectrum in CSA research. It polarises the issue towards a misrepresentative, religiously medicalistic, clinical and illness-biased position on the subject. Lambton /_C 23:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because everyone thinks it's so fucked up. See WP:UNDUE. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversial subject matter must at the very least be abridged. While several of the studies in question are frequently trumpeted as running contrary to the idea of CSA, they in fact do not prove anything quite so sweeping. Rather, they merely pick a small technicalities of the commonly held model.Legitimus (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section is being given far too much weight in the article. The controversy itself is a tiny minority view at best. IMO, Rind should be given a sentence or two, but more condemning of Rind, since more papers and the media both condemned the study. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The left-wing media (like Reason) largely accepted the study; most of the condemnation came from anti-intellectual wingnut rags like WorldNetDaily. This neutral article in the New York Times highlights the conservative nature of the attacks on Rind. Similarly, most of the papers published on Rind et al. (1998) analyze the hysteria and defend Rind and his team against the flawed claims of their critics (most of whom came from the "repressed memory" fringe). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fringe is those that believe that repressed memory doesn't exist. A large majority of the studies on this topic show that it is a solid and valid scientific theory. Here's a few examples :

Widom, Cathy Spatz (1996). "Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood victimization : Part 1. Childhood physical abuse". Psychological Assessment. 8 (4). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association: 412–21. ISSN 1040-3590. EJ542113. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Widom, Cathy Spatz (1997). "Accuracy of Adult Recollections of Childhood Victimization: Part 2. Childhood Sexual Abuse". Psychological Assessment. 9 (1). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association: 34–46. ISSN 1040-3590. EJ545434. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Sheflin, Alan W (1996). "Repressed Memory or Dissociative Amnesia: What the Science Says". Journal of Psychiatry & Law. 24 (Summer): 143–88. ISSN 0093-1853. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Herman, Judith Lewis (1997). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books. pp. p119-122. ISBN 0465087302. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Albach, Francine (Dec-1996). "Memory recovery of childhood sexual abuse". Dissociation. Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 261-273. ISSN 0896-2863. Retrieved 2008-01-03. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)ResearchEditor (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You're leaving out 1) the Rind study was condemned by Congress 2) three other meta-analyses came out at the same time and didn't concur with Rind 3) Rind et al published in a pro-pedophilia journal called Paidika 4) the conclusions of the study were that the effects of child sexual abuse are not "pervasive or long lasting," which isn't much of a big controversy anyway, because up to date research--already reflected in the article--notes that the prognosis for recovery is excellent 5) what was controversial about Rind wasn't so much his conclusions but his opinion that child sexual abuse should be called "adult-child sex" sometimes, if it happens between adults and teenaged boys who say they weren't harmed. 6) The Rind study has a whole article already, and is 7) described in detail in the pro-pedophile activism article. It's not really relevant to child sexual abuse in general, because it didn't shift or even affect the weight of scientific opinion, not even minutely; and because the controversy was cultural, not scientific. The ten year old Rind et al pro-pedophile push to legitimize sexual contacts between adults and adolescent boys has a place where it is relevant, and that's in the pro-pedophile activism article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Congressional condemnation means nothing in this context; imagine what our evolution / intelligent design articles would look like if it did. Rind et al was in Psychological Bulletin, not Paidika. The section that was removed was prima facie NPOV and well-sourced; perhaps it needed to be augmented with equally NPOV and well-sourced criticism of those specific assertions, or to better contextualize them as controversial minority views. I do not see any grounds to remove it entirely. <eleland/talkedits> 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they published it in Paidika, I said they published in Paidika; the authors have a pro-pedophile bias. Fringe theories need not be mentioned at all, except perhaps in articles devoted to them, and in this case there's a whole article devoted to Rind elsewhere, in adddition to detailed coverage at the pro-pedophile activism article. The significance of "condemned by Congress" is in response to AnotherSolipsist's contention that "most of the condemnation came from... WorldNetDaily." (And mainstream science rejected it also.) The solution to a coatrack isn't to further expand it by adding rebuttals; it's to crop it. (We have two isssues here now: 1) the coatrack itself, for which there is consensus to crop significantly to include only Rind 2) whether Rind should even be included or not....)-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any "coatracking" here so much as the attempt to over-emphasize the weight of a minority view. So some study interviewed minors on how they feel about being in a "relationship" with adults. The study was heavily criticized as pedophile activism masquerading as science. This is all perfectly on topic in the "child sexual abuse" article, we just need to take care not to allow the article to implicitly jump to conclusions (WP:SYN), along the lines of "the Stockholm syndrome says some people feel good about being held hostage. Hence, we conclude it is really ok to take hostages or kidnap people." Plus, there is a main article, Rind et al. controversy; details on that should go there. pro-pedophile activism should perhaps be considered a valid sub-article of Child sexual abuse, and the "controversial research" could be accommodated in that context. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The criticism of Sandfort's study mostly focuses on the implications of his findings. The actual data he collected can hardly be considered pseudoscientific: A few critics have pointed out that his sample was non-representative, but Sandfort didn't claim otherwise (in fact he subtitled the study An Empirical Investigation Among a Nonrepresentative Group of Boys.) I don't think there's any serious doubt among the CSA-erudite that a subset of sexual abuse victims regard their experience positively (whether as a coping mechanism or whatever), which is all our article says. The minority view that CSA should be legalized was, if I'm not mistaken, represented nowhere in the section deleted. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a 30+ year old study with a sample size of 25 that consisted entirely of subjects recruited from the Dutch National Pedophile Workshop--it's ludicrously irrelevant to anything except the pro-pedophile activism article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Petra -- if you take away the controversy surrounding the "implications", what is left is staggeringly unremarkable. This will either be about the "activism" controversy or nothing at all. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandfort is notable for a number of reasons. 1. The sample. The convenience sample uses men who have no particular mental health record, and actually believe that they are doing the boys good. There is no clinical or legal element. The sample is unique and valuable, representing a liberal climate that may not exist in any other developed country for decades to come. 2. The intimacy between interviewer and interviewee. Again, unique and naturalistic. Boys, it appears were encouraged to be themselves during the interviews. The interviews were carried out in familiar territory (the men's homes), in neutral terms and the men were not present. The level of detail that the interviews went into more than offsets the small sample size - a method probably more suited to your "soft science" conception of psychology. 3. The conclusions. Is it not fascinating that the conclusions were so wildly unlike those of other studies? Could this have something to do with the methodology? This should be up for discussion in an article that goes beyond the "one true" narrative of CSA, and actually represents the diversity of opinion in this subject with some fairness. Lambton /_C 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandfort alone may not be particularly significant, but studies using representative samples have shown that a large portion of abuse survivors hold or held their abuse in a positive light. In Rind et al., 42% of the 118 men included in the sample and 16% of the 514 women maintained overall positive feelings for their abuse. That's a lot of people to make unpersons. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet no one else before or since has ever replicated these findings, which why Rind triggers WP:REDFLAG, and the confirmation bias inherent in a pro-pedophilia advocate conducting a study is relevant. Again, Rind has its own article, and is recounted in detail in the pro-pedophile activism article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Pet: You have a very poor understanding of the subject, and indeed the profile of Bruce Rind and his works. Rind et al was a meta analysis conducted for the APA. That means that it was a high profile report that depended on many studies that produced similar findings *before* it was published. There have also been critical surveys and case studies of CSA victims that were not included in Rind, but are referred to by other authors and critics. Your accusations of Pro-Pedophile activism are very similar to those made by the Far-Right homophobe, Reisman, in nonsensical rants about the gay agenda and recruitment of children. Even Dallam - an incredibly biased and value-laden counter to Rind did not go as far as you have. Lambton /_C 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. (Although it's interesting, I suppose, that you would align someone who chose their username from the far left and edits critical theory articles with the far right...). Again, three other meta-analyses came out at the same time and did not concur with Rind, and no meta-analysis published since has concurred with Rind either. His overall conclusion was that there is harm (not controversial); what was controversial was his opinion that the term "adult child sex" should be used in cases where an adolescent boy and an adult man have sex and the boy doesn't believe he was harmed. The use of this "value neutral term" is a noted goal of pro-pedophile advocates, per Mary de Young's analysis of pro-pedophile activism, which is described in detail in the pro-pedophile activism article. The signifigance of the decade-old Rind et al study is to the history of pro-pedophile activism.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

His opinion that some adult-child sex should not be termed child sexual abuse isn't what was in the article. If the rest was uncontroversial, why do you object to its inclusion as "fringe?"

The other meta-analyses didn't concur with Rind et al. (1998) on the issue of self-reported reactions because they didn't study or comment on that. Another red herring... --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be included on a scientific basis because it doesn't add anything to the article; the conclusions are already represented via the most up to date research. Why do you want to include it? We haven't included the other three meta-analyses either. We're trying to represent the WP:WEIGHT so that the article is up to date, informative, and readable. Self-reported reactions are of low evidentiary value; that's why no one studies or comments on them in a meta-analysis (unless they're trying to confirm a confirmation bias, which is what Dallam and Congress pointed out Rind was doing...) Rind's opinion re "adult-child sex' caused a cultural controversy ten years ago, and there's an article exlaining the controversy, and it's included as well, in detail, in the pro-pedophile activism article. Like Sandfort, it's a very important study--to pro-pedophile advocates. To everyone else, it's an irrelevant fringe theory. (And the fringe basis is cultural, not scientific. Sandfort and Rind have zero relevance to the weight of scientific opinion; they're cultural curiosities.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

←PetraSchelm is correct, and dab also stated it very well at 14:55 and 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC). The study was widely debunked and criticized by science and widely quoted by pedophile activists. In the CSA article, a short paragraph about pedophile activisim and the use of Rind et al and maybe Sandfort by activists would be appropriate, with links to the relevant articles. It needs to be done carefully without SYN. There is no controversy about this in scientific research today to report, and to include information in the article that implies there is, would be undue weight for a fringe theory, from the smallest of fringes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Support for Rind was not fringe. If you can provide some academic articles against Rind, I will provide some for (or neutral). We will discover that the debate was wide open. Lambton /_C 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The significance of Rind is to the fringe of the fringe; no one else really cares. The cultural controversy, which is a decade old, has its own article. It's like the Dutch pedophile party that only had three members. It had shock value, so the press commented on it/it was a big news story for fifteen minutes. Then it faded to total obscurity except for on pro-pedophile websites, where it is enshrined as gospel and blown out of proportion eight ways to Sunday in the style of fringe websites everywhere. Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to give an erroneous impression of notability. Rind is notable to the history of pro-pedophile activism, not to the study of child sexual abuse.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Parts of Rind et al. (1998) are fairly unique, actually, and it continues to be cited in the literature. Google Scholar turns up 364 papers citing it. That's almost half the number of hits that the most notable study on CSA (Kendall-Tackett et al.) has, despite the 5-year advantage of Kendall-Tackett. Some citations of Rind in peer-reviewed journals (and one Ph.D dissertation) from 2008:

• A Ph.D dissertation: "A 1998 meta-analytic study examined the relationship between CSA and ED and found a statistically significant, but small, relationship (r = .06) among the sample of college students without a clinical diagnosis of eating disorders (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998)."
• The British Journal of Psychiatry: "In addition, meta-analytic data indicate that the association between childhood sexual abuse and psychopathological symptoms tends to be larger for more severe forms of abuse."
• Psychiatry Research: "For example, 17% of college students report childhood sexual abuse in the form of sexual intercourse (Rind et al., 1998)."
• Sexual and Relationship Therapy: "They found, in a meta-analysis of 59 studies of over 15,000 college students, that the relation between self-reported CSA and psychopathology was weak and even weaker when CSA was considered to be consensual, particularly for males. They also reported that 11% of women and 37% of men indicated that their short-term reaction to the CSA was positive. Rind and Tromovitch (1997) similarly reported that only a small proportion of individuals with CSA experiences are permanently harmed in their meta-analytic review of seven national samples of psychological correlates of CSA. They concluded that while psychological adjustment measures suggest that CSA is related to poorer adjustment in the general population, confounding variables prevent attributing causal effects of CSA. "
• American Journal of Public Health: "Very little is actually known about the long-term risks and benefits of abstinence intentions, virginity pledges, or early or late initiation in the context of consensual sexual experiences; however, numerous studies have documented long-term adverse outcomes of sexual abuse, including sexual risk behaviors. "
• Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy: "Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998) found in a meta analysis of 59 studies comprising 15,000 college students that relations between a self-reported history of CSA and psychopathology was low, and it was lower in magnitude when the respondent deemed CSA to be consensual, but only in men. Some 11% of female and 37% of male respondents reported their short-term reaction to the abuse as being positive."
• Psychological Medicine: " Rind et al. (1998) examined the relationship between CSA and psychological adjustment outcomes (e.g. alcohol problems, interpersonal sensitivity) in samples recruited from college and university student populations. Effect sizes were computed for the association between CSA and psychological outcomes, and for the magnitude of the relationship between several moderating variables (e.g. gender, level of contact) and psychological outcomes. Significant interactions were found between gender and two moderating aspects of the CSA experience, namely level of contact (i.e. psychological outcomes were significantly stronger for males than females when CSA was unwanted) and timing of reaction (i.e. negative reactions to CSA were significantly greater for females than males across each category of reaction timing that was measured: immediate, current, and lasting)."

So there. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• You're just proving my point that the part of Rind that is not controversial is already reflected in the article; the most up to date research. It's already common knowledge that more severe forms of abuse=more severe harm, etc., and it's not necessary to cite Rind (or any individual paper) to state that in the article. No one asserts that anyone is "permanently harmed" (except for the brain damage research from Harvard, which we haven't included in the article...). Using Rind to state the obvious Trojan Horses in his controversial claim of "adult child sex" on the basis of dubious self-reports of dubious short term positive reaction for a dubious percentage of males only, that no one else replicates or agrees with; that is the glory of all the PPA fringe websites.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  Information on positive reactions to CSA is not reflected in the article. Two of 2008 papers I quoted above describe Rind's findings on this. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Uh, then what is this: "In 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that not all cases of "adult-child sex" should be termed child sexual abuse. This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal. Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases. The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers, including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002). The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions."-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said, the weight of scientific commentary on Rind et al. (1998) is positive. The American Psychologist special issue on Rind (vol. 57, issue 3) illustrates this.That which isn't positive was largely produced by the Leadership Council, a group of "repressed memory" apologists. (Interestingly, User:Jack-A-Roe and User:ResearchEditor have both been heavily involved in promoting their unusual brand of neutrality at Satanic ritual abuse and the repressed memory articles.) --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Leadership Council is a "nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, and public policy analysts." Their advisory board includes approximately 50 respected scientists who have written approximately 80 books. The attempts made by certain editors at the SRA and repressed memory articles have been to provide as many reliable sources as possible, presented in a NPOV fashion. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Like this edit by Jack, for example, where he quotes Ken Lanning stating that "satanic ritual abuse victims report things that are physically impossible": . I won't mention the presence here of the editor who voted very oddly in the adult child sex AfD. It would be nice to hear more outside views, though, instead of more of the same from the two fringe editors at child sexual abuse, and any adult-child sex AfD voters they can scare up. I think we've made the pro/con case from the involved editors' perspectives, and it's time to wait for actual new/wider input (on a problem that has dragged on for years at this article).-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In that edit, Jack paraphrases a pre-existing quote that said "some of what victims allege in these cases is physically impossible" to say "he considers some of what the victims alleged to be either untrue or physically impossible." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=rind+et+al&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Google, and just about every other SE disagrees, with you, Petra. Lambton /_C 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, by returning one result (on volcanoes), and excluding all results containing the words "child" and "sex" "Yahoo Kids" provides no consensus. Maybe you should back down a little and argue from Yahoo Kids. Lambton /_C 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a pattern, though. A hard-core of editors who dedicate themselves to presenting any topic involving children and sexuality in the most bizarrely condemnatory light. It can best be described an abandonment of neutrality and adoption of a public-consensus POV that leads to a cherry-picking of the most fearsome, medical-only literature on these topics. These conclusions are then treated as fact, in articles that come accross as thoroughly harsh on these topics, far harsher than most established psychological, sociological and critical articles on the subject. Lambton /_C 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

...and that's because everyone thinks it's so fucked up. WP:UNDUE is not an abandonment of neutrality. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Everyone" is not the consensus of academics and specialists who actually know something about the subject. Noting the public consensus is all fine and well, but it requires no more than a few lines, and should play no part in weighting and determining assumed facts in the rest of the article, which deals with professional, qualified opinions. Lambton /_C 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is also that it's fucked up.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not science, Petra. There is a reasonable consensus of near-universal harm, and even of unethical or risky practise (E.g. Finkelhor, who concedes that some instances are seen as positive). I know of no "scientific" consensus that equates to "fucked up" - an almost irrelevant opinion that one is likely to find amongst the "great unwashed" and in their holy books (which come in instalments of 365 a year). Lambton /_C 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Even Rind concedes it is fucked up (he merely wants to call a small percentage of adolescent males who self-report--only in the short term --that their experience was "positive" people who have experienced "adult-child sex." Since short term self reports are considered highly dubious, his proposed exception has not been adopted by the scientific community. In fact, it was overwhelmingly shot down. Also, his opinion on terminology is an opinion of terminology, not a scientific observation...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This may be a silly question — I'm not sure — but how much research really looks into the causal relationships between child sexual abuse and future life problems? I know the correlation is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've just heard, admittedly in nonscholarly sources, the suggestion that the reaction to CSA and the social stigma is at least as damaging as the CSA itself. Is there any solid research on this question? <eleland/talkedits> 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are eleland's comments from the adult-child sex AfD:

• "Hold your nose and Keep because, face it, logically Child sexual
• abuse would be the POV fork here. "Adult-child sex" is a neutral
• title; it's not like the article is called Man-boy love. Not all
• notable POV's (maybe not even a majority?) agree that sex between
• minors and adults is inherently sexual abuse in all circumstances.
• Merging this information to Child sexual abuse would be inherently
• POV. <eleland/talkedits> 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)"
• Seriously, thanks for sharing, but we'd really like to get some neutral outside input.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments which I stand by, and which are both reasonable and entirely irrelevant. Attempting to paint all those who distance themselves from your moral crusade as paedophile apologists hardly engenders confidence in your position. Now, are you capable of answering my question, or would you rather amuse yourself with ad hominems and well-poisoning? <eleland/talkedits> 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, whose sock puppet are you? A month and a half on WP and you're quoting contributions I made last fall? Please. <eleland/talkedits> 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice. You did notice, right, that this is the fringe theories noticeboard? If your opinion is that "maybe not even a majority of povs" agree that sexual abuse of children is harmful, you're unclear on the concept that the overwhelming majority opinion is that it is harmful, and what we're discussing here is how much weight to give the extreme fringe view that there are exceptions to that, according to two pedophile advocates (Rind and Sandfort). It would really be great to get some more neutral outside input (say, not from the minority of ediotrs who voted keep on the now deleted adult-child sex article)--that's the point of posting on a noticeboard.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If my opinion was that "maybe not even a majority of povs agree that sexual abuse of children is harmful," I would have said so, rather than saying "maybe not even a majority of povs agree that sex between minors and adults is inherently sexual abuse in all circumstances," which is what I actually said. You're exaggerating everything I say into a strawman in order to avoid responding to my substantial questions and comments. Casually asserting that Bruce Rind is a "pedophile advocate" is more in this same vein. I don't appreciate off-wiki activist agendas being imported here, whether pro- or anti-, and again, I'd really like to know whose sock puppet you are, as would others. <eleland/talkedits> 04:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a sockpuppet disrupting here today, and it was blocked. Meanwhile, are you suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Would you like me to repeat it for you? Here: You did notice, right, that this is the fringe theories noticeboard?...and what we're discussing here is how much weight to give the extreme fringe view that there are exceptions to that, according to two pedophile advocates (Rind and Sandfort). It would really be great to get some more neutral outside input (say, not from the minority of editors who voted keep on the now deleted adult-child sex article)--that's the point of posting on a noticeboard. Thanks for understanding,-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is quite pathetic, and I'm not sure I have the stomach for it. You're defining those who disagree with you as non-neutral, and you're defining published peer-reviewed scientific research which you don't like as pedophile advocacy. Petra, I've been active on the FTN for longer than you've had an account, and my main interests here are pseudoscience and nationalist historiography. I don't really care whether your veiled implications are a cynical tactic or you really believe that I'm an apologist for child-fucking; either way you haven't made a single substantive on-point contribution to this sub-thread, and you've left my original question 100% unanswered. <eleland/talkedits> 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and let me throw in a WP:INSULTING_PITHY_AND_IRRELEVANT_POLICY_LINK, because this seems to be the way we discuss things on WP now. How about WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!, that's always a good'un. <eleland/talkedits> 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How constructive. And I'm so glad you're helping the "solicit wider opinions and input by posting on a noticeboard" process--I think it will really improve the article if people are terrified to comment here because they think they'll be dragged back into the adult-child sex AfD nightmare.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, maybe we should try to cool down the tone and pace of this a little bit. People always get very worked up over topics of sexual abuse. Let's focus on the immediate editing decisions: how to present these studies. I think it is undisputed that some mention needs to be made of them, but that any detail belongs on {{main}} articles such as pro-pedophile activism or Rind et al. controversy. After all, just a matter of micro-managing tight phrasing and not a very big deal either way. dab (𒁳) 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this is going to an RFC and then probably Arbcom because the minority of editors who want the coatrack have just reinserted it--all three paragraphs--without discussion. (This problem has been going on for years at this article, and has involved multiple editors blocked for pro-pedophile activism).-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And here is an excellent essay from the "Skeptical Inquirer" about the Rind study, for all you skeptics of fringe who might like to participate in the RFC: . -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons that you are having difficulty attracting opinions from "outside" editors is that the barriers to entry are set so high that few of us are likely to want to get involved. First, you have to be prepared to take endless abuse and personal attacks, and this regardless of your views. (And please don't do a "Who, me?" or ask for diffs, or we will all be here forever.) Both sides do it and most, if not all, individuals. Second, the views of any outsider who is not prepared to claim a high degree of professional background in psychology is going to be dismissed, so who would bother taking the time to think about the issues? And those who do claim a professional background are also dismissed by the other side with a level of vitriol that reminds me of domestic-abuse fights.

In order likely only to prove my points, I will make one stab at the issues. The article is about sexual abuse perpetrated against children. Leaving aside that "child" may be defined differently across the world's varied cultures, there are very few jurisdictions where sex with a child is not declared, by definition under the law, to be abuse. I think, from what I am reading here and on the pages of the various articles, that these points are agreed as to stating what is the case. (And we are not here, or in the article, dealing with what should be the case.)

The heavy preponderance of formal studies, broadly accepted in the scientific community, conclude that adults having sex with a child do harm to the child. This would be what I will call here, the "primary conclusion". (No scientific study of which I am aware, and certainly no psychological one, has 100% certainty. The degree of deviance from 100% establishes the amount of weight that should be given to dissenting opinions when discussing the primary conclusions.)

Rind, and others who seem to agree with him, no matter how many of them write and publish, still represent a very small area of dissent from the primary conclusion. (It is not the number of papers that determine the weight of professional opinion, but the weight of the evidence within any study that, gathered with others, determines the validity of the primary conclusion.) Thus, in an article on Rind or his compatriots, or on pro-pedophile views, you can give his studies the significant weight because you are there only discussing the opinions that dissent from the primary conclusion. Child sex abuse is about the primary conclusion, which is that, flatly stated, sex with adults harms children. I would suggest, given the worldwide weight, that Rind and those who agree with Rind, get a single, short, declaratory sentence about the dissent, and a reference that identifies the study. In Related Links, include the Rind article and the pro-pedophile activism one. There is one outside opinion. Enjoy! ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Three users persistently deleting EL to Skeptic's Dictionary

User:Jack-A-Roe, User:PetraSchelm and User:SqueakBox have together removed a link to Skeptic's Dictionary from Hystero-epilepsy 5 times. They have justified this by characterizing the link as self-published, link-cruft, questionable, non-expert, and a profit-generating ad revenue scrape site. Given Jack-A-Roe's history of civil POV warring, however, I suspect the link is actually being removed because it tangentially mentions "repressed memory" therapists in a negative light, and itself links to an article critical of Dissociative Identity Disorder. A third opinion would be nice. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm.... "itself links to an article critical of Dissociative Identity Disorder." - since you've studied my contribs, you didn't notice that I've never edited Dissociative Identity Disorder? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe we reverted you mostly to discourage you from pointless wikistalking and harassment of Jack, which is the only reason you keep inserting the link. Meanwhile, it is a crap EL for that article, which is in its early stub stage of development. It's an ad-heavy for profit link, and the useful information in it should come from cited sources and be used as inline refs. "Hystero-epilepsy" is not a pseudoscience or a fringe theory--no one believes in it; it was just part of the history of science. In Charcot's time, people thought epilepsy was a neuroses with no physical basis; but that doesn't mean they weren't studying it with scientific methods. We don't go backwards in history and label every hypothesis that turned out to be wrong "pseudoscience," pseudoscience refers to current beliefs with no scientific basis/contradicted by science now. I don't see Charcot advocating hystero-epilepsy on TV, do you? (He's been dead for a hundred plus years...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say hystero-epilepsy was pseudoscientific or fringe. I posted this here because most watchers are bound to be familiar with Skepdic, and because the link was probably removed to further the fringe POV of "repressed memory" advocates. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, really--the link was removed to discourage you from wikistalking Jack (to a stub article you never edited before, and have contributed nothing to except edit warring over an inconsequential external link no one cares about). The link is crap, but the issue is that we don't want you to follow Jack or anyone else around purposely to harass them.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You checked my contributions, saw an edit and then caused disruption not because you actually cared but because you wanted to wear me down? That sounds like wikistalking. My occasional perusal of Jack's contributions to ensure he isn't pushing his POV on the trauma articles, on the other hand, is not. See Misplaced Pages:Wikistalking#Wikistalking. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Except Jack doesn't pov-push on trauma articles, the only person who has accused him of that is you (and uh, weren't you blocked for pedophile pov-pushing?). What you've done is followed him to a stub article that says zip about trauma or anything else, because it's practically empty, and edit-warred to insert an ad-heavy EL that doesn't belong, because it implies that an early development in the research on epilepsy and hysteria--conducted by the man whom Freud referenced heavily--is pseudoscience. The Skepdic's dictionary is a fine EL for the Dianetics article, but not for the psychoanalysis article, for example. Jack's interest in the article appears to stem from his interest in Iatrogenesis, where he is collaborating with other editors to improve that article and its subarticles.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is sort of surprising that AnotherSolipsist appeared on that very obscure article to revert my change, when he's not edited that article or anything related to it previously. I wondered about that; then decided not to worry about it unless it continued to happen.

Putting that curiousity aside, regarding the use of the Skeptic's Dictionary website as an external link: there are two issues about that. It's not a reliable source, it's not a book, it's a self-published website. There is also a book by that title, that includes a subset of the website content - the book was published by a third party, increasing its reliability. I don't know if hystero-epilepsy is in the book or not - if it were, that would add reliability and encourage its use as an in-line footnote. The website is self-published and represents the author's biased views (he does not claim otherwise in his about-himself section on the site). This has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard because various editors have wanted to use it in various articles; while there has not been a definitive decision, doubt was expressed about its reliability and the general agreement was that if the site is used as an inline citation, the opinions of Carroll should be attributed and not generalized. So, if it were used as an inline reference, it could be phrased "According to Tom Carroll, author of Skeptic's Dictionary... etc". That approach is from the RS noticeboard recommendation.

In this situation though, as an external link, it's even less appropriate, because it does not meet the qualifications for what should be linked - external links are used only for websites that include information that can't be included directly in Misplaced Pages for various reasons, such as official websites of organizations that are the topic of the articles, or websites with extensive resources on a topic that go far beyond the level of detail Misplaced Pages can provide. For more on that see WP:EL . But those qualifications doesn't apply in this situation - it's a one-page article on a self-published website. If any of the information there is valid and usable - there is no reason to advertise his website as an external link when the info can be paraphrased and carefully used with attribution and an in-line footnote. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the EL from skepdic should be deleted as per WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided....Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." The skepdic site states: "who assume even before meeting their patients that they have probably been sexually abused." This statement is unsourced, incredibly misleading and shows the extreme bias of the author. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So Jack-A-Roe know this all along? There seems to be two things going on. One looks like an attempt to keep an article POV (in fact maybe two or more articles if the impression I get from a quick persual of some editors' contributions) and another to stop people from using at least two skeptical sites. I also see the word 'tertiary' being used as an excuse to remove external links, despite the fact that WP guidelines make it clear you can use tertiary works.#REDIRECT Insert text

I forgot to add that PetraSchelm is the third editor here (see discussion two above this one).--Doug Weller (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• "An attempt to keep an article POV"? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on Misplaced Pages. Did you even read the article? Here it is, all five sentences:

Hystero-epilepsy is an alleged disease "discovered" by 19th-century French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot. It is considered a famous example of iatrogenic artifact, or a disease created by doctors. The disease was considered a combination of hysteria and epilepsy. Charcot housed his "hystero-epilepsy" patients in the same ward as patients with epilepsy, because both were considered "episodic" diseases. At the time, both hysteria and epilepsy were believed to be neuroses; and diseases caused by the conversion of psychological distress into physical distress. Symptoms included "convulsions, contortions, fainting, and transient impairment of consciousness." Joseph Babinski convinced Charcot that he was inducing the symptoms in his patients because of his treatment regimen. I'm sorry--where exactly is the POV in this five sentence article?-PetraSchelm (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug Weller, sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "Jack-A-Roe know this all along?" - I don't mean that as as tactic, I actually don't understand, so I can't reply to your question.

As far as Skeptic's Dictionary, someone has already re-inserted it in that article, and I'm not removing it again at this point. I don't think it belongs there, but I also don't think it's all that important. What I do think is important is the use of Skeptic's Dictionary in general, throughout Misplaced Pages. It's linked on around 550 pages, including maybe 200 or so articles. So it's used a lot.

I have nothing against skepticism; many may not believe this, but I take a skeptical approach to science. I want to see evidence, not magic. But I don't find Skeptic's Dictionary to be a reliable source because it's just a collection of one person's opinions. On some topics, maybe his opinions are worthy of citations, but on many topics, he's not an expert, he's just writing his opinions.

This is not something I'm making up - he states it himself in the intro to his website: "The Skeptic’s Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term “occult” to refer to any and all of these subjects. The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects." Not only that, but he considers topics like the one we're discussing to be "occult" or "pseudoscience". Well, the little article that we're discussing, hystero-epilepsy, is not either of those, it's simply history. It's the story of some mistakes that were made by someone who thought what they were doing was science at the time, a long time ago. I'm skeptical about hystero-epilepsy, I don't think it exists as a disease. But I don't think we need Carroll's opinion piece to reference the article - there are scientific and history sources available that are much better.

So... I hope that clarifies it. I'm not fighting a battle to keep one external link out of one of the smallest most obscure articles in the encyclopedia. I just don't think it's a good external link, according to the external links guideline. Apparently some other editors agree with me about that, and apparently some don't. That's Misplaced Pages in action. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

we should avoid having full blown debates on this page that aren't directly addressing the question of "fringe theories". This is a question of WP:EL. External links are selected on a pragmatic basis, with a view to their utility to the readers. We do not require watertight WP:RS quality for them. As Jack-A-Roe says, this is wiki business as usual, to be addressed on article talkpages. I would encourage everyone to post links to such debates on this noticeboard, but to avoid replicating the full debate here. dab (𒁳) 06:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack-a-roe, when I said you knew it all along all I meant was that it might have helped if you had said that immediately. If you have better sources, great. But I really don't want to hear complaints that it is a tertiary source (textbooks are tertiary sources, Misplaced Pages guidelines say tertiary sources are ok) or that it is ad supported. And as you know, we've been through the 'it's a personal website' bit, none of those make it fail WP:EL. --Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I didn't write anything about it being a tertiary source, someone else wrote that, and I don't see that as an issue in this situation. I consider the link inappropriate based on WP:LINKSTOAVOID. And as dab noted, this is not a WP:FRINGE question so it doesn't belong on this noticeboard. For completeness though, I'll note that so far only two editors voiced support for keeping the link and four editors stated their support for its removal. I suggest that if there is any further discussion of this it be done on the article talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly see nothing in this link that violates the EL policy. J*Lambton /_C 21:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Stalin apologist

Mista-X (talk · contribs) is going about claiming that Joseph Stalin had nothing to do with the assassination of Leon Trotsky. He does so by claiming there is "no evidence", though of course there is, and even the Soviet government acknowledged as much in the late 1980's. Mista-X has done this in the past, and been blocked for it, and he's at it again. I'd like extra eyes on the following articles, if possible:

• Ramon Mercader
• Joseph Stalin
• Great Purge

It would be nice if we keep Misplaced Pages at least as honest about Soviet history as the Soviet textbooks themselves were. MastCell  22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He was framed, I tell you! He wouldn't have hurt a fly! He loved that man like a brother! --Relata refero (disp.) 06:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary. I have these pages watchlisted anyway because of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), but even Jakey never tried this particular stunt. Wow. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I may have gone a bit overboard... MastCell  18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I notice that "dictator" is gone from the lead of the Stalin article, sigh. Getting this removed was one of JP's pet obsessions. I'll have to look into this. - Merzbow (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Restored "dictator" to Stalin; I imagine this will come under heavy fire from SPAs, so eyes are appreciated. - Merzbow (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I should have watchlisted this page sooner - it's truly amazing. In this gem from the talk page, an editor argues that Stalin should not be described as a "dictator" because "not a single Soviet historian" described him as such. MastCell  21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the wild wacky world of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), of whom that user is now an RFCU-confirmed sock. - Merzbow (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a bit of experience with Jacob back in the day, but I have to admit he'd fallen off my sock radar. You'd think the fate of his namesake would be instructive enough, but I'm sure there's some revisionist explanation for it... MastCell  05:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Creme

I had tagged this article , but another editor who apparently thinks the article is well sourced and reasonable just removed the tag. last week I was able to get two forks from this article speedy deleted, on the grounds of blatant advertising, but I suppose they will soon be back...if they are not already. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as I suspected would happen, one of the two forks I had speedy deleted (for blatant advertising) is back: Share International. I suppose the second will soon follow. Would an AfD solve the problem? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha, Why is this on this noticeboard? It is just a minor cult and presented as such in its own article. It is not presented as a scientific theory in another article. I believe you have chosen the wrong Misplaced Pages forum for your complaints. Andries (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I put this information here because, even by New Age standards, Creme and Share International are on the fringe; and, particularly, because these articles violate many Misplaced Pages guidelines. The articles are unsourced, with unbalanced POV, and engage in blatant advertising which is not intended to inform, but to attract members to Creme's groups. If this has hurt your feelings, I am sorry; but this is about the articles, and is not about personalities. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Every article about each (minor) cult is fringe, but that is no problem as long as the the beliefs of the cults are not mentioned in other articles. Clearly not every cult should be discussed here. The right place to discuss your complaints are the talk pages of the respective articles. Not here. Andries (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of articles is allowed, even if you do not want your article discussed. But, if you think I have violated Misplaced Pages rules, you certainly have a right to make a complaint on the Administrators Notice Board. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just try to be constructive and try to get the sources and list them on the respective talk pages. They do exist. Andries (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

{unindent)It's fringe, so it's discussion is appropriate here. Andries is the (re)creator of the Share International article. --Doug Weller (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that I was the creator of the article before it was speedily deleted. With regards to the appropriateness of this forum, I think either you or I are completely mistaken. Andries (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't think you were? As for the appropriateness of this forum, you've asked that on the discussion page and had an answer.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not think that I was the creator of the article , but I am already editing Misplaced Pages for several years, so I may misremember. Andries (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You certainly created the article on Creme - I have no idea about the deleted article.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I remember that I re-created the article after it had been speedily deleted, but the original creator of the article cannot be determined anymore with certainty. Andries (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You certainly knew the reason that article was speedy deleted; because, you asked Jimfbleak (the administrator who deleted it) and he explained . But you recreated it anyhow.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha, I am still convinced that you are off-topic here. See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Dispute_about_scope_of_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboard. Andries (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oera Linda and associated stubs

I'm having problems with the editor who created Oera Linda, and related stubs Irtha. Wr-alda. Frya, Fasta (Frisian) and maybe more. The stubs in my opinion have no justification and should be in the main article, maybe left as redirects, and include his personal opinion as shown in edit summaries such as (for Wr-alda "Look up the Sami god and you'll see it's patently obvious." He's also twice removed my mention of a new article on Oera Linda, I've put it back again, we shall see how long that lasts. I don't want to get into a personal edit war with him.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Nilotic peoples

huge {{essay-entry}}. impinges on the race of Ancient Egyptians and Aryan cans of worms. Meanwhile, "pharaonist" trolling continues at Egyptians. I don't have the heart for this right now. Ah, yes, and there is also Genetics of the Ancient World. dab (𒁳) 10:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged Origin of the Nilotic peoples for cleanup and will redirectify it to Race of Ancient Egyptians if the cleanup doesn't happen. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirected. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

wasn't that a bit harsh? There was a lot of content... dab (𒁳) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There was. The topic is valid, that's not the problem. Not all of it was bad stuff, but the whole thing was WP:SYN. A slimmed-down version stripped of the synthesis would be fine - just no one seemed very interested in writing that. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've been reverted. Discussion continues on talk page. This is fine, except that I'm slightly worried that the author isn't admitting there's any kind of a problem. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pungent vegetables give you anxiety.

From Su vegetarianism:

Su vegetarianism, which some airlines call Asian vegetarian, comes from the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. No animal products whatsoever are eaten; su vegetarians also do not eat the fetid vegetables: onion, garlic, scallions, leeks, or shallots.

This diet not only benefits physical health, but also helps to settle the mind as well. Buddhist experience in meditation shows that those who eat the fetid vegetables are prone to restless minds, and have great difficulty making progress in meditation.

Su vegetarianism seems to be a combination of vegetarianism, rooted in Mahayana Buddhism, but the stuff about avoiding "fetid vegetables," is ancient Indian or Chinese folk medicine, not having anything to do with Hinduism or Buddhism. The claims about physical and mental health are also pretty suspect. It might just be a good idea to re-direct it to Buddhist vegetarianism.

Also, since this is English Misplaced Pages, shouldn't references be in English? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the redirect (or a merge if it is not fully covered already). As for the language of the sourcing... if there are equally good sources in English, Yes, we would prefer them. But if the best sources are in some other language, those are alowed. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well onions and garlic make me anxious, but only about my breath. <eleland/talkedits> 05:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead line of feminism

Could somebody give this a quick look. I'm having to argue that the mainstream scholarly position and dictionary definition of feminism should be used without attribution and without giving weight to minor/fringe/dissenting ideas in the lead line. As is the norm for the lead lines of articles.

I'm being asked to attribute (that is name drop who says) the clause that "feminism is movement for equal rights for women". This is not something that I think needs to be done in the lead. I'm not necessarily averse to citation in this case but attribution of a view held by the majority of mainstream sources and dictionaries seems unnecessary to me - especially in a lede line, and when the view is cited below in the article's text.

The unattributed use of the mainstream definition is being disputed, by User:Blackworm, because he contends that becuase authors (see these 2 links )have contrary views to the mainstream definition (that is basically the dictionary definition) of feminism this mainstream view cannot be presented without attribution in the lede. I think this objection comes under WP:FRINGE. The mainstream definitions and dictionary definitions all say very similar things to the effect of feminism being a movement for equality. These articles don't show why that common mainstream and dictionary definition needs qualification to the degree asked for.

Now, AFAIK we don't attribute the mainstream and dictionary definition of subjects if that definition is common among the vast majority of reliable scholarly sources and if it is cited in the article. Nor do we need to say this subject "usually is defined" in the lede when the overwhelming majority of definitions present the history of the 'feminism as a movement for equality between mean and women'. Yes there are dissenting opinions about that but we mention them in the article and we don't give it undue weight by putting fringe ideas in the lede.

Below is a collapsed box detailing a very small sample of sources and dictionary defs stating this mainstream view:

More, many many more, sources could be added to the collapsed list. (Please check this against google scholar and google books). Hence my position that attribution (name dropping a scholar) of what is the commonly held mainstream definition (as represented in multiple dictionary definitions as well) is unnecessary in the lead sentence - referencing it is of course okay but that's not even usually necessary in the first line of an article as per WP:LEAD and as can be seen by looking at the lead sentences in any article at Misplaced Pages:Featured_articles.

If you want to see the discussion click here (but it's very long--Cailil 00:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got time to look at the whole discussion right now, but you are right that a mainstream definition should be given in the lede, avoiding references. There is space in later sections for all the notable controversies. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Itsmejudith, I think we have resolved this issue at this point--Cailil 00:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic POV ploy; compromise the entire article because of a fringe viewpoint. If facts are disputed by a fringe minority, then it is argued that the article cannot discuss them as facts, and then state disagreements with them — instead, it must not present them as facts. Naturally, this is a huge violation of undue weight and you're completely right here. --Haemo (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Debate at WT:V

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_is_.22mainstream.3F.22 could use some views of people on the front lines. When people are cheerfully saying that all the articles need is a few people to go in and sort things out, then, clearly, they have never attempted to sort out any alternative medicine article. At the moment, the article on Radionics - a form of witchdoctory where a bit of hair or blood is put into a machine to allow distant practitioners to send healthy vibes at you - is full of nothing but glowing praise, for instance, and this is true of 90% of alternative and complementary medicines. Homeopathy required many years of work to get to the state it's in - and is now at Arbcom. 05:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

Share International

I see that Share International has been nominated for deletion . Anyone interested in the Benjamin Creme discussion (above), and on the talk page, might want to take a look and comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are off-topic here See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Dispute_about_scope_of_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboardAndries (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have linked three conversations here to the Village Pump. I also see that no one there has committed. What is your point? You want to move the conversation there? Good, because I would like to have as many users participate in the AfD as possible. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have stated my point repeatedly explicitly and I have no hidden agenda: the discussion belongs on the talk pages of the respective articles and not here. Andries (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this on your user talk page ]. Why did you not object to that?

It seems to me that your intent is that a minimum number of people will see your articles because you understand that they are problematic. My own intent in these matters is to make disputes known to as many people as possible, and to obtain the maximum number of comments. That way, if I am mistaken, there is a better chance of getting corrected by users whose opinions I respect. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you fail to assume my good faith and more or less admit that you use this notice board for a purpose for which it is not intended. Andries (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andries... I think your refusal to discuss things here is a bit like "locking the barn door after the horses have escaped". Whether you like it or not, the articles are already being discussed here. If you don't want to participate in that discussion, no one is going to force you to do so... but that would mean that your opinion on the articles will not be represented in the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do try to address concerns (most of which are valid) on the respective talk page and the articles. Andries (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I will start a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cults, sects, and new religious movements, to have a centralized discussion about these kind of issues. Andries (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith? Rather it seems to be your assumption of bad faith, simply because we have discussed your article. You have accused us of bad faith here, and now on the Village Pump too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss the articles here. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cults, sects, and new religious movements Andries (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andries, if your goal is to tell people: "discuss the articles dealing with these topics at that project page and not on this noticeboard", you will be disappointed. We will continue to discuss any article with potential WP:FRINGE issues, if such issues are raised here. This includes articles on cults, sects, religious movements ... or any other topic. You see, the topic does not matter to us... what matters is whether the article has WP:FRINGE problems. Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think that people would say if you discussed Christianity here merely because it contains unscientific ideas e.g. the resurrection. Then I think people would tell you to discuss it on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity. And with very good reason. Andries (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not object to articles on minor religious groups being discussed here and the discussion about Prem Rawat/Divine Light Mission was on topic here because this was about balance issues. What I object to is that religious groups are discussed on this notice board merely because they are small and undersourced. 99% of Misplaced Pages is undersourced. Andries (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If Christianity had a problem with WP:FRINGE, I would certainly think that it could and should be raised here. The Resurrection, however, isn't a Fringe Theory (it is a belief held by millions and thus not "Fringe")... although I suppose there could be a Fringe Theory about the Resurrection that might qualify for discussion here (for example: a theory that after being crucified, Jesus was beamed up into a space ship by space aliens, or something).

I think you misunderstand why the Share International article is being discussed here. WP:FRINGE says that to be notable, a Fringe theory (and I would include fringe religious beliefs in this category) has to have been discussed in a serious manner by the mainstream... there is no indication that this is the case. The article makes a passing reference to one obscure English journalist. What the article needs is reliable mainstream sources that discuss the group and its impact (whether positively, negatively, or neutrally). Another problem is with your statement that Share International is viewed as the Anti-Christ by a fundamentalist Christian group. That is a very Fringe view... one not held my the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians. Thus to mention it, you need very very solid sourcing and direct attribution in the article text to say who believes this.

These are not the only problems with the article... in addition to the WP:FRINGE issues, there are NPOV issues as well as issues with WP:V and WP:RS. But those issues can and should be discussed at other noticeboards and policy talk pages. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

By mainstream media or by relevant experts in the field who are in this case religious scholars who have discussed the subject. Thanks for explaining your reasoning regarding Christianity which I think is flawed. Clearly very important aspects of Christianity are fringe according to this noticeboard (contradicting scientific theories). The statement that Benjamin Creme is part of satanic conspiracy according to several Evangelical Christian sources (I will mention the names in the footnotes) is well sourced to reputable sources (that do not agree with this allegation). Andries (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reiki

Or, perhaps the most god-awful article on a fringe topic on Misplaced Pages.

The lead contains one sentence of weak criticism. It then has 20 sections of pure praise and promotion. There's then a criticism section, containing the weakest claims ever. When it actually stooped to make a brief hard criticism, they... synthed data from extreme fringe journals and used this OR to rebut it.

Poor Emily Rosa, notable in her own right as the youngest researcher to be published in a major peer-review journal, is, of course, left out.

In short, an article that bends over backwards in order to avoid making any relevant criticism. HELP! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have cut 7kb of cruft from this 40kb article. Much is still left to do. Antelan 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

First impression is that there are far too many weak sources cited. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed there, but not quite sure what to do about that, short of a complete resourcing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "sourced" information is not vandalism. Feel free to reduce some of the weakly-sourced puffery. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist

Please watchlist NAET and Energy medicine, I just got these to some vague semblence of NPOV and Verifiability, and, well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon on Heisenberg

A new anon 189.48.107.245 (talk · contribs · count) has arrived and posted the same lengthy and fairly incoherent discussion of Heisenberg: Heisenberg's scientific criterion on various talk pages touching on the philosophy and history of science. Does anyone know whether it's proper to just delete this material rather than keep it cluttering up the pages? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK. Removed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolfing

Some sort of fringey massage, written almost entirely from promotional sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Added cites for science research. SmithBlue (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC) And please strive for more accuracy with your template's reasons for deletion. Making mistakes like claiming Myss, Caroline (1997). Why People Don't Heal and How They Can. Harmony Books. ISBN 0-60960-090-7 is not an RS on Medical Intuituive when WP:NPOV clearly states "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them", and Myss' books are the "bibles" of MI, just makes all skeptics look like stupid biased fools. You want an accurate encyclopaedia? - well you model accuracy first. Throwing templates around as on Feldenkrais and Rolfing just makes skeptics look like ill-informed fundamentalist apologists for the mainstream partyline. Skeptics need to be respected for their reasoning not for blind rejection of the new or differrent. SmithBlue (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The AFD is bogonic, but the article stinks. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Energy (spirituality)

This is an article that has recently been completely rewritten by one editor. There seem to be some problems with it, including that it mostly discusses energy healing, a subject not necessarily indicated by its name and introduction. I would appreciate it if some editors would take a look at it; because, perhaps, my uneasiness about it is unjustified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

this is quite bad. Should at best be a disambiguation page. Essentially touts "energy medicine". dab (𒁳) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reversion to this version of 16 March: . Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That version is still highly problematic given the amount of OR in the listing of supposedly related concepts from all over the globe and all historical periods. Surely there must be some serious research somewhere into the development of these New Age ideas. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"The aura of wellness: Subtle-energy healing and new age religion," available on JSTOR, may be useful. It's an overview of the history and beliefs of energy healers, written from a skeptical perspective. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's there now is New Age, but spiritual energy isn't a New Age concept. Prana and Qi (among others) date way back, centuries back. I too suggest taking the article to the version (hopefully there's a version in there somewhere) where it actually talked about spirituality instead of this pseudo-medicine stuff that's there now. Spiritual energy isn't about health, it's about enlightenment. Eg. the purpose of yoga is to direct prana through nadis to activate chakras, each of which is supposed to then give you new spiritual insight. It's been adopted as "exercise", but it's a form of meditation. Sure, there's supposed to be some health benefits to it, but that's not the goal of the practice. It shouldn't be framed as medicine, especially since mainstream medicine rejects it. To the religious practitioners it doesn't matter if it's scientifically relevant because the goals are spiritual, and that's how it should be framed. What's in the article now confuses all of that. --Nealparr 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Prana and Qi (among others)" have their own articles. The article is pure WP:SYN. Unless an identifiable concept of "spiritual energy" can be referenced to some RS, I suggest this page should be a disambiguation page, or redirect to Energy (disambiguation). You cannot google "energy" and then cobble together the results into a single article. "Energy" is too common a word for that. dab (𒁳) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article is crap. What I was saying is that it's a notable concept that the article doesn't do justice. I think a disambig page would be a good way to fix it. That'd be preferable to a redirect to Energy (disambiguation), which doesn't really have anything related to the topic (hence why it's linked off that page). Alternatively, there are identifiable concepts of spiritual energy that can be described in an article without synthesis, and without the New Age spin. Google Scholar has quite a few sources on the topic . Presumably there's enough reliable sources there to write about it. I'd either find someone to rewrite it completely as an article about the concept in spirituality, or disambig it with links to the various notable cultural forms of "spiritual energy". In Eastern mysticism there's plenty to work with. Note that I'm talking spirituality here, not medicine. Not necessarily mutually exclusive views, but definitely different views of the topic. The former isn't fringe where the latter is. --Nealparr 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Obviously, it may be useful to synthesise common alt-med ideas - provided others have done so first. Someone mentioned a JSTOR article, I'll check that later, and see if we can make a coherent page out of it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking the suggestion of Itsmejudith, I have been looking through some of the earliest versions of the article. Of the one I have so far looked at this one seems the most balanced and neutral. Perhaps going back to this version would be a good new start for the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

what we need is not "Energy (spirituality)" but "Energy (one specific school of thought)". Viz., it needs further disambiguation. On what grounds do we distinguish "Energy (spiritual)" from "Energy (psychological)"? What kind of "spirituality"? New Age? Christian? Spiritist? This will not make any sense. The present version, and even the dated version linked by Malcolm, appears to take for granted we are talking about New Age pop-spirituality. If so --- fine, but move it to Energy (New Age) if that's what it's going to be about. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, I note de-wiki has de:Energie (Esoterik). That would make sense. The German page is also essentially a list of individual concepts in esotericism. dab (𒁳) 11:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A fundamental problem with the article is that it links; the words "energy" and "spiritual". In many core New Age teachings (such as Theosophy and the books of Alice Bailey), energy at the level the article talks about is not spiritual at all, but just a slightly higher aspect of the physical body. It might be called subtle energy, but not spiritual -- which in Theosophical Society literature refers to much higher levels. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the article talks about New Age in the first place. "spiritual energy" is a perfectly valid topic in lots of religions and philosophical systems, and there is no reason why the article should lose itself in esotericist blogcruft (WP:WEIGHT). --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

case in point, actus is also "spiritual energy" (energeia), but far from being a topic of soft-headed esotericist blather, it is a perfectly respectable topic in philosophy. dab (𒁳) 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, I've fixed it according to my gist above. Let's see how it fares. --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a change in relation to acupuncture, still unsourced unfortunately, that takes into account that not everyone sees it in terms of spiritual energy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Glossary_of_alternative_medicine

It would be nice if we could get this made NPOV, etc. Then we could upmerge some of the tiny-altmed to it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Traditional_Chinese_medicine

...By all the gods!!!! Several... HUNDRED articles on one bit of alt-med? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; it's not exactly "alternative" anymore, and has thousands of years of history behind it. I don't really see the issue with having a large number of articles on various components and practices for it. However, some one of them need to be more critically weighted — they read like advertising briefs. --Haemo (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Has it ever been alternative? The herbal preparations need to be pulled into a subcategory; there should definitely be an article on each one commonly used. Perhaps also the practitioners and advocates. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

it's alternative now. It used to be just "medicine" in the Middle Ages. "one bit of alt-med" isn't quite fair, this is a rather huge topic, and can well be treated in a scholarly manner, just like Alchemy, Renaissance magic, Scholasticism or Neoplatonism, or indeed any historical branch of scholarship. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In general, the problem isn't the topic itself, which is perfectly valid and serious. It's the tons of New Age blarney it tends to attract. Cut that from the articles and leave the serious historical detail, which can doubtless be well-sourced. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And while you're at it, the Augean Stables haven't had a good top-to-bottom cleaning in a while... :) MastCell  18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the subarticles of Zang-fu viscera can be folded back into the main article. Not too bad otherwise, actually. Cf. Category:Ayurveda. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lymphedema

Written like an advertisement - I've removed the worst bits, but it really needs an expert to check it over. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:New Age Movement

Brand new template. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This could serve as a useful reference tool. For instance one article now included in the template is the José Argüelles article, which has two references (one of them to an apparently self published site), among other problems. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at goddess worship, which I've already deprived of some off-the-wall claims about Christianity. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've often thought that upholding minimum standards before an article gets to be on a template would be a good way to uphold quality. What standards might depend on the template. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

New Age

I hesitate to bring this up, because it is such a big article, but it is an important article that is a complete mess. Major sections of it are completely unsourced. The most completely unsourced sections are the introduction and exactly those sections that try to explain what New Age means and its origin. The article includes under the name a large collection of unrelated movements, and individuals, that have nothing in common but the name New Age.

Has anyone taken a look at it, and have some ideas about what how it could be improved? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I have! But we appear to be having a little trouble discussing the matter. I'd have thought you'd have mentioned you were doing this. Redheylin (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin, you might want to consider trying, at minimum, to refine your communication skills . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Aids denialism

I got this edit passed to me for review. The edit removed almost the entire section "Points of contention" from this revision.

The edit summary states "None of this anything beyond fringe theories" but reading the text it looks incorrect. In fact this seems crucial material for the article - a summary of the fringe theories and their mainstream objections/concerns, presented in a well balanced manner, and all seemingly cited.

Can others take a look, see if this is being removed as a misunderstanding of FRINGE/WEIGHT, or if in fact it is that? Thanks. FT2  01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Other eyes would be most welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems the text is being discussed on its talk page. Removed text is at Talk:AIDS denialism/points. FT2  02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of an ongoing talk page discussion and dispute which is being forum-shopped all over God's green earth. But on the upside, more eyes are good. MastCell  18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis

Well, here we go again. There's a constant, low-intensity fight at this article about whether it's a fringe theory or not. The article has several statements from prominent scholars stating that the idea is not accepted by mainstream scholarship, but this doesn't convince everybody.

There's an RFC. Partipation from those interested in questions of fringe theories welcome. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fringe. This has been long established. The pov-pushers are ill advised atheists who somehow believe that assuming Jesus was a historical character must be a religionist position. I say doh. By that logic, we must all be Muslims, since hardly anyone doubts that Muhammad was a historical character. And Raelists. Because Rael is not only historical but alive and kicking. This is boring. We have established that this is a pseudo-scholarly fringe theory about a year ago. Pursuing this editing conflict simply amounts to sulking WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --dab (𒁳) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but saying so doesn't stop people from keeping the fight going. It would be nice to find a way to solve the problem... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. This is certainly a very fringe theory, no one with any common sense would disagree with that. Soo...do what we usually do with people who try to push crank nonsense highly minority positions. Reverts and then blocks. If it's different people each time, just reverts. Putting a noisy hidden notice at the top of the article sometimes also helps. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not as fringe as you seem to think. There is, for instance, George Albert Wells, who appears to be a serious scholar; and, just to give one other example, Hyam Maccoby (who does not really say anything about Jesus, but presents an argument that the entire story was formulated by Paul). It would not take long (for anyone seriously trying) to find other scholars with their doubts about Jesus, and the issue remains controversial, and not settled. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Albert Wells does indeed look to be a serious scholar - of German. He's probably not the best source for this subject. The other chap is a) Jewish and b) not saying that Jesus is a mythical construction anyway. Doubts about Jesus and the Gospel stories do not equate to saying that the whole thing is fiction. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is an illustration of one of the problems; despite ample evidence provided that this is a fringe theory, editors are constantly overstating the degree to which the JM theory is accepted (or even discussed) in academia. George Albert Wells was a serious scholar, but of German, not of religious studies. For him to write about the New Testament is a bit like a scholar who works on Joyce to start writing about Aristotle. The Joyce scholar might have interesting things to say about Aristotle, but they wouldn't necessarily be indicative of what scholars of ancient philosophy say about Aristotle. And in this case, we have statements from New Testament scholars that say that Wells is outside the mainstream (to put it mildly).

And Hyam Maccoby, at least according to his Misplaced Pages article, has nothing to do with the JM theory; he didn't question that there was a historical Jesus, and in fact believed "that a fairly accurate historical account of the life of Jesus could be reconstructed from them ..."

Anyway, most of the problems with the article are taking place on the talk page; the pace of editing on the actual article is fairly slow. If a wider range of editors would come to the talk page, that might help. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Maccoby's version amounts to support for the Jesus myth hypothesis because he position is that the Jesus described in Christian scripture did not exist, because that was a creation of Paul. In fact his article links to the Jesus myth hypothesis article. (Your view on Wells is interesting...but, taken all around, I suppose it is just as well that you have also ruled out listening to Norm Chomsky's views on anything but linguistics.) In any case, I think that this issue is genuinely disputed by serious scholars, and that it should not be an issue on this noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

it is exactly a case for this noticeboard: it is a fringe theory with enough notability for its own article, but care must be taken to avoid a mis-representation of its credibility. dab (𒁳) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Andries could make a better argument than that. You have decided its fringe, so it is. Good thinking, Dbachmann. Its not as though they are talking about flying saucer landings, or taking out ads announcing the arrival of Maitreya at Heathrow. Rather, there are serious scholars who disagree on this subject, but you are going to call it fringe anyhow.. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah, yeah, so it is a "under-achieving scholarly hypothesis". Look, the discussion of this is elsewhere, in the talk archives. Don't expect me to repeat the entire debate here. --dab (𒁳) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, you seem to have started editing the article only recently, so perhaps you're unfamiliar with the subject, but the Jesus myth hypothesis is specifically the argument that there was no historical Jesus. Maccoby believed that there was a historical Jesus, and that the Gospels could be used to reconstruct his biography. Ergo, he is not a advocate of the JM theory.

Chomsky's political views are a good analogy here, actually. Even if you like Chomsky's ideas, you'd have to agree that in the context of U.S. politics, where only a fairly narrow range of ideas are "mainstream," that Chomsky is considered to be outside the mainstream. An article about him would have to note that. Similarly, Jesus myth hypothesis must note that the theory is rarely discussed within the academic fields of religious studies and ancient history (and we have copious citations that say exactly this). --Akhilleus (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

this is purely subjective now, but I happen to find Chomsky's politics marginally more palatable than his linguistics... dab (𒁳) 07:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

on topic, though, we have a full article on the historicity of Jesus, and another on mythological aspects of Jesus Christ. It is perfectly mainstream to say Jesus was a historical wandering rabbi who subsequently accreted some mythemes. It is possible to discuss reasonable doubts on Jesus' historicity. All this doesn't make you a "Jesus-myther". The JMT specifically posits that the gospels are an artificial re-casting of the mythology of mystery religions. It was an interesting idea, back in the 1880s, but I daresay mainstream scholarship has moved beyond that now. dab (𒁳) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys really don't get it. The problem is not that there are different points of view, or who is right in this issue. The problem is the dismissive know-it-all attitude I am seeing from some editors here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem is precisely what we see here, a tendency for this topic to generate both aggresive and defensive argumentativeness with little or no interest in the actual history of these ideas. I was involved in this page a while back, but virtually gave up because of the endless arguments. It has been proposed agasin and again that the best way to approach this topic would be to go through the history of it - from Bauer, through Drws et al, with the context of their arguments and of later writers. This has been repeatedly blocked by the need of partisans to either list or refute arguments for non-historicity: that and the fruitless, repetitive point-making disruption of nmany editors in succession - currently user:BruceGrubb who is covering the page (and the historicity of Jesus) page with the same arguments repeated over and over. Paul B (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

in a word, a perfectly standard problem of WP:FRINGE (WP:DUE). I honestly think it is you, Malcolm, who "does not get" this. We are not saying the theory is "false", we are saying nobody outside a small circle of aficionados thinks it has any merit. The "dismissive attitude" is out there, in the real world, and Misplaced Pages merely reflects this status quo, as it should. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that experienced contributors here seem to be falling out over the status of this hypothesis. We should easily be able to distinguish between pseudoscience/pseudohistory on the one hand and minority academic positions on the other. For me, this falls clearly into the second category. The criterion is, has it been seriously considered in academic circles. It has, even if we have to go back to Bauer to find the discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Itsmejudith, it just me. You will not be loosing anyone important. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith makes a good point--in the late 19th century/early 20th century, the JMT was part of academic discussion, such that Schweitzer discussed the nonhistoricity argument in The Quest of the Historical Jesus. In Misplaced Pages terms, it wasn't a fringe theory at that time. But what we're arguing about is its status at the present time, and we have ample quotes from scholars in the relevant fields that say that the theory is regarded as refuted, and that it isn't something biblical scholars concern themselves with. (We even have a complaint from a proponent of the theory that academia doesn't take the idea seriously!) I would shy away from the labels "pseudoscience" or "pseudohistory"--but neither would I call it a "minority academic position", at least not after the 1950s or so. "Fringe theory" properly describes the current status of the JMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about the history of a particular article, and I am talking about the attitude of some editors on this noticeboard. But the problem certainly is spread thought Misplaced Pages, because many editors are working on articles in which they are psychologically invested in their own POV. This is a problem that can not be eliminated, but but needs recognition because, if editors feel justified in blowing away the 'opposition', an effort to achieve neutrality much more difficult. This does not refer to those who take your position, or my position, but applies all around and is the reason that know-it-all attitudes are so destructive to the process of writing articles. (Of course I have absolutly no expectation of change, but rather expect a continuing of dismissive attitudes and edit wars.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. No one here is "psychologically invested" in this topic at all: none of us are rabid Bible-belters who understand absolute truth in terms of Christ walking on water. We're simply interested in making sure that fringe theories do not get undue weight on Misplaced Pages, in terms of recognition of their academic status (and also making sure they're not unduly marginalised). If this involves calling out fringe theories as fringe theories, so be it. That hardly amounts to "dismissive attitudes". Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the discussion has become circular, I will end my participation at this point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, the division between "minority" and "fringe" is a sliding scale. This is something to be established in detail in the article itself. For the purposes of this noticeboard, it is sufficient to note that the article has a history of attempts to inflate the theory's notability. That's really it. This has nothing to do with "know-it-all" or "dismissive" attitudes, but is simple practical wisdom born from experience of how these things work on Misplaced Pages. --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The "fringiness" comes about when editors try to present minority views as if they were predominant. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have read up now on how it is no longer even considered today. I'm probably reading too much about 19th century ideas than is good for me. I'll have to think about what you say about a "sliding scale" Dieter. It does seem to me that there is a world of difference between an academic ploughing a lonely furrow and a freelance writer with an idea for a bestseller. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, there is - if the academic is a specialist in the relevant field. In this case, he wasn't, and this happens quite a lot - academics stepping outside their speciality to write entertaining but not-always-reliable stuff. Chomsky on US politics being the classic example. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

to Judith - yes, and along that "world of difference" the scale slides. Beginning with the question, what is an academic. A tenured professor (a professor tenured where, at Drew University...?) Sombeody with a PhD (such as Koenraad Elst?)? Or some bona fide professor emeritus who is getting a bit funny somewhat eccentric (like the later Marija Gimbutas, or Mario Alinei)? There are a lot of people with an academic background who lose their marbles and start publishing fringecruft. Their flavour of fringecruft will still be more intelligent than your average creationist blog, but the question is not only, has the chap seen a university from the inside, but also, was this publication ever peer reviewed. If so, when and to what effect? These things are really the point of this noticeboard. We don't need a task force to establish the credibility of someone like David Fasold. Things become difficult in cases such as this when there was some academic debate in the 1800s on an idea long passed out of academic discourse, but still pushed in ideological fringe publications. dab (𒁳) 08:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I see the Academy as a fence-erecting entity. We need to find where the fences have been erected before we can ascertain which side of the fence a particular source is. In some places the fences are higher than others. It will be said that in some places the fences have long broken down but I'm not sure. So long as peer-reviewing is a possibility and the academic publishing houses are on the lookout for scholarly studies of odd nooks and crannies of knowledge, then I think there is in principle a possibility of establishing whether a publication has been generated from academic practice or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

definitely. If a publication has been published academically and peer-reviewed, it is not for Misplaced Pages to second-guess its "academicity" -- WP:RS is the only reference point that separates us from complete intellectual relativism (anything has been published somewhere, so saying "it has been suggested" is essentially true of anything). Of course, if a peer-reviewed publication did get abysmal peer-reviews, it should only be cited along with that caveat. dab (𒁳) 10:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the latest gambit seems to be that committed Christians are unreliable sources. See . This article still requires attention. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yuz Asaf

Neutral and sourced description of popular religious belief mixed up with recent non-notable speculative stuff. I don't know how to start to disentangle, would appreciate further eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a mess, isn't it? Suzanne Olsson's book is self-published, that should go (with the Matlock references too, another unreliable source), and the 'Hindu epics' stuff is all OR. I'll do that.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. This seems to be an issue for Hindu nationalists, who say this is a Muslim attempt to usurp Kashmir (this chap supposedly having visited Kashmir bringing Semitic beliefs, as opposed to Indian Aryan ones). What's more, it's also a magnet for odd theories about Christ's life, which may well be of dubious notability. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm following it correctly, it's really a co-opted version of an Ahmadiyya theory about Jesus, and therefore should be properly attached there, with the other material noted as fringey. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. The idea that Jesus went to India is associated with the Ahmadiyya but also predates them. I'm not sure how closely the figure of Yuz Asaf is always associated with Jesus or his supposed visit to India. There does seem to be a notable traditional religious cult independent of the more recent Ahmadiyya views that are linked to nationalistic claims around Kashmir. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson - User:Kashmir2 is struggling with the concept of self-published books right now and has added to the page. I tried to explain policy, she now says on my talk page "In the places where Olsson books are cited they comply with these guidelines and should remain."--Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And now I've been accused of protecting the page (I'm no admin and the page wasn't protected), allowing self-published fiction books to remain in the article (I removed them and Suzanne Olsson, who had complained about them, restored them), etc. I don't think there is much hope for it although if Mangoe is right, we can merge it. Doug Weller (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening and sorry it has got you into this clash. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly of the most bizarre clashes I've been in, with at least one editor (I'm pretty sure you are right about sockpuppets) getting confused about who has done which edit and accusing me of blocking a page. Still, it's a better article now and that is what counts. --Doug Weller (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea's been around for a long time, as a folk belief among Ladakhi Buddhists, as Ahmadiyya tradition, and as random speculation from otherwise acceptable scholars. We had better get this article in order before the movie that this Guardian article anticipates comes out. I note the article quotes Dr. Hassnain, who appears to be a scholar of Buddhism...--Relata refero (disp.) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Goddess movement

A movement of 1970s to 1980s US second wave feminism. we have:

• Goddess worship (diachronic in scope)
• Goddess movement (the 1970s+ movement)
• Thealogy (a term used by the 1970s+ movement)
• Feminist theology
• Heavenly Mother
• Mother Divine
• Mother Goddess
• Great Goddess (disambiguation)
• Great Mother (disambiguation)
• Divine Mother (disambiguation)
• Gender of God
• Gender and religion

That's not so bad, but tends to attract rather far out opinion pieces. I've removed what seemed to fall under WP:SNOW here and here, and I suppose some of these articles should be merged to allow a discussion of the topic in context, most likely Thealogy belongs merged into Goddess movement. I am not sure whether Goddess worship should be merged into Goddess. All of this isn't at all terrible, it's just a little walled garden in need of cleanup. I am not disputing the topic's notability at all. dab (𒁳) 09:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Goddess worship is evolving at the moment (under the direction of a single editor) into a general article. I'm thinking merging it into goddess is increasingly a good idea. The problem would appear to be settling upon good terms. We really need someone who knows this stuff well, even someone from the movement(s), to help straighten this stuff out. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, merge Goddess worship and Goddess. Perhaps Thealogy could go in Feminist theology. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:majeston

I have been removing some links from articles that clearly fail as reliable sources, plus some trivia, etc. These are Nephilim (role-playing game), Nephilim, Paleolithic Continuity Theory, Lemuria (continent) and Mu (lost continent) user:Majeston, who is upset with me because of edits on the Urantia article, is following me around (maybe, maybe he just watches them all) and reverting my edits with no reason given. He is also removing requests for citations, eg on the Maya society article. I've just noticed he also reverted an edit of mine at Paper folding which he has never edited, so maybe he is following me around. Any advice as to what to do? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:STALK -- if he persists, you should just drop a note at WP:ANI. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't had this problem before. He's a problem as he doesn't care about guidlines or policy.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

these editors tend to be the least of our problems, since they get themselves blocked within a day or two. dab (𒁳) 11:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He's kept under the wire. Ironic though, his prose is almost unreadable, he's made the article more unreadable with every edit he does. I've raised it at WP:ANI where he's responded asking that the editors who reverted him to be blocked. --Doug Weller (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit too many pederasty articles, perhaps...

A sort of idiosyncratic definition is being used, and then widely extrapolated. Considerable overlap between articles. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Pederasty

Science and the Bible

A little situation with a Biblical literalist who seems to insist that because the Hebrew Bible is the inspired word of God, there is no way "incorrect cosmology" like the notion of a flat Earth can figure in the text.

• Talk:Science_and_the_Bible#Biblical_flat-Earthism

interestingly, they stop short of claiming knowledge of a spherical earth was directly "inspired" by God, but rather resort to speculations that theories of a spherical Earth may already have emerged by perfectly natural means in 26th century BC Egypt, citing a website debunking scriptural foreknowledge . I would be interested in this claim of Old Kingdom notions of a spherical earth, but that would be for History of astronomy since it has nothing to do with the Hebrew Bible.

I note we also have Biblical cosmology. dab (𒁳) 05:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

degenerating into an edit war now. I'm off this for the moment. --dab (𒁳) 06:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a look. We do seem to have rather a lot of articles circling around this topic. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, let's see. We have:

• Science and the Bible. Used to discuss claims of magical foreknowledge, but these bits are now relegated to
• Scriptural foreknowledge (Biblical inspiration).
• Biblical cosmology I had not been aware of, but it's fine as a WP:SS main article to "Science and the Bible" and history of astronomy
• the whole thing needs to be presented as a sub-topic to History of science in early cultures
• Flat Earth is an evergreen, but has already been raised to excellent quality in past disputes, no problem there
• Babylonian astronomy is a related topic, but independent as not appuying on Biblical texts.
  • Babylonian astrology is in constant danger of CFORK wrt the preceding
• oh dear, and there is Hebrew astronomy. Has been tagged as problematic since October 2007. That's probably the main trouble spot for now.
• Creation according to Genesis is probably only of marginal interest here.
• Religious cosmology is a summary article in need of supervision.

dab (𒁳) 12:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Islam and science is tagged for a number of issues although it does have some good content and sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's better than Inventions in the Islamic world. Doug Weller (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, the whole series needs to be viewed as one. I suggested on Talk: Muslim Agricultural Revolution that it be split into Agriculture in the Islamic Golden Age and . No responses yet, but much of Inventions in the Islamic World could be fitted into an Industry page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Islamic science doesn't parallel Science and the Bible. "The Bible" here is the Hebrew Bible, for the most part compiled in the first half of the 1st millennium BC. Islamic science otoh is medieval science and should be contrasted with Science in Medieval Western Europe, not with Iron Age proto-science. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, DAB seems determined to misrepresent my personal opinion in this continually dismissive manner, instead of addressing the need to qualify two fringe biblical literarlists went against the mainstream belief of their time, showing that the common mainstream was not to extreme literalism but to understanding metaphors, idioms, visions, and prophecy. However, I guess it's easier to mislabel me than to address my problem with the article. Fortunately, a cooler head prevailed and the problem was fixed with a qualifier that other scholars of that time did not agree with those two fringe scholars, and the source DAB kept removing was replaced in the article by another editor. Then, of course, came DAB's insult to my intelligence, but I guess he just didn't care for the taste of the grapes today. --Faith (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The exact parallel is Qur'an and science, to which I've added a few decent references. That article discusses the makers of various claims and their political and theological significance rather than listing the arguments for them. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

even that isn't an "exact parallel", since the Quran is decidedly post-Hellenistic while the Pentateuch is decidedly pre-Hellenistic. Different era altogether. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant that an approach that focuses on the theological discussion of "scientific" components of the book in question is the way to go, rather than any direct comparison of scientific content. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say that there were exact parallels, only that if we are watching one group of articles for creep towards fundamentalism then we might as well watch the other group too. There are some knowledgeable Muslim editors who have put in some work on articles around science and Islam but there is still some way to go. I find it very useful to take articles in groups, as you did in your original post dab. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

you are right, Qur'an and science is problematic in the same way. Dear me. Should probably be split or moved or merged. dab (𒁳) 13:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that, see above. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

well, the scope of the article should be made clear either way. It can be a bona fide discussion of "what can we learn about the development of science and technology in a particular era and region from this text", or it can be a discussion of pious claims of miracular foreknowledge, but not both at the same time. dab (𒁳) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

True. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Dysgenics (people)

Sory to bring this up again, but there is an AfD currently going on that might interest people concerned with fringe theories. Dysgenics (people) has been named for AfD and wider input would be appreciated. Being an involved party to the debate myself, I can't say more than I've just said, but invite others who might be interested to drop by the article and express their opinion on the AfD if they so wish.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Huuurrgggh, more "race and intelligence" warring. I predict painful arbitration in the not-so-distant future if this doesn't get straightened soonish. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

This article could do with some eyes. Apart from a WP:LAME slow edit war whether Jerusalem is in "Israel" or "Palestine" (which should perhaps be addressed by removing all flag icons from the article...), we get constant additions of various neolithic sites, most persistently an anonymous user, presumably of Bulgarian origin, who keeps adding archaeological sites in Bulgaria. Obviously, the list isn't intended as a "list of neolithic sites", but evidence of continuous habitation would need to be presented. That's often disputed, but we would require at least some evidence that it is even disputed. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Continuously inhabited? Thebes in Greece was famously destroyed in 335 BC by Alexander the Great (with the exception of Pindar's house, according to legend). Looking at the 1911 Britannica, it seems the city was rebuilt on a much smaller scale in 315. So that's 20 years with nobody home (except, maybe, at the Pindar residence). --Folantin (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, I think the idea is "with continuous traces of habitation", viz., it was never completely abandoned for centuries on end. Obviously all these cities must have been destroyed and rebuilt several times over. It's just a matter of WP:CITE, for our purposes, we are just listing attributed "claims of continuous habitation". dab (𒁳) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

in this context, let me also point to

• List of oldest European cities
• Historical urban community sizes
• List of largest cities throughout history

all of them tagged for merge or cleanup for ages now. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"I think the idea is 'with continuous traces of habitation', viz., it was never completely abandoned for centuries on end." That definition's A bit too sophist-icated for my liking. These are the kind of lists that Misplaced Pages is bad at doing anyway. --Folantin (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. But "oldest continuously inhabited city" is still a meme in the real world (a bit like oldest tree), and we have to deal with it somehow. dab (𒁳) 21:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkey Mountain

We need a third opinion at Talk:Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) that involves a fringe theory. I do not feel the article is currently pushing the theory, and is appropriately neutral and proportionate to weight, but another editor does not even want it mentioned at all, even though it seems to meet the standards of RS in multiple publications. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The hypothisis that the carvings on Turkey Mountain might be ancient Punic script takes up more than two thirds of the article... so Undue Weight is indeed an issue. It is clearly a Fringe Theory (proposed by people who are not archeologists or lingusts). The real question is whether their theory has been commented upon by someone in the mainstream (in this case, those who are archeologists or linguists). This does not seem to be the case. It looks like another situation where the mainstream has not bothered to comment, because the theory is not considered worthy of being commented upon.

I think the fact that there are carvings on the hill is minorly noteworthy... and worth a sentence or two in the article... but speculation as to what these carvings might mean should be omitted as being Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the hill itself notable enough for an entry? Is there anything to say about it other than these carvings? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a very nice local park, dirt bike racing takes place there.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the "see also" section there, note all of those topics have their own articles, so I am now planning to get all this stuff out of that page, and move it to a new page at Turkey Mountain inscriptions, see the talk page I linked above. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but this still seems to be a Fringe topic. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How can it be NPOV if no one has paid any serious attention to it? --Doug Weller (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Blueboar: Of course I know it's a "fringe topic", that's why I listed it here (I think the same thing may have even been listed here before). It reads much like the articles discussed as examples on the main project page (WP:FRINGE), showing how articles specifically about fringe hypotheses should be written in order not to be pushing the hypotheses unduly. I don't think it's the case here at all that the fringe hypothesis is being "pushed", so it seems to already meet the standards outlined on that page, and does not seem to violate the guidelines there on what a fringe article should NOT be. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, at the moment it does violate the guideline... "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject — such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself — should be given far less weight when deciding on notability."

I do not see any discussion of such referencing... the article does say that Fell's theories are discounted by most experts, but that is the extent of it... there is no discussion of what these experts say in relation to Turkey Mountain, or why they discount Fell's hypothisis.

That said... I think the article is borderline at the moment... with some work it might actually meet the inclusion requirements laid out in WP:FRINGE... but at the moment it does not. I have left additional comments at the article talk page. I think this should be hammered out there and brought back here if it does not improve. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comment: Based upon Til's comments on the talk page, it looks as if the basic requirement can be met... it has been discussed in multiple sources. So it looks as if these inscriptions are notable enough for an article. But the article still needs a lot of work... if nothing else, it needs to include discussion about what those disparaging mainstream sources say. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology

I need some help at Talk:Parapsychology. There is very clear consensus in the academic community that this subject is pseudoscience, but there are a lot of supporters of this subject that are arguing vociferously that such a statement about this consensus is not sourced (despite there being about 1/2 dozen sources which explicitly state this) and arguable. I need help both with sourcing and with fighting POV-pushers. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain that further please? The article passed a Featured Article Candidacy - FWIW - with a prominent statement in the lead of that version that there's no acceptable evidence for it and that its fringe. Further, I see that one of the major editors says

The sources we used when writing the article were carefully selected. Most references to parapsychological journals were dumped in favor of mainstream academic journals like the Psychological Bulletin. When something was pulled from a journal such as The Journal of Parapsychology, it was typically the skeptical view such as that of Ray Hyman. It's difficult to imagine you actually examined the sources when you say we cited third-rate journals written by a parapsychologist, because the combination of parapsychologists in parapsychology journals covers uncontroversial statements, historical statements, critical statements, or fully attributed views of the parapsychologists themselves. There's no flat facts cited to any parapsychologist in this article (or at least there were none when I reviewed it last). The parapsychology journals are treated not as third-party peer reviewed, but as primary sources, and treated correctly as primary sources through attributed statements. You refer to WP:PARITY, but that's the exact concept used here. It's also hard to imagine that you reviewed the sources when you say "no institutional affiliation". Every parapsychologist sourced had academic affiliations. Not that it matters, of course, because they were treated as if they had no affiliations at all.

That seems reasonable, so I'm having trouble identifying the exact problem. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a basic issue that the article is positioning itself as more academic than possible: a false-ediface of the type that is almost unreasonable. The very fact that one of the editors tried to get it listed under the science category at our list of featured articles is one of the problems here. What started was a basic point: if we have half-a-dozen sources of respected academics and scientists calling parapsychology a pseudoscience, we should just say that. Other editors are hoping to promote WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution in an attempt to make it look like only a minority of scientists think it is pseudoscience. We all know this isn't the case. Not to mention that Neal and Martin act like they own the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

BS, per usual. The entire article denigrates parapsychology, so it's hard to call it a particular attribution. The number of sourced critics far outweigh the proponents, and the proponents are severly treated as lesser academics in the process. The whole article is a model of WP:FRINGE in practice, placing majority views in the majority and minority views in the minority. Never is a majority view treated as the only view about a topic, as what you're suggesting, especially when sources show that as demonstrably false. Further, if you have a complaint about an editor trying to include it as science in a list (wasn't me), complain about that editor, not about the article itself. If you have a problem with me saying your edits are poor quality, don't call it ownership, demonstrate that they're quality. Like I said, BS, and misrepresentation. That article has gone through GA, FA, and a whole bunch of editor reviews, so if you think all of the sudden it's fundamentally flawed because someone disagreed with you about one line... you're putting way too much weight on your personal views. --Nealparr 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As one of the editors who disagrees with ScienceApologist, allow me to point out where he's misrepresenting the issue. The issue isn't that it doesn't belong in there. No one disagrees with presenting the view that it's pseudoscience. The statement has always been in there and no one said it wasn't sourced. ScienceApologist wants to present it as a flat fact, that the view is a fact and not an opinion, despite mainstream academic sources that disagree with the view. --Nealparr 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please. At this point, people are clamboring for reinstating a number of problems with the lead including reinstating such fatuous claims as there have been a number of "meta-analytical studies that have generated significant controversy". Just plain outlandish statements tending to prop up the "legitimacy" of this non-subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not one of them, so how's that a reason to come over here and misrepresent what the the dispute is? If you have a legitimate complaint, be legit about it. --Nealparr 04:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For you poor souls who don't want to read the whole talk page, ScienceApologist himself presented sources, for instance the following:

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE 20 (1): 182-192 JAN 2008: Samuel T Moulton

Where the abstract says:

Abstract: Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., "mind reading"), also known as psi.

So he's fighting a losing battle here, as his own sources contradict him. Even James Randi objects to calling parapsychology pseudoscience. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I'd appreciate seeing a direct citation that says where James Randi "objects" to calling parapsychology pseudoscience. Since James Randi's whole approach seems to be dedicated to settling the question whether parapsychology (along with other approaches to the paranormal) is or is not pseudoscience, and his hypothesis seems to be that it will be settled in the direction of pseudoscience, (he's got a million dollars riding on that bet, after all) it seems simply perverse to insist that he "objects" to calling parapyschology pseudoscience. My guess would be more that since he doesn't have training in the sciences, he doesn't have an understanding of the distinction scientists make between science and pseudoscience, and he simply doesn't use the word, at least I can't find it in a quick search of his writings. But if you do have a citation showing that he does in fact "object" to the use of the word pseudoscience, it would be helpful to me to see that quote, thanks.

As to whether parapsychology is generally considered among scientists to be pseudoscience, I think the preponderance of the evidence (meaning in wiki terms the prepoponderance of expert opinion as reflected in reliable sources) would be found to agree with Science Apologist, and certainly my personal observations in academic circles support Science Apologist on this point. But of course my word on the subject isn't useful, so just out of curiosity I idly opened the book that happened to be sitting at my elbow, which my son brought me several weeks ago and which I'm reading for my own interest, not in conjunction with anything I'm doing or looking at in Misplaced Pages. It is "Don't Believe Everything You Think: The Six Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking" by Thomas Kida, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts. It is an excellent readable and accurate summary of the research in the area (I can say this since I know this literature well) and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the ways we fool ourselves into thinking things that aren't so. At any rate, in the chapter on Pseudoscience, Kida writes, "One of the foremost examples of pseudoscience is parapsychology." and then he goes on for a couple of pages to explain why parapsychology qualifies as pseudoscience. If this reference would be helpful to editors working on the article, they are welcome to it.

As to the citation above that describes parapsychology as "the scientific investigation of ...paranormal mental phenomena" that seems like quote mining (is that the right term for this?) because the abstract as a whole suggests that parapsychology has yet to produce any evidence to back up its claims, and they consider their results the strongest evidence yet against the claims made by parapsychology. If this is the best you can come up with in support of the idea that parapsychology is "scientific" then I'd say that's not very convincing, and to give it undue weight would be to bias the article. Someone said, though I can't find it here (maybe it's on the article talk page) that parapsychology has to be considered science because it uses the methods of science. No, it could only be called science if it produced replicable findings and theories that can reliably predict outcomes. Something that has the appearance, or takes on the trappings, of science without producing the results of science, is the textbook definition of pseudoscience.Woonpton (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is/was written as if "parapsychology" is a field of investigation, not a set of assertions. If so, I don't see how any of that is relevant. What matters is whether reliable sources claim that that field largely follows scientific methods. (If they do, it is not surprising if all the results are negative, surely?) -Relata refero (disp.) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In this way, the article is highly misleading. Something becomes a "science" when a null hypothesis is rejected. Since there are no reliable experiments which reject such a null hypothesis, we can clearly say that parapsychology is not a science. People studying under the umbrella of "parapsychology" may do perfectly good scientific experiments, but their practice is not a "science" per se. The "scientific study" of a subject is not necessarily a "science" in the mean sense. The question then becomes, is parapsychology a pseudoscience? Generally, if people involved in the ideology believe in spite of the evidence to the contrary that a null hypothesis has been rejected, they are generally practioners of a pseudoscience. Every reliable source on the subject of parapsychology agrees that both a) there exists only strong evidence for null hypotheses to not be rejected and b) most advocates of parapsychology believe otherwise. Therefore, parapsychology is a pseudoscience. We have sources which indicate as much (at least four reliable ones). We should simply plainly point it out to the reader and let it go. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

SA, this appears internally contradictory. If there are no reliable experiments which reject the null, then how is the next sentence "in spite of the evidence to the contrary, that a null hypothesis has been rejected". Utterly confusing. In any case, if the majority of peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals choose to call this "scientific" any pseudoscience label beyond what existed in the FA-draft lead doesnt appear appropriate. Four citations isn't really a lot - pretty fringe itself. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

At some point, when a topic is marginalized, we have to ask whether the noise that gets into "mainstream" journals is supposed to be more heavily weighted than the majority opinion out in the wastelands of pop-culture. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

arguing over that single word seems to have been continuous since I've been at WP, and its gotten totally boring except to the parties caught up in the argument. If one calls it pseudoscience, it still makes a little more claim to scientific method than most of the even less likely pseudoscience; call it science, it's still considerably less rigorous than almost anything else that has any right to the term. So just include one quote each from the best place that says it is, and that says it isnt, and then describe the field, and people will call it what they like. WP is not obliged to decide, we can just call it a field of study. Arguments over labelling are about the worst thing to spend time over. DGG (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, the dispute wasn't over whether it should be included, or even whether it is a prominent opinion, or even whether it is the majority opinion. It's always been there as a prominent view. The dispute centered around whether it was the sole opinion and ScienceApologist wanting to word it as the consensus, regardless of multiple notable examples to the contrary including publication in mainstream journals, current Master's of Science level courses at reputable universities, many of the principle detractors saying "failed, deprecated, or useless science" over "pseudoscience", many many sources saying "scientific study of the paranormal", and a recent third-party neutral Nature article (Feb. 2007) examining exactly whether it was science or not and presenting three different reputable views from science on the topic. Clearly it is not the consensus that it is pseudoscience. The consensus is that it is "fringe science" failing to produce anything conclusive, worthwhile, or compelling enough to be accepted by mainstream science. That's what the majority of neutral, third-party sources say (not skeptical sources and not parapsychology sources). The dispute, at least from my perspective, is whether fair is fair, or whether as soon as the skeptical consensus is that the topic is pseudoscience then the topic is taken through the ringer. Anyone who reads the article can see that parapsychology is not presented in a positive way, is fully denigrated, without going overboard (and yet still more critical than Britannica, Encarta, or even James Randi's own encyclopedia or the Skeptic's Dictionary -- neither of which contain the word "pseudoscience" and in fact say "science"). The dispute is over when is enough enough, if not FA status. After two plus years of working on the article, I personally say enough is enough, at least for me. In fact *gasp* I'm turning this off and going outside : ) Dunno when I'll be back, so have fun. --Nealparr 20:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

<Rant from Davkal snipped> 76.76.15.167 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

<Feeding of banned user snipped>--Relata refero (disp.) 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The same three editors (including one who is banned, but posts using an IP) seem to exist solely to defend Parapsychology with persistent, lengthy and elaborate arguments (such as above). Ironically, these editors claim to have no special interest in Parapsychology -- yet they edit only Parapsychology and related articles! 66.30.77.62 (talk)

Log in, why don't you. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As one of the "same three editors", you can check my contribs and see that it's not the only topic I edit. It's the only topic I've ever contributed to substantially that has reached Featured Article status. I'd like to keep it there out of personal pride, rather than watch it slide into presenting poor quality material or extreme views, ie. become like all the other crappy articles out there. I write long replies because I like writing and get carried away, and also because no one seems to check sources anymore and edit from their personal viewpoint. Sometimes it takes more than a sentence to present a source-based response. I don't have a conflict of interest, if that's what you're suggesting. My personally identifiable information is on my user page for anyone that's interested. I'm transparently a nobody. I certainly don't hide behind an IP to attack an editor personally. What you have in me is an editor who actually gave a shit about a Misplaced Pages article, took the time to read everything he could about it and write a decent article, only to be slammed for giving a shit in the end. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. But it doesn't matter ultimately because as I said above, enough is enough and I retire from that article. --Nealparr 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point

I want to point out a beautiful red herring that gets a lot of paranormal true believers all worked up. The claim that "scientific investigation" is somehow indicative of a subject being a science.

"Scientific investigation" is a methodology, but in order for the subject to be a "science" there has to be something beyond a null hypothesis that has positive results. This is what separates science from non-science. Saying that some subject or another involves "scientific investigation" is not the same thing as saying that subject is "a science".

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I imagine in this case several specific hypotheses are tested, with uniformly negative results. So not a "a null hypothesis that has positive results." (In any case, the idea that a science consists of more than that would be absolutely crushing for, among others, most fields of financial economics.) Besides, Popperian falsifiability is so 1970s. Whatever, this is completely irrelevant. If the majority of reliable sources describe this completely pointless field as "scientific", that's what we go with. --07:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I found the Jessica Utts paper in Statistical Science quite interesting. She acknowledges that parapsychologists as people are basically searching for confirmation, while maintaining that the processes aren't largely flawed. Indeed, she says that the attacks on parapsychology have sometimes "called into question the very foundations of probability and statistical inference." I do hope that's not what you're doing here. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 08:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Utts is a frequentist who suffers from the problems that those who ideologically reject Bayesian statistics. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramids

Someone keeps deleting a section of this, see.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

that should be rollback-able. dab (𒁳) 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I have rollback, yes, but I worry about WP:3RR. They've stopped anyway(more or less, now tried to remove 'so-called' from the article).--Doug Weller (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

what I mean is, this is anonymous vandalism, and should be dealt with by rollback, and if necessary semiprotection. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Krishnaism

Let me state up front that the topic of Krishnaism is valid and encyclopedic. But, with the recent WP:KRISHNA project, the objective seems to be to "own" as many articles as possible, never mind how stubby, never mind WP:CFORK.

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

It appears that "Krishnaism" is the term for Gaudiya Vaishnavism when discussed in comparison with Christianity in particular. It gets around a hundred hits on google scholar, and its notability as a standalone term (with what definition?) seems somewhat questionable. The Krishnaism article doesn't establish anything else, but is content to replicate selected material from Krishna, Bhakti movement, Vaishnavism and Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am really in doubt whether this is the way to go. Wikidas (talk · contribs) also enjoys to create as many stubs on "aspects of Krishna" as he can, armed with a quote from Klaus Klostermaier's 2005 Survey of Hinduism, and generally displaying considerable belligerence (criticism of his approach apparenty amounts to an insult to his religion on principle). Thus, we get Bala Krishna, Vasudeva Krishna and Radha Krishna, Govinda, liberally sprinkled with {{underconstruction}} tags.

I am certainly glad to see an effort towards a good coverage of "Krishnaism", but it seems some editorial assistance at least is needed here. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC) See also:

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

Wikidās-ॐ 12:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's another 60 hits. As I said, the term is valid. This is a good overview. The Krishnaism page still needs to be cleaned up to make clear its scope. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved from this board as this particular board is not for this purpose. Project talk page WT:Krishna provides such space. Goals and scope of the project are clearly discussed and outlined there. Also issue of the name of the project is being discussed there. Just like a last time with you and me, you keep puting it here, instead as an appropriate place.

Once again - Scope is defined by the link below and the discussion that happened on WikiProjects board and is kept for record on the project talk page.

See: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Krishnaism/Bibilography Clearly This discussion is moved to an appropriate place: Wikidās-ॐ 13:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, I recognize that Krishnaism can be a valid sub-article of Vaishnavism and Krishna, and a WP:SS summary article of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Sri Vaishnavism, Shuddhadvaita and possibly other articles. It also clearly needs some sort of supervision and a cleanup effort towards a clean presentation of its scope. I don't know why you keep linking to your "bibliography" page, Wikidas, since nobody ever disputed that there are books on Krishna. The appropriate place for this discussion would be Talk:Krishnaism, this section is just to draw attention to the problem for the benefit of potentially interested editors. dab (𒁳) 13:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dab, at least you admit that this discussion should not have been placed at this board. In fact to consider putting it here is a form of Fringe theory.

Maybe when your block expires you can reconsider. This board is not for all and everything and has a specific purpose and clearly this discussion does not fit in it. There is nothing more to discuss on it.Wikidās-ॐ 08:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Offensive fringe theories in talk page discussion

Hi, i really wasnt sure how to do this, i wanted to avoid some of the more viewed notice boards to avoid the usual drama. There is an editer "CadenS" who is promoting a fringe theory on talk pages that is actually quite offensive. He calls it the "Homosexual Agenda", which is a right wing way of saying "gays are plotting against the world". I have listed just ten examples below, there are many many more edits like this by the user. He called one user who is a member of the LGBT community "Heterophobic" for not agreeing with him. I know that the editer was very offended by the comment. Now being conservative and christain is fine with me, but this is going too far, i see these unhealthy ideas spouted on Conservapedia and honestly its dangerous.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - im guessing "this" means homosexuality?

If this is the wrong place for this report i apologise and would appreciate it if you could redirect me. Cheers. Realist (Come Speak To Me) 15:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

well, as long as it's just talkpages, this falls under WP:TALK (Misplaced Pages is not a forum), but it's not "dangerous" as in "harmful to the project". --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So would there be somewhere better to take this, i mean he cant do this forever and expect to get way with it, firstly its disrespectful to homosexual editers, secondly hes making unfounded person attacks. I understand that theres probably nothing you guys can do about it, it just seems that hes protected by the fact that hes keeping most of it to the talk pages. Im stumped, this shouldnt be allowed to continue though. --Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum or a soapbox, advocacy of any political views on talk pages is inappropriate, whether they're fringe or not. But it seems to me there are more serious policy violations in the edits you point out. Calling another user "heterophobic" or starting a comment "You must be BLIND to not see..." is fairly clearly a personal attack (see that page for guidance on responding). The information that the user claims to have received from a school district employee includes unverifiable and contentious material about living and recently deceased people, a should be removed from talk pages per this policy. EALacey (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill go and clean up the talk page(s), per BLP. Regarding the personal attacks etc, should this be moved to another noticed board. The editer that received the "Heterphobic" comment was quite upset and contacted me about it outside of wikipedia, thus i got involved and looked through his edit history. Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts is the appropriate forum for this. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, cheers folks. Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell him to try out Conservapedia, assuming he's not there already. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

telling a user "you must be blind" in the context of a dispute isn't a personal attack, be reasonable. I agree that homophobic rants have no place on Misplaced Pages, but that's already by virtue of being rants (WP:SOAP). This isn't urgent. Warn the user to get his act together, and if he persists, block him. There is really no need to compile a legalistic case from varied guidelines: if the user clearly isn't here to write an encyclopedia, well, he has no business editing. Jesus, I am really tired of "Wikiquette alerts" and people giving me grief over WP:CIVIL because I told them they are wrong. Which results in nice venomous messages such as this one, chastising me for reacting with sarcasm in the face of a user who exploded in ungrammatical rants over my using the term "Transcaucasian highland". I wish all the Wikiquette and CIVIL vigilantes would remember that we are here to write an encyclopedia. Yes, this means we should block people who are here for homophobic ranting. But it also means that our serious contributors shouldn't be expected to keep smiling and babysit confused single-topic accounts.

On the content side, I meekly submit that Misplaced Pages could do with a little bit of moderate homophobia criticism of the homosexual agenda. "LBGT" topics have a very strong lobby on Misplaced Pages, and this often results in rather surreal presence of "homosexuality" links. The Ancient Greek topics are littered with them. Yes, the ancient Greeks practiced "ephebophilia". No, this doesn't mean the fact needs to be featured prominently in every article on Ancient Greece. Links to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies are found in the most unlikely places. I mean, ok, so Viktor Rydberg once had a male lover. He was also a philologist, a poet and a scholar. How does he qualify as a subject of "LBGT studies" any more than your average boring married-with-children biography qualifies for "hetero sexology studies"? I am saying, I can muster a degree of understanding for the people rolling their eyes at "gay Misplaced Pages". I have issues with the very concept of "LBGT" categorization. How is it WP:NPOV to treat female (L) and male (G) homosexuality implicitly as "the same topic" as bisexuality (B) and "transgender" (T)? "LBGT" is a political term that deserves its own Misplaced Pages article, but which shouldn't be used for categorization any more than, say "ACF" should be used to categorize "Anarchists, Capitalists and Fascists", or "SPR" should be used for "Satanists, Pagans and Roman Catholics". dab (𒁳) 06:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is in practice convenient to work on these topics together, & this does not necessarily represent an agenda. I notice that every group/tendency/school/direction/POV in wikipedia tends to feel that it is the persecuted minority here. The left think the right dominate, and vice versa; the atheists the christians, etc etc. In truth, there are individual articles dominated by one POV or another which need to see the general light of day. OWN is the curse of all community content projects, and needs continual attention. DGG (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The LGBTers are often over-eager to claim historical figures for their cause on the flimsiest of pretexts. On the other hand, we currently have someone arguing there is no evidence that Marcel Proust was homosexual (!). File under: "I thought I'd seen it all". --Folantin (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

SRA, again

It seems everyone but the most die-hard SRA apologists have lost interest in this and the information establishing that this is to 99% a topic of "anti-cult" moral panic is being unconspicuously shoved out of the article... dab (𒁳) 10:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not this again. --Haemo (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we now have an article on SRA that runs around 1800 words without ever using the phrases "false memory," "iatrogenic," "witch hunt," "hypnosis," or even "recovered memory" (outside of the references section.) And now the Witchfinders-General have moved on to chip away at the last dismissive vestiges of mainstream criticism remaining in that piece. Welcome to Misplaced Pages, folks... <eleland/talkedits> 02:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with some of the analyses above. There are peer reviewed articles citing evidence of SRA and mainstream news articles documenting SRA convictions, like the recent Hammond, LA case. The idea of SRA as a moral panic is only cited in a minority of the scientific literature on the topic.

Interestingly, numerous skeptical sources are listed in the article. The skepticism section is very large and the evidence section is well balanced. Several of the phrases above that have not been included in the article have been removed by editors skeptical of the existence of SRA, because the references did not discuss SRA specifically, This is especially true of the DID/Iatrogenesis debate.

User dab above recently stated on the SRA talk page "However, I think the article isn't terrible." I would concur with this statement. The page does need more reliable sources, like peer reviewed journal articles and well balanced and well sourced mainstream news articles, but the article already has a large number of references with nearly every statement connected directly to a reference. Those interested in making the article a better one are more than welcome to add reliable sources to it or make specific suggestions on the talk page as to how it can be improved. ResearchEditor (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bible Code

Just happened across this mess. Seems not to be actively edited at the moment, was once an FA, but hardly meets NPOV, RS, or NOR in its present state. An excerpt:

"The traditional view of the codes further asserts that the "information" encoded in the Torah cannot be used to predict the future, and that at best the codes provide evidence of an all-knowing creator whose knowledge of the Universe and all of its possibilities spans both space and time. In this view, (from an information theoretical viewpoint) the letter-sequence of the Torah is to the Universe as the DNA sequence is to the human body, useful for understanding how the universe works on a macro scale, and illustrative of the "Grand Design" which encompasses all possible events, but nonetheless utterly unreliable for prediction of what specific combinations of micro-scale events will occur to create the 'reality' of human history.

The traditional view conflicts with the more recent and highly sensationalized views suggesting that the Codes may be valuable as tools of prediction. These views of the codes first emerged in popular culture with the book The Bible Code by journalist Michael Drosnin, which suggests that the codes can be analyzed by computer to provide warnings for the future.

The traditional view can be compared to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Physics in which, at the quantum level, the very act of measuring an information system in a state of quantum uncertainty can cause that system to "collapse" into a certain state around the potentiality that the observer was looking for. According to this view, the very act of searching the code for one possible future outcome, such as an assassination, hence "measuring" the event that may happen in the future, can cause the event itself to happen. In that same paradoxical way that Schrödinger's cat is said to be both dead and alive, and neither dead nor alive until the measurement is made."

Words fail. Woonpton (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

actually, the first two paragraphs seem a fair summary, to be sourced if possible, but i think a good common-sense description of the different meanings. The third one is OR interpretation; possibly someone may actually have said it in a notable book on the topic. When describing nonsense fairly, it will inevitably sound like nonsense. DGG (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. Yes, of course the first two paragraphs are fine without the third, but I included them in the excerpt to show the context for the third paragraph. And if someone did actually say it in a "reliable" source (topics are notable, sources are not notable; sources are either reliable or not reliable) I agree that it could be presented as such, as long as it was a fair summary of the source and properly attributed to the source, and as long as it wasn't given undue weight beyond the prominence of the view in reliable sources. But as it stands, it is not attributed and looks like OR, especially since the editor who inserted the material also inserted similar quantum mystical OR into several different articles during his short career here, and because there was no mention of this interpretation of the Bible codes before he showed up to edit the page. My best guess is that the material came, not from any reliable source on Bible Codes, but from the editor's own understanding of and advocacy for this particular misinterpretation and overapplication of quantum physics. I could be wrong, and if so of course someone is welcome to reinsert the material with proper attribution and proper weight. Woonpton (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

The article on Rupert Sheldrake, whose parapsychological work is frequently described as pseudoscience (and which has been flagged for some time for relying mainly on Sheldrake's own writings/website), has just had a considerable amount of new, and favourable, material on his second book, The Presence of the Past, added. We've also got an editor who appears to be attempting to claim a respectable profile for him. A small amount has been added to the (separate) 'Criticism' section, but I don't think it balances out. I'm not sufficiently familiar with this particular scientific 'fringe' to be able to do too much about it (I work mostly in the area of Creationism). The article on his claims of Morphic fields, and those on Mae-Wan Ho & William McDougall (psychologist), who he cites as support might also bear looking at. Hrafn_Stalk 08:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet's Mill

A 1969 book claiming that "the precession of the axis was discovered long before the accepted date of the Greek discovery, and that this was discovered by an ancient (perhaps around 4000 BCE) civilization of unsuspected sophistication". Now the Hamlet's Mill article duly puts this in perspective as fringy nonsense, but interestingly the book finds stout defenders at Talk:Viktor Rydberg, for the somewhat contorted rationale that Hamlet's Mill endorses some of Rydberg's speculations, and if you can show that Hamlet's Mill has some academic credibility, you have also shown that Rydberg isn't completely discredited. dab (𒁳) 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

When proponents claim their fringe practice is Mainstream: Naturopathic medicine

See Talk:Naturopathic_medicine#Is_naturopathic_medicine_CAM.3F. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My oh my, but that's a few SPA's... MastCell  17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can ckind of appreciate the siuation: In some states, N.Ds are trying to become the modern Osteopaths, and have succeeded to some extent. In others, any person can become an N.D. just by saying he's one. The first group is probably right to object to being lumped in with the second, but I don't quite see what can be done, without dignifying a lot off unqualified quacks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true - there's definitely a two-tier system, with a handful of rigorous, respectable N.D. programs and a large number of fly-by-night operations. Still, don't see what bearing that has on naturopathy's status as a complementary and alternative modality... MastCell  17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really. But appreciating why they're making these arguments might help us direct their efforts into improving the article by encouraging them to find high-quality sources making the distinctions, and showing how mainstream medicine views the high-end N.Ds. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And that is the key... we should focus on what mainstream medical sources say about it. 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Happening at Talk:Chiropractic too. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

much less justification there. DGG (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Urantia book in Crucifixion article

Someone's added a reference to the Urantia book in the Crucifixion article. I removed it and they got very shirty with me on my talk page, accusing me of being personally motivated and saying they'd take it up with the 'appropriate persons'. They put it back. Am I out of line thinking it is inappropriate there? And, anyone else noticing IP editors adding Velikovsky stuff to Egyptology articles? 2 additions (at least) yesterday from different IP addresses.--Doug Weller (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The The Urantia Book is obviously not a quotable source for any sort of historical discussion. Making mention of it outside articles that clearly deal with New Age topics is completely WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

USER:Majeston (Majeston is the name of the Urantian Chief of reflectivity, etc) is once again calling other editors vandals and marking his edits of articles (but not talk pages) as minor., He's undoing attempts to remove text he added to various articles promoting the Urantia Book. I have explained to him in detail that he should not mark edits as minor unless they are, and asked him to stop calling other editors vandals, but he doesn't seem to care. He complains on my talk page that editors are trying to prevent the truth from being known, so...--Doug Weller (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And now I am accused of stalking: and .--Doug Weller (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And this -- SA and I have not been in touch at all over Urantia, we are not any sort of team.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"a tag team of Urantia stalkers forming" -- that I call a self-fulfilling prophecy :) first misbehave, and then act surprised when "the cabal" clamps down on you. dab (𒁳) 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Help Requested

Hello,

I mentioned a traditional story, which I do not claim is true, that has several sources from 1893, 1931, and 1957. The story appears to have come down through three seperate groups of people, the Jesuits, Washington's slaves and their descendants and through one line of Washington's relations.

I have only mentioned this story under Leonard Neales article because he is the main person the story focuses on. The existance of this story has been proved. It has also been proved to go back to over one hundred years ago, and if you search the internet the story persists and is still of interest. Since the story has been proven to exist for over a century even though it is not taken as truth by many people and since I do not assert that this traditional story is true I feel that it does not fall under an exceptional claim or a fringe theory.

The story is that in the night during George Washington's death a friend of his a Jesuit priest named Leonard Neale was called for over the river. He spends some time with the dying president and when he returns to his lodgings across the river in Maryland he intimates that Washington was given the last rites and died a Catholic. Some of Washington's slaves cried that he was taken by "the Scarlet Lady" of Rome. A first cousin three times removed reported that her grandmother passed down that Washington had a death-bed conversion.

I'd like to keep mention of this traditional story and have tried to work out compromises with one editor who is bent on removing it even though I allowed him to remove information from the story that he did not like, I made no complaints when he added the proviso that many of Washington's biographys make no mention of this story and I have answered all his requests for sources and details and explanations. But he still wants to remove it now claiming it is an exceptional claim.

If some other editors could take an unbiased look at the mention of this story and the sources and help resolve this situation I'd be very grateful. Dwain (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

the sources present in Leonard Neale are inadequate. An account based upon a "third cousin once removed" is the very stuff of unfounded rumor. Is it discussed in any of the standard bios of GW? What sources have you? The article on Neale is otherwise entirely based on the old Catholic encyclopedia, which does not mention it. Are there newer sources for him? The entire article needs rewriting to more modern standards. TI'd like to see a transcript of the claimed article from the Register. Place it on the talk page. For all we know, it's an unsourced letter to the editor-- on what authority does it make the report> I'm doubt it would be enough in any case. Further , based on what you give on the talk p., the account from the Woodstock letters does not even confirm the account in the article--just that Neale paid a visit. I'd like a transcript of that part also. The dictum about extraordinary claims is right to the mark here--even to prove the existence of the rumor needs better sources. DGG (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a first cousin three times removed. Not a Third cousin once removed. In fact, the source that Heckman obtained is quite amazing. The woman's grandmother was alive when Washington was. What my grandmother told me about events that happened fifty years ago was not "unfounded rumor." The sources that I have in my possession are all copyrighted. The Mother of God, the extensive article in Information magazine and The National Catholic Register are all available to people with a little searching. The NCR article was an article and not some unsourced letter to the editor. It's interesting how you "doubt it would be enough" (NCR) even though you haven't seen the source? Wow! Sources on George Washington that do not mention the Leonard Neale story are not evidence against the story. Not mentioning something does not mean that it didn't happen. Your suggestion that there is not enough evidence to "prove the existence" of the story is just plain ridiculous. Dwain (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a very tiresome tradition of attributing deathbed conversions to famous, respected figures (especially famous atheists like Darwin or Marx.) Perhaps this rumour / oral tradition is worthy of a brief mention, but I think a full paragraph is a little bit much. Pare it down to something like, "According to a Jesuit oral tradition Neale baptized Washington on his deathbed, but this is contradicted by eyewitnesses present."

As the other editor involved in this dispute, I could live with this last suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except it is not just a Jesuit oral tradition the story came down through Washington relatives and Washington's slaves. Dwain (talk)

This issue was taken up by this board two months ago, involving the same editors; here's the discussion in the archives. Woonpton (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan's Ancient Underwater "Pyramid" Mystifies Scholars

a lot of suggestive prancing around about yet another ancient sunken civilization. I've removed the worst bits (terraforming...), but closer inspection this seems to be all due to the ravings of one Masaaki Kimura who "argues that Yonaguni is the site of a city at least 5,000 years old which sunk 2,000 years ago". dab (𒁳) 11:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC Graham Hancock might have been involved in this too (or is there another "underwater pyramid"?). --Folantin (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay". dab (𒁳) 11:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hancock dived at Yonaguni over 100 times he says, so he's pretty involved. There is another Japanese scholar, Teruaki Ishii, who has also been involved (unfortunately Hancock calls him "Terukai Ishii" in hiS article on his web site which doesn't help when you are searching the web). Doug Weller (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it: Architectonic

The "pyramid" structures are referred to as architectonic, but if you'll look at that article (and especially its talk page), you'll see a complete mess. I am pretty sure that the Yonaguni structures aren't so described to say that they are like Mies van de Rohe's buildings, though. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

no source whatsoever was cited -- I've made it a disambig page. dab (𒁳) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Enderlin and Muhammad al-Durrah

Ongoing concerns relating to conspiracy theories that the former (a French TV journalist) had faked the death of the latter (a Palestinian boy) in a shooting incident in 2000. The conspiracy theories are a distinctly minority POV that have been promoted mainly by a handful of activists and bloggers. This has been the subject of a recent French libel trial brought against one such activist, so there are significant and active BLP issues in this case. Some new/IP/single-purpose editors have sought to give them undue weight, state them as fact or to claim that the French courts have supported them (they didn't). A discussion is currently taking place on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah; it would be helpful if uninvolved editors could provide an opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this needs some more eyes. The Israeli-Palestinian wikiwars have flared up here. Essentially, our Israeli (some regulars, some SPAs) are trying to say this boy's death was faked by the French journalist in order to inflame public opinion against Israeli (something apparently not libellous, but certainly very fringy). This is being counteracted by our Arab editors, with a good deal more reason. No one actually knows, nor can know, who did fire the fatal bullets: first the IDF said it was them, then concluded it might have been the Palestinians. However, the dispute isn't over this...it's over whether the boy actually died at all. It's all a bit of a mess. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Moreschi. It's not really a case of Israeli vs Arab editors, though - I'm certainly not an Arab and I'm pretty sure that the SPA editors aren't Israelis. The root of the problem is that some editors have a very strongly held personal opinion of what happened (see for a case in point) and are trying to edit-war that view into the article, regardless of NPOV and other fundamental policies. I've been trying to advise them of why NPOV doesn't allow that but frankly they don't seem to be listening. We're basically dealing with 9/11-style "truthers" here. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Worst of both worlds. What fun :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also worth noting that Julia1987 (talk · contribs) was previously Southkept (talk · contribs)...that is, linking back to the recent CAMERA drama. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusation that I am a SPA is absolutely false and I am not sure what ChrisO has to gain by reiterating this, unless it is to prejudice the reader. Moreschi and others might do well to check out some of my contributions for themselves. The edit in question is in the lead, in which ChrisO asserts that the use of the word "reported" or "reportedly" to refer to the killing constitutes undue weight. According to ChrisO the use of the word "reported" puts undue weight on the possibility that Muhammad was killed at all, ie that it was a "staged event." And indeed we have no body, no DNA, no autopsy, no blood, no bullets, and a film that shows the boy moving after Enderlin has told the world that he is dead, killed by Israeli bullets. Since the verdict, a number of reputable newspapers including Ha'aretz staff, Jerusalem Post, Wall Street Journal on line, Toronto Star, etc etc have said there is enough evidence to consider this a hoax or staged. Why is it then unreasonable to call the killing a "reported" killing? The charge that anyone is demanding that the article be written to insist that the boy is alive is false; but why under the circumstances must we insist he is dead? Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." (cf. WP:RS) On top of that, only a tiny minority of sources even mention the conspiracy theory, let alone give it any support (hence WP:UNDUE applies). I've already explained this repeatedly, but you and the other conspiracy theorists are not paying any attention. Quite simply, you want the article to state a fringe view, in which you have a strong personal belief, as fact. Let's not forget that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, first of all, you need to stop calling those who disagree with you “conspiracy theorist” or “9/11 truthers”. Right now. There will be no more of it. You will either treat all editors with respect and civility, or we’’ll take it up at AN/I. I mean it – this has to stop.

Now, it seems that it is you who has not been paying attention. You indeed asserted repeatedly that the other POV has only been published in Op-eds. This is simply false, and you have been shown evidence to the contrary. Norway’s newspaper of record ran a , news article, not an Op-ed, which said “this video is probably a bluff”. Germany’s public radio station, Deutschlandradio, ran an interview with Esther Schapira , a researcher and producer of the documentary film who researched the incident. The interviewer describes the incident as “alleged murder”, and the interviewee said that in order to declare the child dead, we need to actually see a body. Germany's ARD TV station ran a news segment, not an Op-Ed which says the video "allegedly shows that Mohamed Al-Durah was seriously wounded" - wounded mind you! not even allegdely killed. It further says that while the court could not decide what is the real truth, it is clear that there is "no evidence of murder in front of the camera". Even Ha’aretz, Israel’s left leaning newspaper of record ran a news article, not an op-ed , with the headline “Court backs claim that al-Dura killing was staged” . There are many, many more, which you continue to ignore. This is not a fringe theory, but, as the recent French court ruled, a thesis which can’t be dismissed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I could use the term "people who believe in a tiny-minority POV conspiracy theory and want to state it as fact in Misplaced Pages" but that's just awkward; "conspiracy theorists" works just fine. As for 9/11 truthers, the unfortunate fact is that conspiracy theorists of all stripes exhibit some very common pathologies. See Conspiracy theory#Study of conspiracism for some background. You see the same sort of thing with 9/11 truthers, Moon landing deniers, some UFOlogists, Kennedy assassination theorists and so on. Of course, one key symptom is that conspiracy theorists don't like being called conspiracy theorists and object strongly to it...

Consider this a final warning. The next time you call me, or anyone else, a "9/11 truther" or a "conspiracy theorist" , I'll take it up at AN/I.Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to get into detailed discussions about the sourcing, but the bottom line is that (1) most of the small number of reliable sources that have actually stated the conspiracy theory as fact are indeed newspaper op-eds; (2) the slightly larger, but still proportionately small, number of sources that discuss the conspiracy theory do not endorse it but attribute it to others, as does the Aftenposten newspaper article you mention; (3) the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do not mention the conspiracy theory at all. That is the root of the issue and that is what our resident conspiracy theorists are so consistently ignoring, even when called out on it. The French verdict (which you misrepresent) does not change that. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the place to get into detailed discussions about the sourcing, seeing as you continue to misrepresent them. Aftenposten does not attribute the theory to anyone - it says the video is likely a hoax. Same goes for the other sources presented. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources published since the disputed rushes were made public cast a very serious doubt as to the veracity of the claim that the boy was killed. And a French court has now ruled that what you describe as a 'conspiracy theory' is a thesis that can't be dismissed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know, I just looked through the reports, and it seems the French court merely said that claiming that the video was a hoax was acceptable commentary, and not libel. (Something like calling those who believe it is a hoax conspiracy theorists.) Of the "news" articles you link above to disprove ChrisO's point, most are irrelevant, Ha'aretz isnt opening, and "Var denne videoen en bløff?" isnt really reporting the videoen was a bløff, its reporting on the people making the claims.... I mean, come on, what part of "Nå hevder flere mediekritikere at videoen er en bløff" is difficult to understand? --Relata refero (disp.) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The court said it was "acceptable commentary" after looking at all or most of the available evidence that held it was a libel. Had the evidence upheld the France 2 version of events, the defamation suit would have been affirmed. The verdict then, finds the evidence supports the hoax theory. It did not claim it proves the theory, but it does support it. Your interpretation of the verdict is far too narrow. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The verdict did not "support" any theory, but that's beside the point. Please confine discussion of the specifics to the relevant page. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly. "Is not libellous" is not synonymous with "is true". That is very easy to understand. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite. The case was not about whether Karsenty's conspiracy theory was true, it was about whether Karsenty had committed a "press offence" (a term of art in French law) in promoting it. The law in question enables a defendant to evade a conviction for defamation if it can be proven that (a) the matter is of genuine public concern, (b) the publisher has acted in good faith and (c) he has made at least a basic attempt to verify the defamatory material. Truth doesn't enter into it - not only is truth not an absolute defence, but courts are apparently specifically forbidden from investigating the truth of defamatory statements. So claims that the court in this case did endorse Karsenty's conspiracy theory are basically self-serving bunk. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation ongoing - eyes requested

An informal mediation on the above has now begun on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah, with the help of Elonka. It would be helpful if editors with experience of dealing with fringe theories (and their proponents) could participate. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Steven_M._Greer

I'm not very familiar with this noticeboard or how it works, so I'll just mention that I think it would be a good idea for editors here to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Ani#Steven_M._Greer and the related article where it looks like three single-purpose accounts are pushing a fringe theory --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is deliberately misleading. It is the user 131.215.220.163 (talk) who is pushing his agenda and ignores all attempts to discuss the matter further. He attempts to shut everybody up who disagrees with him. 131.215.220.163 (talk) who operates in the 131.215.. IP-Range removes content mostly without a proper reason or with the summary "rv BS" . He cries wolf first because he doesn't want to be caught red handed. -- I-netfreedOm (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to using Misplaced Pages, so when I posted edits to the Steven Greer page that gave short summaries of his stated work, intent and objectives, I was lacking in the proper protocol as far as assigning (what are obviously) highly controversial ideas as "claims". User 131.215.220.163 (IP as of recent edits) stated his concerns as such, and my subsequent edits indeed made clear these were "claims" by Dr. Greer. In addition, I have attempted to correct (relatively) minor facts, such as location of trainings, items included in costs, etc., as well as some additional brief explanatory remarks to give the reader a snapshot sense of the meanings of some of the terms used (CE5, etc.). Of course, one could rely solely on the references and external links to pursue these further, but my understanding is that Misplaced Pages is a valid place to at least note such brief explanations. While the above-stated user (131.215.220.163) has every right to disagree with the viability of the ideas of Dr. Greer (and indeed they do defy the current "known" laws of physics, but the same was once thought about breaking the sound barrier in air travel, and many other scientific breakthroughs too numerous to mention), given that these technologies and concepts are core to the STATED purpose of The Orion Project (one of the main organizations at the core of this editing dispute), it is not only fair but appropriate to define the organization on these pages thus, as long as the claims are presented as just that—CLAIMS. Whether one thinks it is nonsense is immaterial insofar as it is accurate to the stated goals of said organization. User 131.215.220.163 can discuss in other arenas the plausibility of such ideas, but no one is presenting them here as fact, simply as ideas being pursued by Greer's associates and gathered inventors. What is more disturbing is the lack of friendly, respectful dialogue in this matter, from both sides. User netfreeOm has been rather short at times too, but I am most concerned with the inflammatory remarks that I and this other user (netfreedOm) have received from user 131.215.220.163. Using language like "bullshit", "nonsense", "Dr. Greer's apologist" and other prejudicial remarks are neither appropriate nor fair, nor do they engender any mutual respect—besides seemingly violating the stated protocols of Misplaced Pages's guidelines. My only "single-purpose" here is to add fair and balanced edits to Dr. Greer's page, in a way that is indicative of his work and ideas, without promoting one side or the other. The revert edits by 131.215.220.163 have consistently only retained comments of skepticism, debunking, outright inaccurate factoids, and a generally negative tone overall. It seems to me a fair approach is to include the public skepticism, and also allow the equally valid positive takes on his work. I agree with user netfreedOm that user 131.215.220.163 has shown absolutely no tolerance for any views or pursuits that HE or SHE considers nonsense. This intransigent attitude should hold no sway in this public arena, where the reader should be presented a balanced overview of any given individual's profile, and be allowed to decide for themselves. Dancingeyes (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

At minimum this section of the article seems to contain blatant advertising, as well as links to sites that are purely promotional. I am really not sure how to deal with such a problem. (If it were the whole article I would nominate it for deletion.) Also, I see nothing in the article that establishes notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The AfD is here . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dancingeyes (talk). The two above users show no interest whatsoever in discussing the matter or to reach consensus. Our arguments or questions falling on deaf ears and - as the latest edit from Malcolm Schosha (talk) shows - they would rather like to see Greer's page deleted then impoved. This is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages policies. I have already refered to a written statement of an administrator that the information regarding The Orion Project can be added as long as the editor cleary distinguises facts from claims with which Dancingeyes (talk) complied. I-netfreedOm (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article can be edited while the AfD is in process (usually five days), so if you can establish notability and remove the blatant advertising, there is nothing to worry about. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fringe invades mainstream article

Cancer#Complementary_and_alternative This falls over itself to cast Complementary and alternative treatments in as good of a light as possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Mostly, it's just misinformed, particularly about paclitaxel and ATRA and their supposedly "alternative" origins. MastCell  21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

UFO Articles

I was going to clean up abduction phenomenon. Then I discovered ufology, and its child articles like List of alleged UFO-related extraterrestrials and List of alleged UFO-related locations. Then I gave up and cried for a bit. There are serious fringe issues with all these articles. Jack Sarfatti, for example, is glowingly referenced for a "repulsive anti-gravity field 'dark energy'" mode of transport in ufology. David Icke is given equal billing with slightly more respectable individuals such as Carl Sagan. Not only that, the writing style often switches between in-universe batshittiness (c.f. Ufology#Atmosphere_beast_hypothesis) and promising yet undercited sobriety ((Ufology#Psychology). I don't even know where to start - disentangling the fringe, skeptical, and folklore/psychology aspects would be an obvious goal - so I bring it here for assistance. Skinwalker (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a glance over the ufology article shows there is a serious problem. I requested citations, added a weasel tag, and tried to trim some pov. More eyes definitely needed on this. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The David Icke article has one of my very favorite sections in all Misplaced Pages , especially the first paragraph. Icke has a big following, he really is notable, and the article does not seem badly done either...even if it comes as very bad news about what people will respond to. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the UFO (And other Paranormal Articles) are being edited to fit a Skeptical Point of view, when all that is needed to improve the articles is a little Grammar editing and to make the article neutral. I have seen several articles that seem in my opinion to have been edited to make them line up with a Skeptical World View. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

An NPOV is required. If the subject is scientific or claims to be scientific or technology oriented, then the NPOV is a scientific point of view. Science is by its very nature skeptical. I'd think that in every topic, editors should have some degree of skepticism - isn't that why we require reliable sources? But if its science, then there has to be skepticism. Smallbones (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow Chronology

David Rohl's "New Chronology" has its own article now. I have serious doubts this deserves a standalone article. It appears to have no credibility whatsoever and would probably belong as a section or paragraph in Rohl's own article. dab (𒁳) 07:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Davenport Tablets

Can someone please look at Talk:Davenport Tablets and tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick or of the IP editor simply doesn't understand what Misplaced Pages (or 'this group' as he says) wants in the way of reliable sources? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He's clueless. NEARA is obviously not a scholarly group. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whole-Earth decompression dynamics

Please take a look at Whole-Earth decompression dynamics and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Whole-Earth decompression dynamics The article promotes the speculations of J. Marvin Herndon and is referenced essentially solely to his work. No valid reliable secondary sources have been produced on the afd discussion. Subject needs more eyes and input. Vsmith (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Croats

Theories on the origin of Croats is still around, duplicating the same material at Croats. This seems to be part of attempts to say that modern-day Croats are not the descendants of the Slavs who migrated into the area, but are, instead, the descendants of the indigenous inhabitants of the area. Which might be fringy. This has probably been up on this noticeboard before, but it would be nice to get it finally cleared up. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

redirected for now. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IP editor removing rational skepticism templates

Take a look at his edits: including what he's done to ScienceApologists page. He's not a newbie, that's for sure. Doug Weller (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I started reverting the template deletions, but I think you should post about this on AN/I. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Davkal (talk · contribs) on a proxy. I've blocked the IP for 1 year. Revert away. MastCell  19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind being blamed for all sorts of general mayhem - I am the only person to have claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks after all - but I'll be fucked if I'm going to stand back and let you accuse me of being the kind of person who would use the word "ya'll". Kindly strike through your scandalous attack sir! Davvvkal (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The core of this problem, as I see it, is that WikiProject Rational Skepticism is not like other WikiProjects, which limit themselves with articles dealing with particular topics (e.g. Physics, Astronomy, History, Religion,...) but devotes itself to applying the methodological approach of rational skepticism to "improve the quality of" a wide range of articles. This comes close to an organized program to push a particular point of view in what are really unrelated articles. It would be as if WikiProject Christianity were to place its template on unrelated pages (say scientific or historical ones) with the agenda of improving the quality of those articles from a Christian perspective.

I would recommend a review of the nature and scope of WikiProject Rational Skepticism and a revision of its template so that it limits its scope to articles explicitly on the philosophical / methodological topic of rational skepticism. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing which articles they were expanding to that were out of their remit. Ufology and the like seem to be prime candidates for the project. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the only problem project, unfortunately. The paranormal and LBGT projects, among others, seem to try to own particles too. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

at least, the drive to insist on "rational scepticism" is in accord with basic Misplaced Pages guidelines. We want academic mainstream. Academic mainstream is bound to the scientific method, which includes rational scepticism. Thus, the project is (or should be) merely an effort to defend encyclopedicity in articles prone to deterioration, much like this noticeboard here. The same cannot be said of Wikiprojects sworn to a "pro gay" or a "pro paranormal" agenda. dab (𒁳) 10:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the point of the argument, but as a historian of science I don't equate rational skepticism with the scientific method; it is only one of several such methods. Philosophically, I question the notion that there is one single scientific method that applies in all fields, at all times, and in all cultures and have further problems of whether that "scientific method" is appropriate for discussions of non-scientific disciplines. If this were merely a defense of verifiability I would have no problem with it. When it slides over into a defense of a particular methodological point of view, it comes close to challenging NPOV. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with SteveMcCluskey here. I think in many cases the banners are placed based on the article being about matters which skeptics think require a degree of sceptical input, but there are also, generally, more directly-related projects relative to the subject as well. Maybe this could be one of the few projects which would be best served by limiting the presence of its banner, and just adding any articles about specific matters editors are sceptical about to the project's watchlist? John Carter (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Eyes on Exopolitics

I'm not sure that this is the proper forum for my issue, but I could use some eyes on the above article. It came to my attention while I was reviewing the edit history of Phalanxpursos (talk · contribs), who had taken to leaving talk page posts connecting 9/11 with Nazi Germany. My attempts to clean up this article, accompanied by explanation of my edits on the talk page, have been reverted. I don't want to break 3RR, but I don't see how statements like Two-way communications Radio contact with Aliens has been established in 1929, the Majestic 12 (MJ-12) is an Ultra Top Secret Research and Development Intelligence Operation of Extraterrestrial contact can be stated as fact, even when they are sourced to a Geocities page. I've attempted to communicate with the user directly, with no response. Any assistance would be appreciated. // Chris 21:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a pass at that piece of junk article many months ago. It's just a dumping ground for UFO fancruft and patent nonsense. Maybe just AfD or redirect to Ufology, as the term really has no independent notability, there are no reliable sources about "Exopolitics" specifically, and proponents keep using original research to link in anything they want to ramble about. <eleland/talkedits> 04:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at it just now, we have an article on the author, it is based on a self-published book, so I've AfD'd it. Doug Weller (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Stargate Project

I think this article would benefit from the attention of some editors who watch this noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Kalki

Please consider if poorly sourced neo-Nazi views HAVE to be kept on a Hinduism mythology article of major importance to that religion.

I was referred here by an experienced editor from whom I asked for help who told me that this clearly is a case of a Fringe Theory being given undue weight and should be brought up here. Kalki is the awaited 10th avatar of Vishnu of orthodox Hinduism as described in the Garuda Purana. For a long time User:Ghostexorcist has insisted on maintaining inclusion of a fringe theory by a French neo-Nazi writer named Savitri Devi (1905-1982) who fused Naziism and Hinduism and said that Adolf Hitler was the Kalki avatar of Hinduism. There are no Hindus that believe this that I am aware of. It has been pointed out to Ghostexorcist that this is undue weight and he was pointed to the policy at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, (see edit summary box) but he says to exclude this would be a "personal slant" and he is being impartial to keep it. "I don't own this page at all, I'm just protecting it from people who try to slant the page towards their own point of view." He also insists on keeping another Nazi from Argentina Alejandro Biondini (no article and no English language citation) listed on the Kalki page. His reference is in Italian and placed within-text (http://pnt.libreopinion.com/) even though he has been twice questioned by User:Hoverfish about this kind of referencing.

In addition there is no clear citation that the Nazi writer Savitri Devi actually said Hitler was Kalki specifically. The reference given is this link: http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/SavitriDevi.html which says nothing about Kalki. However, even if a citation for this could be produced, this is certainly undue weight to an extremely fringe view that no one that I am aware of holds. Suggestions to have another article with people who have been said to be Kalki have been rejected as unworkable. It has also been pointed out to Ghostexorcist that his section title "Modern variations of the Kalki prophesy" makes no sense in a Hindu context. Kalki is from old Hindu scriptures and "modern variations" would really not be the Hindu prophesy at all. Also no other version of the prophesy is given under this heading.

Ghostexorcist's history of reverting any changes.

Note that all attempts to discuss with Ghostexorcist are simply followed by a lecture from him. Please consider if poorly sourced neo-Nazi views HAVE to be kept on a Hinduism mythology article of major importance to that religion. Vedantahindu (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Savitri Devi is pretty notable, and I see no reason not to mention her, within reason. It is true that the Kalki prophecy is medieval in origin, but that shouldn't prevent the article from presenting notable influence on modern culture (not pop culture trivia). Compare King Arthur: also a medieval legend in origin, but with significant impact on modern culture. Of course Savitri Devi shouldn't be given undue weight, but in the diff you link to, Ghostexorcist is merely insisting on a rather limited mention in the article body. Nothing UNDUE at all in my view. Compare the (much more developed) Jesus article, which likewise finds the space to link to esoteric nonsense like Master Jesus in a brief paragraph. Pragmatic weighing of relative notability paired with a willingness to compromise is the key in such questions. dab (𒁳) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not the issue I'm raising here on this Fringe Theory noticeboard. The view that Hitler was the Hindu Kalki is a notable fringe theory that no one holds like the hollow Earth. I quote Wikpedia founder Jimmy Wales here from Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

It is a notable fringe view. Notability is not what this noticeboard is about. But Fringe Theories. Vedantahindu (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the inclusion of fringe theories is judged on their notability. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should it not then at least be added that this view is not held by Hindus and is not part of Hindu teaching in India? Also the name of the article is Modern Versions. Where are these versions? He names a person who held a view. Also, what about this Argentinian with no article and an Italian language reference? Certainly that is not notable. I don't think that you understand that Ghostexorcist will not allow any change at all. Vedantahindu (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec's later) Tend to agree with Dbachmann here. I would require a specific citation which specifically states what is being said in the article, and seek to ensure that the individual theory is not given too much weight, but there is nothing at all irregular about having content reflecting how the subject of any article has achieved notability outside of its primary area, and, in fact, wikipedia tends to support inclusion of such material. Evidently, the writer of the book tends to believe the idea, unless it can be proven to be one that was just made up for the purposes of publicity, and that probably is enough. I also tend to think that some editors may have been a bit too vigorous in removing some content. Specifically, I see a picture of the cover of Gore Vidal's Kalki (novel) in the article, but no explicit reference to the book in the text itself, and I believe that at least a clear reference in the text to that book is very definitely appropriate. Regarding the point that it should say Hindus don't believe that, I don't think that's necessary. I think most would assume that if the article doesn't say Hindus do believe it, then it would be understood that they dont. I've dealt with Ghostexorcist in the past, and have no reason to believe that he would not listen to reason, if he were treated with it himself. While I do think it would help if the content regarding the main subject were improved, but that doesn't mean that the other content shouldn't be included as well. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The book was actually mentioned in the article, but it has repeatedly been deleted from the page. I can't remember if it was done by Vedantahindu or if it was by another editor. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: if it really freaks you out/the article is being overloaded with crufty stuff, create a separate List of modern claims to be Kalki, or something similar, and link it from the main article. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you read in the discussion where Ghostexorcist says such a page will be deleted immediately by an admin. Also, it is not so much freaky as unverfied trivia. His reference for the French writer (when you read it) does not say that she wrote he was Kalki. Nor does the article on her. His reference for the Argentina man is in Italian. These have been brought up to him. So these have to stay because Ghostexorcist says they are true with no English reference? Vedantahindu (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is about a mythological topic. By the nature of mythology, this makes it very different from paranormal/homeopathic claims and the like. It doesn't make sense to ask if it is "true" that Kalki "is" an avatar of Vishnu, that's just the myth. The Kalki myth is a feature of Puranic Hinduism. Savitri Devi ostensibly isn't part the Puranic canon: this is why she is mentioned in the "modern" section. I don't think it is necessary to point out that mainstream Hindus have nothing to do with her any more than it would be necessary to point out that Geoffrey of Monmouth never endorsed the Excalibur movie. dab (𒁳) 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's customary to alert an editor that they are being included in a discussion on a wikiproject such as this. I never received such a notice. Anyway, despite what Vedantahindu believes (and assumes), I did not write the Kalki page. I reverted their complete deletion of the Kalki claiment section because the only reason they gave was that it was "racist" (see here). However, despite the false maligning of my character, I'm glad to see the issue has been resolved on the Kalki page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hitler-as-Kalki meme is fairly common among esoteric Hitlerists such as Miguel Serrano and others. It has an entire chapter in Black Sun, the canonical work on neo-Nazi ideology. It inspired a novel by Gore Vidal. Certainly encyclopaedic. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe placing this material to the List of people who have been considered avatars will help to solve it? It will give a context to it (of course current reference is not very clear for this subject). Wikidās ॐ 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Savitri Devi is notable. Her theory is discussed in some detail in Goodrick-Clarke's Hitler's Priestess on pp.124-5, and he talks about Claudio Mutti's and Miguel Serrano's recapitulations of the idea on p.218 and p.221. The currently much longer section in the article about Muhammad, however is poorly sourced. This seems to come from one "Ved Prakash Upaddhay", who looks to be a Muslim convert, but I can't be sure. His book also seems to claim that Muhammad was also predicted in Buddhist scriptures and is cited in the Maitreya article. This seems to be a feature of Muslim apologetics . It's difficult to be clear how notable these sources are. Paul B (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Many religious scholars claim that Muhammad completed all the prophecies of the Kalki avatar." is not a reasonable summary, when many = one book which probably discusses it, but we'd need a quotation to see in what context + one person, publication or even web site unspecified. DGG (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of life

A lot of quantum blather at Meaning_of_life#Scientific_questions_about_the_mind. Other "scientific" bits in this article also need some sceptical review. dab (𒁳) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Walam Olum

Could someone take a look at this and see what they think of the recent edit? I've just had a real set to with this editor on the Cahokia Mounds (see the talk page, he called an editor of a scholarly book fringe & racist, and the book "entirely about petty arguments and opinions" despite its getting rave reviews in scholarly journals -- all because the book suggests some people were buried alive), and I'd rather not go through that again. Doug Weller (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge

There seems to be some kind of effort to promote this chain of limestone shoals as actually being an ancient megastructure, built no doubt by the same hyper-advanced Hindu civilization that built an enormous civilzation in the Gulf of Cambay. Or, alternatively, the shoals are clearly Allah's handiwork. Um, yeah. Textbook case of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. <eleland/talkedits> 08:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Very dubious, but apparently a significant POV among Hindu fundamentalists. I've worked on the article before, so I'll take a look at it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1. KSGV: Objectives
   "Het KSGV onderneemt zijn activiteiten vanuit een christelijke inspiratie."
2. Lans, Jan van der (Dutch language) Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland page 117, written upon request for the KSGV published by Ambo, Baarn, 1981 ISBN 90-263-0521-4
3. "MOTHER OUSTS 'PLAYBOY' GURU" Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Apr 2, 1975; pg. 6A
4. "FIRM LOYALTY" MARK FORSTER Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File); Jan 12, 1979; pg. A1
5. "Soe feel the youth is a fraud" Long Beach Press Telepgram, Dec 10, 1972, p. A27
6. "There are many evaluations of Guru Maharaj Ji" September 26, 1973, Greeley Tribune (Colorado) p. 5-A
7. Time Magazine, 2 November, 1972. "Junior Guru"
8. DuBois, Ellen Carol (1999). Feminism and suffrage: the emergence of an independent women's movement in America, 1848-1869. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8641-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
9. Smith, Harold Eugene (1990). British feminism in the twentieth century. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 0-87023-705-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
10. Whitney, Sharon (1984). The equal rights amendment: the history and the movement. New York: F. Watts. ISBN 0-531-04768-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
11. Voet, Maria Christine Bernadetta (1998). Feminism and citizenship. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-5860-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
12. Buechler, Steven M. (1990). Women's movements in the United States: woman suffrage, equal rights, and beyond. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-1558-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
13. Chapman, Jenny L. (1993). Politics, feminism, and the reformation of gender. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-01698-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards