Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 17 January 2010

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 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Recent edits on Bogdanov Affair

An editor (Afteread) has recently made a slew of edits on Bogdanov Affair. By and large, these edits have been productive, but I'm concerned that some of the edits are injecting personal opinion rather than verifiable claims into the article. Perhaps a few more eyes on the page would be helpful. Phiwum (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, for instance, that Afteread has removed all mention of the apparently fictitious supporter, Professor Yang. Personally, I find that bit of the affair interesting (though perhaps that section went into too much detail). Is the Yang thang appropriate for WP? Phiwum (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a problem. As Alain Connes wrote in Le Monde, almost all of their work is just gibberish, mixing up Donaldson theory with Tomita-Takesaki theory. User:Afteread's personal POV-pushing could lead the reader to believe that they were just misunderstood geniuses rather than charlatans, as the article in Le Monde makes clear. Afteread's edits should be watched carefully. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that Afteread (talk · contribs) marks all his edits to WP as minor, even when they are not so. (He has only been editing since December 12.) In addition note these diffs to the Kent Hovind article. He has now been warned about both these points. Mathsci (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

These edits to Antony Garrett Lisi remove large parts of the text with no justification. There are various wikipedia policies that he does not seem aware of. Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Update This appears to be just one of a series of sockpuppets of a banned user described but not identified on WikiProject Mathematics here. Mathsci (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole treatment of this incident seems utterly asinine. But, then, I haven't privately asked for details. Apparently, if you do so, you'll learn enough about this secret evil user to recognize and publicly proclaim the wisdom of ArbCom (judging from that thread). Phiwum (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Solastalgia

What to do about this "new concept in human health and identity"? It is supposed to mean "distress in the face of environmental destruction". I am sure that the reaction to environmental degradation has been studied and is a notable topic. But Glenn Albrecht (talk · contribs) pretends that by slapping a made-up portmanteau on the topic it becomes a "new concept". The man appears to be university professor at Murdoch University, Perth, which is pretty much the only reason I haven't speedied this.

The only third-party reference quoted based is critical dab (𒁳) 12:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipeida does not usually accept articles on neologisms... have any third party sources used the term? If not, the article should either be deleted or merged to some other article that covers the concept. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

google it. It does verify in assorted online blogs, magazines and glossaries. There are third party sources, as I state above the article even cites a critical one. The question is, does this suffice? The other question is, what would be "some other article that covers the concept"? If I had found one, I would just have silently merged. But our environmental degradation article is disgracefully stubby. --dab (𒁳) 14:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that Google hits and blogs are not WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

sheesh, I am the one reporting this here. How about some sort of constructive suggestion on how to deal with this? --dab (𒁳) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are not meaningful, but Google Scholar hits usually are, and this term gets over 30 of them, many independent of the creator. In my opinion there is enough literature to support an article. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

for chrissakes, I know that "google hits are not meaningful", ok? Please keep telling me that. It is surrealy to tell me that and then go on to argue that the article should be kept because the word got 30 hits on google scholar. Google hits are a useful indicator. If you get, say, 8,000 hits on google scholar, or 1,200,000 hits on google, chances are that the topic is notable one way or another. 30 hits on google scholar (how many of them due to Albrecht himself?) tell you nothing. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was actually directing the comment about Google Hits towards HandThatFeeds; sorry for the confusion. I agree that Google Scholar hits are not automatically meaningful, but it generally gives a much better filter than Google Web, and in this case my impression was that the specific things that showed up were sufficient. Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

← Maybe I was a bit blunt, but the point is that the number of results doesn't even mean this term is notable enough to get meaningful references. Has anyone delved into the Google Scholar results to see if there's more than a passing mention to the term in those 30 hits? — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

New Chronology (Rohl)

A classic WP:FRINGE article, notability is arguable because there have been TV shows about it and what not, but at the same time the thing has zero credibility in academia. But in this case we have User:David Rohl, the author himself, keeping a tight watch on the topic to ensure it is presented as favourably as at all possible. Same problem at the David Rohl bio article. Rohl is touted as an "Egyptologist" because he once got a university degree in that field. He neither has any academic affiliatin, nor does he have a PhD, so I think the label (and the category) aren't appropriate without qualification. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is straightforward WP:COI, surely? At least he is doing so honestly. If he wants to watch over the biography article, fair enough (BLP and all that), but really, the New Chronology stuff should be left to outside editors. Doubtless Rohl's help is appreciated in establishing what his thoughts are but he shouldn't be touching any evaluative content. Moreschi (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I told him as much, and he was being rather cooperative about it, agreeing not to edit the article. He is more or less restricting his activities to the talkpage, but he is dominating the talkpage. The text he contributed to the wiki article on his theory would probably fill another book by now. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that he can rant all he wants on the talk page... as long as he isn't editing the actual article it does not really make a difference. Or am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

yes. Your first reaction is "COI!" Your second reaction is, bah, let him fill the talkpage. And then after a year you note how the article never makes any progress because Rohl is putting so much effort into his "suggestions" on talk where they are picked up by the credulous and the fringily inclined that Rohl is in effect editing by proxy. We do have a bunch of editors who are very much into Rohl's chronology. This isn't evil or anyting, but it's below-par scholarship with the potential of significantly eroding the quality on little-watched articles about ancient history. It's not a big deal, but I am putting it here in the hope that the article will get more attention from editors experienced in dealing with fringe theories. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

{undent} Not to mention how defensive Rohl is... it makes for an uncomfortable editing environment. He doesn't want to admit he has a CoI! Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He's now suggesting that it's "loony" to disbelieve his chronlogy... which he refers to in the third person. On the plus side he seems to become so antagonistic to me that he's forgotten entirely how angry he was at dab. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and disbelieving the veracity of the bible is now, apparently, ignorant dogma. ROTFL. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's sad. I really enjoyed A Test of Time at one time. In a way his books are a good example of how a somewhat legitimate exploratory historical revisionist goes complete loony over time.--LexCorp (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It happens. The early works of Tony Martin were reputable, scholarly pieces (if a little one-sided) on the life and times of Marcus Garvey. More recently, however...Moreschi (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that I'm much less interested in egyptology per say than I am in historical revisionism; it has been a very potent political tool in the past. I wasn't aware of Tony Martin previously; thanks for pointing me in his direction. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming scepticism as "Fringe"

I would like the assembled masses to provide insight as to whether global warming scepticism is "fringe" as defined in Misplaced Pages. While this scepticism is not mainstream, there are nonetheless significant papers published by notable scientists in reputable academic journals (here's one of the latest) and there is significant support within the scientific community. Therefore, I would classify global warming scepticism as a minority viewpoint. I ask in particular because two editors are apparently deadset (I'm trying to determine their exact position) against any statement from a global warming sceptic supporting Jim Inhofe, using WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE as their argument. Honestly, the argument that the article cannot include a quote from a (or any) sceptic supporting Sen. Inhfoe is just incredible to me. Madman (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Global Warming scepticism" is a fairly abigous term... It can refer to those who believe in climate change, but have concerns about how data has been collected as well as those who out right deny that Global Warming exists (and a host of opinions that fall between these extremes). Some scepticism is definitely Fringe, some scepticism is mainstream (at least in the general population... the scientific community is fairly solid)... So I would say it depends what you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar nails it. On the one hand there are some alternative hypothesis that are not generally accepted but at least are scientifically plausible. On the other hand there's the far side of fringe, like the stuff this guy is pushing. We have to take it case by case based on criteria like whether hypotheses have been published in reputable journals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the talk page, it does seem that the editors to that article are having some POV and ownership issues. But that does not surprise me in an article on such a controvercial topic. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pace Gore, the science is not settled, and the opposition—right or wrong—is not fringe. - Nunh-huh 23:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Which "science" is not settled, exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Every science in the world. To say that science is settled is to say that science isn't self-correcting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an erroneous conclusion. Climate change scepticism is like creationism: a largely political controversy about an issue on which there is scientific consensus. There are, to be sure, some "dissident" scientists who reject the consensus, but they are very much a fringe within the scientific profession, just as scientists who dispute evolution are a fringe element. The science is "settled" (not fixed, note) in the sense that the overwhelming majority support the consensus viewpoint and its key conclusions, which are not in any serious dispute any more than the key principles of evolution by natural selection. That doesn't mean it's not self-correcting - it simply means that all the lines of evidence have converged on a single point which is now overwhelmingly established and accepted. They could in principle be overturned by some new discovery but this isn't a field which rests on one single point of failure, any more than evolution or atomic theory, so such an event is pretty unlikely.

Because the CC controversy is essentially political rather than scientific, unfortunately this means we get a considerable number of non-scientists who (just like creationists) falsely claim that CC is a "theory in crisis", that their views are being suppressed and that some new event or discovery has disproved all of climate science overnight. Anyone who is familiar with the tropes of creationism will recognise the same tropes being used by climate change sceptics (who are, in reality, anti-science political activists) and, indeed, some of the parties in both controversies are the same, like the Discovery Institute of intelligent design infamy. We have to be on our guard against attempts by political activists to make false statements about the science. Just because some journalist or politician makes a claim, that does not mean that it has any scientific validity - which is true for any area of science, not just this particular one - and we have to avoid giving the false impression that it does. When it comes to scientific issues, we follow the scientific consensus view. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor analogy. Skepticism in this matter doesn't require a belief in the supernatural, only the belief that people are human and can be mistaken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The origins of the "scepticism" actually aren't relevant. The point is that in both cases the "sceptics" hold a prior belief - motivated by religious, economic or political concerns, it doesn't really matter - that the scientific consensus is wrong, regardless of the state of the actual science. It's not a matter of a "belief that people are human and can be mistaken", which might apply if the science was based on a single poorly-documented premise. Creationists and CC "sceptics" have a common, rather naive belief that the science they are attacking has a single vulnerable point which, if "discredited", will overturn the entire science. That is why, every time some minor controversy arises, you get swarms of such people trying to declare evolution / HIV / cosmology / climatology to be a busted flush. The challenge for us as Wikipedians is to manage such influxes of the clueless and naive. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Have you seen Penn & Teller's take on the subject? Search YouTube for clips of the "Global Warming" Bullshit episode.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen it, but I do know their claims were pretty much eviscerated. I think you need to aim a little higher than Penn & Teller for your scientific knowledge... -- ChrisO (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I searched YouTube for the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Global Warming episode and got this.  ;) Dynablaster (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in our article about the dangers of Confirmation bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, of course the science isn't settled. Science very rarely (never?) is. That's the whole point of science. The most that can be said is that there is a general consensus, which there does appear to be, and per policy Misplaced Pages should reflect that. If this was the 15th century Misplaced Pages would have a described heliocentricity as coming under WP:FRINGE: that's just the way we work. Global warming may turn out to be of no more validity than geocentricity, or it may turn out to be as valid as heliocentricity. I don't know, and don't really care. As far as this website is concerned it doesn't matter. Moreschi (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate between scepticism and denialism. Scepticism includes a wide range of opinions... Scepticism includes those who are have concerns about the way the evidence for global warming has been gathered;, it includes those who agree that Global temperatures have been rising, but don't agree with why the rise has been happening; it includes those who don't question the evidence, but do question the conclusions as to what will happen next. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No it's not really about consensus. There was a scientific consensus in the thirteenth century about Aristotle's physics and biology. The question is about the weight of the evidence attaching to the theory. See my remarks below. Also, it's not about whether Misplaced Pages should reflect scientific consensus. Yes it should. But that is different from whether it should label sceptics as denialists or cranks or pseudoscientists or whatever. The weight of evidence for the current consensus about the age of the Earth justifies labelling 'creation science' as pseudoscience. On GW scepticism, I'm not so sure. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the Global Warming or Climate Change skeptics I think it is counter productive to label them fringe. The term fringe is often used to establish preconceived ideas and lead people to believe one point of view before the research is done. Regardless of whether you call it fringe or not the same scientific process should be done to determine whether anything is true or not. Furthermore another big problem is the excessive coverage on the most controversial aspect of pollution. This is distracting the public from other important aspects of pollution that are not in dispute or shouldn’t be like the pollution of many lakes and rivers depriving the people of clean water to drink and deforestation. These things are clear and they need to be addressed yet they are being ignored. If more attention can be drawn to other aspects of this it could lead to productive activity rather than never ending debate and more pollution. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages can't fix society's infatuation with the global warming controversy. And the scientific process is still in progress, but all the evidence to date says the deniers are fringe. Skeptics are still working with the data, trying to find answers to their questions; deniers outright ignore the data and simply say "it isn't so!" — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. They are in-line with my thoughts on the matter as well. Madman (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not fringe

I do not want to take a strong view on this particular issue, not being an expert. But, the extent to which a sceptic is judged a crank or denialist or what have you depends on the evidence underlying the position to be denied. Generally, anyone denying established mathematical theorems is regarded as cranky in the mathematical profession. That is because of the rigour of mathematical proof, and because there is no empirical evidence required for mathematics. Anyone denying accepted science for which there is a great deal of disparate and different evidence, is rightly regarded as cranky, rather than sceptical. E.g. the weight of evidence on the age of the earth comes from so many different sources and disciplines that any other explanation is highly improbable.

Turning to global warming. What probability attaches to the empirical evidence we have? Scepticism about the long-term historical temperature may be justified because of of the Divergence problem. The short term historical record shows a recent increase in temperature, but what probability attaches to it being a trend, rather than noise? I don't have a deep knowledge of statistics, but looking at the temperature record does not suggest the recent 'trend' is a six standard deviation change or anything like that. I believe I could easily generate a random number sequence with similar characteristics.

Turning to the theoretical evidence. This seems stronger, but again, what probability attaches to it? If a very high one, why the need for empirical evidence at all? We don't check different triangles to see if the sum of the angles equals 180 degrees. The theory of triangles is sufficiently strong that we don't need to do this. From what I have read in the climate change literature (I mean academic peer-reviewed papers) there is considerable uncertainty about the climate models.

I'm not saying any of the theory is wrong, nor that the weight of probability does not support the current scientific consensus. What I am saying is that the probability of the current consensus being wrong is high enough that we shouldn't call a global warming sceptic a crank or a denialist, both of which are pejorative terms. I'm a GW sceptic, in that nothing I have read suggests strongly to me that there is a warming trend caused by human activity. Some of the evidence is compelling I admit - but not compelling in the way that the evidence for the age of the Earth is compelling. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PS A site search of crank.net does not include any global warming sceptics. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What you think or do not think is irrelevant. The most reliable sources, that being those produced by experts in the scientific community, view global warming as fact and its cause as being due to human beings. That's the description that Misplaced Pages must provide. The fact that there are denialists who insist that this isn't true does not negate this simple fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for missing my point entirely. Was I saying that Misplaced Pages should not represent this as true? No. I was saying that the probability and weight of evidence for AGW does not justify calling the sceptics 'denialists' or 'cranks'. That is the issue. HistorianofScience (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Historian. I certainly understood your point. The consensus here is that global warming scepticism is not mainstream, nor is is fringe. Madman (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is safe to say that consensus here is that the denialists are fringe with respect to scientific thought. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Madman. It is certainly not mainstream, but to say that "denialists are fringe with respect to scientific thought" is POV (of course, I'm guessing that skeptic = denialist ~ Holocaust denier in the minds of AGW proponents). At any rate, see this to see how fringe subjects are defined and handled in Misplaced Pages. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand "fringe with respect to scientific thought". What other kinds of fringe are there. 'Fringe' has the connotation of 'lunatic' or 'cranky', 'denialist' has the connotation of being in denial, i.e. in denial of something subconsciously accepted because self-evident, deluded etc. Comparison of GW-sceptics with creationists is absurd. 'Sceptics' is the right term. A sceptic doesn't necessarily deny a theory. He or she is cautious about a theory until there is enough evidence to make it unambiguous and certain. Also, there are degrees of scepticism. Richard Lindzen doesn't deny AGW. He agrees that there is an effect. He simply doesn't agree with some of the extreme predictions. Or rather, he has expressed scepticism and caution about the extreme predicted effects, arguing that extreme actions to counter the extreme predicted effects are only justified when there is reasonable certainty about the prediction.HistorianofScience (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You chose an example that shows how broad WP:FRINGE is here at Misplaced Pages. "Fringe" just means that you are an outlier in the distribution of understanding on a particular subject, which Lindzen certainly is. Take other accomplished fringe scientists such as Halton Arp in regards to cosmology, Linus Pauling in regards to disease prevention and cure, or Brian Josephson in regards to psychic activity for apt comparisons. It can easily be argued that each of these "mavericks" aren't/weren't "denialists" but instead just thought that there was something the mainstream is missing. Lindzen is in the same "fringe" category with respect to his denialism of the straightforward understanding of the science behind global warming. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew there were serious problems at the Global Warming article when the encyclopedia of record failed to answer a query I had. Rather than upset everyone with an ignorant edit, I posted Who is Dr Will Happer? to the TalkPage.

The responses in that TalkPage section are astonishing, a microcosm of the things going wrong at the article eg Dr Will Happer is "... an atomic physicist at Princeton. Despite his claims to the contrary, I can find no publications by him that are directly related to the physics of climate change." and "This article accurately reflects the information published in peer reviewed journals. ... The fact that "facts" that do not appear in the peer reviewed literature show up here on the talk page, and not on the article, is a strength, not a weakness, of Misplaced Pages"

With the killing of any chance of getting serious scientific objection referenced in the article (because of purely local policies, as far as I can see), I raised another obvious problem, that of "paid lobbyists for alarmism". An established and very respected editor asked me to point such people out since they "would most certainly have to be pruned". Another skeptic pointed out "James Hansen would be a prime example. He lobbies congress all the time"". No action was taken by the guardians of the article - James Hansen remains in the text and in the references, and in the "See Also". In fact, he's now there a total of 7 times, up from 6 times when we were promised such use would be pruned! Meanwhile, my TalkPage is starting to carry expressions of support for my views. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as I appreciated taking quantum mechanics from Will Happer at Princeton, he is certainly not a reliable source when it comes to the science of climate change. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone based on the Divergence problem, thinks that long-term historical temperature is wrong (as in completely faulty or wildly erroneous). Then they belong in the fringe group. There are simply too many other proxies (benthic foraminfera, ice cores, stomatal changes,...) that show that the divergence is a problem limited too some Tree's and only in some locations. This is a good example of non-viable scepticism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

D'Arrigo, who I think is not a sceptic, says "Reconstructions based on northern tree-ring data impacted by divergence cannot be used to directly compare past natural warm periods (notably, the MWP) with recent 20th century warming, making it more difficult to state unequivocally that the recent warming is unprecedented." Why does she say that? Do benthic foraminfera, ice cores, stomatal changes,... show that the recent warming is unprecented? I'm only asking, not an expert. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If the mainstream view of the current warming trend were that it is definitely "unprecedented", this would be relevant. It is not. A level of uncertainty is recognised on this question. --TS 11:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah so the mainstream view is that the recent warming is not unprecedented? In all history, or recent history (last three millenia say)? All these things you are coming out with are very interesting, how sad not to see them in the articles about global warming (perhaps I'm mistaken). HistorianofScience (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that it is more likely than not, that the last part of the 20th century was warmer than any period in the last 2000 years. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then this becomes not a scientific judgment than an editorial one. That it is 'more likely than not' is not the impression I get from many of the articles in Misplaced Pages. Mathematicians do not say it is 'more likely than not' that triangles have 180 degrees. Geologists do not say it is 'more likely than not' that the Earth is over 6,000 years old. The balance of probability ought to be reflected in the Misplaced Pages articles. I'm not seeing that. Mostly I am seeing every article being a long list of scientists and organisations who say that global warming is a fact. I'm not seeing much science, i.e. explanation of why scientists think that (and also why they think sceptics are not justified). And I'm not seeing the long list of people saying 'more likely than not'. 11:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that you are mixing up different things. It doesn't matter whether the MWP was warmer than the CWP as to whether warming is caused by increases in greenhouse gases or not. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I am mixing things up is because the articles are mixed up. There is no clear definition given anywhere of what the GW hypothesis is. It is a mixture of (1) the theory that the emission of greenhouse gases causes warming, which most informed people would not deny, because it is elementary physics (2) speculation that the effect of this cause will be extreme, say 4 degrees, which is not a matter of certainty at all (3) empirical claims that the average temperature is higher today than in the past. All these need to be carefully distinguished in any accurate reference work. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Unequivocally" is different from thinking that the reconstructions are completely off-base, and in fact i do not think that the scientific assesment is that it is "unequivocally" - but that it is more likely than not (if i recall correctly the NAS panel estimated it to be >66% chance). Nothing in the science demands that the last decade of the 20th century must be unprecedented (in fact the "unprecedented" is only with regards to a limited period, since we know that the Holocene climatic optimum was likely warmer). It would have some influence on some calculations of Climate sensitivity (increasing it), but that would make expected warming higher. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I like 'more likely than not' very much. Can we please reflect that in the articles. And can the vilification of those who find that the balance of probability less than 50%, rather than slightly more, please stop? HistorianofScience (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as i can tell that is already reflected in the articles. As said above, you are conflating issues. If someone says that "GW cannot be mostly caused by humans, because the MWP was warmer than the current warm period", then that person is certainly not only out in the fringes - but also completely and utterly off-base with regards to the science. (AGW does not hinge in any way or form on what temp the MWP was). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You confuse me. You place the argument "GW cannot be mostly caused by humans, because the MWP was warmer than the current warm period" in the mouth of a sceptic. Does the term "GW" refer to the hypothesis that the current period is statistically abnormal? Or to the hypothesis that this abnormality has a specific cause? These are different things. I think the sceptic wants to argue that the current period is not abnormal because such 'abnormalities' have occurred in the relatively recent past, and therefore not abnormal. This is not unreasonable. Or the argument might be that the current temperature increase may not be caused by humans, because similar increases have occurred before in the absence of such causes. That is also a good argument. If on the other hand the argument is that forcing does not exist because etc, then it is a bad argument. But you must be very clear about the actual argument you are imputing to the sceptic. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, you say "it is typical "pseudo-scepticism" to think that any scientific theory hinges on a single line of evidence ". Agree, but once again you need to be clear about which 'theory' is intended. If the theory (or rather the observation) that the current period is abnormal, then this seems to rest most on a single line of evidence. See e.g. "Tree rings provide a primary data source for reconstructing past climates, particularly over the past 1,000 years". . (I assume they mean 'the primary', rather than 'a primary', since 'primary' means 'first'. Or perhaps they mean 'main'. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition in WP:FRINGE

The posts above took me to the policy page. I note that most of the page talks about fringe theories rather than scepticism. GW scepticism is not a theory. All scepticism is negative, anti-theory. A sceptic simply wants to be persuaded. Their job is to point out flawed logic or assumptions or methodology in other theories, not to promote their own. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Most global warming sceptics do as it happens adhere to alternative explanations of the current warming trend, and they are mostly fringe theories. There are also interpretations of the trend that say it has stopped, and this is definitely a fringe interpretation of the available data. So while scepticism may well not have a fringe status, the theoretical basis of much, if not all, global warmings scepticism is fringe science. --TS 11:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you distinguish 'fringe' from 'not mainstream'. There are differing theories about how humans evolved, one (regionalism) that they evolved separately, the other that everyone came from Africa. The regionalists are not mainstream, but no one would say they are fringe. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do make that distinction. The alternative theories of climate change are all definitely fringe. --TS 11:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitions/criteria and citations please. The article Multiregional origin of modern humans says that there is near-consensus against regionalism. But regionalism is not fringe, as far as I know. So we can't take difference-from-near-consensus as a criterion for fringe. What criterion are you using then? My view of 'fringe' is that it is pronouncedly eccentric in argument or logic or methodology or whatever. Although it's a difficult point. In my subject (history) there is deep disagreement about how to distinguish science from pseudoscience. All pseudoscientists give reasons, sometimes detailed and clear ones, for their hypotheses. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing two editorial activities. One is when Misplaced Pages articles in the text are allowed to call something "fringe" and the other is whether we as editors use the guidelines at WP:FRINGE as an aid to edit particular articles. In this case, the question as to whether we call denialists "fringe" is one that is answered only if by considering what third-party independent sources say about them. The question as to whether WP:FRINGE applies to articles about global warming 'skepticism' is, unequivocally, "yes." ScienceApologist (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What third-party sources say what sceptics are 'fringe'? HistorianofScience (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can find a few good sources:

• Corbett, J. B., and Durfee, J. L. 2004. Testing Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of Global Warming. Science Communication, Vol. 26, No. 2, 129-151.
• Dearing, J. W. 1995. Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science 4 (4): 341–61.
• Stocking, S. H., and L.W. Holstein. 1993. Constructing and reconstructing scientific ignorance: Ignorance claims in science and journalism. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 15:186–210.

Generally, these sources are all in agreement that the "fringe" are those who contradict the conclusions of mainstream climate scientists that, for example, global warming is happening and that it is being caused by humanity.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't come to this article to hear "the conclusions of mainstream climate scientists" since I can find better exposition of that on their blogs (RealClimate is a good one, perhaps the work of expert editors here?). I came here expecting to have my questions answered and real areas of uncertainty treated in an NPOV fashion. That's not happening, worse, there is serious opposition to it happening. Here's a question for you - is it fair to call James Hansen a "paid lobbyist for alarmism"? One of your fellow believers told us that the contributions of such people "would most certainly have to be pruned". Please explain why the contribution of Hansen has increased since then. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There aren't real areas of uncertainty when it comes to the science of global warming. Your argument seems to stem from a supposed identity and contributions of editors of Misplaced Pages. This kind of dispute has nothing to do with content. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. Instead it is the place where the most verifiable, reliable sources on a subject are used to write about a subject. You may wish to "impeach" the verifiability and reliability of work by James Hansen, but unless this impeachment is done verifiably by reliable sources, you are barking up the wrong tree. If you think there is a conflict of interest, I recommend going to a different noticeboard. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is James Hansen really editing global warming articles? What is his Misplaced Pages username? If you tell me I'll take a look at his contributions and see if they're problematic. --TS 14:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"More likely than not"

See above. No one would say of Cantor's Theorem, or the existence of the Holocaust, that they are 'more likely than not'. yet there are those who deny the Cantor's mathematics . There are those who deny the historicity of the Holocaust . But they are surely in a quite different category from AGW secptics. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming basically means that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activities and we urgently need to do something about it because the sea levels are going to rise significantly and plenty of species are going to die out if we don't. There is a strong scientific consensus about this, much stronger than "more likely than not". Unfortunately there seems to be an alliance between those who don't want to believe it and those who understand it but are profiting from the current situation and want to postpone the time when effective countermeasures are implemented.

This has nothing much to do with the question whether the current warming is unprecedented in recent history. It is now, more likely than not (this is where you have that formulation from). But in any case it will soon be, with great certainty.

If there is a fish bone in your child's throat the question whether the child's complexion is bluer than it ever was without one is not all that relevant to an adequate understanding of the situation. Most parents would start taking effective measures without waiting for that kind of symptom. Most politicians would not, in the analogous situation. Unless the real trouble is going to start while they are still in office, they will always leave it to their successors. Hans Adler 13:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the scientific consensus that (a) the warming has a definite cause also include the additional views you state that (b) we urgently need to do something about it (c) sea levels are going to rise significantly (d) plenty of species are going to die out if we don't? These all seem to be different things. I might agree with (a), in fact I probably do. But since I am not sure how significant the warming would be, I'm not sure I agree with the others. Even if I were sure about warming of say 4% I am not sure whether it would cause (c) the sea-level rises, because I have not seen any closely argued case for this. (d) I don't know about. As for (b) that is a moral and ethical or practical conclusion, I am not sure that is included in the GW hypothesesis. Your point about the fish bone I tend to agree with, and the argument is a version of Pascal's wager. But that is a logical point, and not related to the science of GW. Like many other of the arguments I am seeing on Misplaced Pages about GW, you are conflating about 150 different points into one great big logical soup. On your point about 'more likely than not' I was commenting on Kim Petersen's point about. She (he?) said it. HistorianofScience (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the scientific debate about the extent of global warming is mostly about whether the effect will be more or less a linear function of the accumulated greenhouse gas (resulting in a quadratic increase of temperature under the assumption of constant production of greenhouse gases), or whether there will be a strong positive (e.g. the rock under a molten glacier reflects less heat back into space than the glacier did) or negative (similar effects that would make the warming slow down) feedback loop.

As to me conflating things, that's tall. Kim D. Petersen said: "The mainstream view is that it is more likely than not, that the last part of the 20th century was warmer than any period in the last 2000 years." You argued, intentionally or negligently, as if "more likely than not" had referred to global warming rather than one specific point.

To turn your Holocaust analogy into something more reasonable: Serious people can argue whether it was really 6 million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust or whether it was 5, or 7. A historian might say it was more likely 6 than 5. But for some reason the difference between 6 and 5 only seems to really matter to those who want to argue that the official numbers are wrong and "therefore" the Holocaust never happened and was invented by a conspiracy. Hans Adler 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You jolly well did conflate claims (a)-(d) into 'Global warming basically means'. The debate you reference above seems a good summary of the debate. But is the 'Global warming hypothesis' the view that human activities will significantly increase temperature, or just any increase. If the latter, then there are probably no sceptics. On your holocaust point, holocaust deniers typically reduce the numbers fantastically, to tens or at most hundreds of thousands. That makes it a completely different case from AGW scepticism. HistorianofScience (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The question, "What do we mean when we say 'global warming'?" is one that is characterized well in the sources. The mainstream take on global warming is, for example, well-summarized in the IPCC report. Have you read that? I'd take that as a starting-off point. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look at the report, and I think any definition should reflect that. Offhand, what is their definition? HistorianofScience (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
• "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic source question

Could a few regulars familiar with the complementary and alternative medicine topic area look over Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Regulated professional trade publication's reliability and provide some feedback? It would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

One editor was good enough to speak up, but the voices of a few more editors clued in about the area would help make sure the matter is resolved firmly. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Somers' New Target: Conventional Cancer Treatment

This AP article covers many subjects relevant to articles about alternative medicine:

• Somers' New Target: Conventional Cancer Treatment

Brangifer (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was certainly...ahem...entertaining? Perhaps we should have newsflash bulletins posted to this noticeboard on a regular basis whenever some celebrity comes up with similarly cretinous pronouncements, so we know to pay extra special attention to various bits of our watchlists. Moreschi (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the irresponsible views of some celebrities fortunately get a nice spanking in that article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, and to think some people think certain editors use the Fringe Noticeboard as a canvassing board. stmrlbs|talk 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the stricken comment was certainly appropriate and really needn't have been stricken. Defending me against a personal attack was perfectly appropriate. No canvassing involved. The purpose of these boards is to bring to the attention of interested individuals some topics they might find useful. This noticeboard is for "fringe" topics, and that article certainly deals with it. Immediately after posting here it dawned on me that another board might also find this subject interesting, so I posted there as well. It's both a fringe and a medical subject. Now if pushers of fringe POV like the complainant above would like to comment there, be my guest. These noticeboards, just like projects, are a level deeper in Misplaced Pages than the article talk pages and all kinds of interesting things occur here ;-) If you want to get even deeper, where things like the NPA policy aren't even enforced, go to any ArbCom proceeding. There mayhem rules the day, with all kinds of policy violations. They often resemble mob rule and a kangaroo court, unless a really good clerk is doing their job. No, this is pretty standard and innocent posting of information. We try to keep it civil and not attack people who use the boards appropriately. If my posting had been off-topic it might have been a different matter, with the posting getting ignored. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of this board: "This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where questions relating to articles on fringe theories can be answered, and to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Is there an Misplaced Pages article on this? Is there undue weight being given somewhere about this Somer's opinion in a wikipedia article? You didn't mention the wikipedia article that you were referring to. stmrlbs|talk 05:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Suzanne Somers discusses this and should use the above article as a source. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone review edits by Place4us

Place4us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A quick glance at some of the user's edits seem a bit odd, and far beyond a typical new account. This edit and this one just feel odd to me. Ravensfire (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A few seem okay, but others seem rather odd. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban evader, indeffed by User:John Vandenberg. Well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Greater India Society and Kamboja-cruft

How do we handle old history books and articles by members of the Greater India Society (e.g. Majumdar, Bagchi, see Greater India for a helpful explanation of where they were coming from)? Should ideas sourced to them be taken out completely on the basis that their scholarship was nationalistic and is now long superseded? Or do we need to take a more subtle approach? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, they are primary sources that can be cited as primary sources for the topics of Indian and particularly Bengali nationalism and cultural chauvinism. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Case-by-case basis. In instances where the scholarship has not fundamentally altered, we might as well leave such references in place, but in cases (probably the majority) where their work has been superseded, we relegate them to the status of primary sources as per Dieter. Moreschi (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, so I need to know what the best recent sources are for this period of Indian history and use them to the full, now and again calling on the earlier texts as primary. Further guidance and more eyes very welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with R.C Majumdar. Assorted Marxists and Islamophiles don't like him, but smearing him as a "Greater India society ideologue" or whatnot deserves even more contempt than this sentence would suggest. rudra (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A2 milk

This needs some attention. Currently it gives significant coverage to the theory milk with predominantly A1 β-casein is harmful without making it clear most independent reviews have found the evidence is too weak to support the conclusion e.g. http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/policy-law/projects/a1-a2-milk/ Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely the obvious thing to do would simply be to revert this edit, hence cutting the more fringey material at a stroke. Moreschi (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hindu mythology

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs), evidently something of a long-term trouble-maker, is apparently trying to argue (at Talk:Hindu mythology) that Hindu myth should be taken as historical fact, because neither Dbachmann nor myself has a time machine to verify that Indra didn't exist, or actually slay a real dragon. A somewhat startling reversal of the burden of proof, it certainly makes for excellent entertainment. This hasn't got far, beyond the addition (swiftly reverted) of a bunch of highly tendentious {{fact}} tags, but some more eyes would be appreciated, and the humour value certainly makes this worthwhile. Moreschi (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, for another incarnation of the Hindutva crowd, see Madmonk11 (talk · contribs) at Dravidian peoples, claiming that AIT is now "discredited". Moreschi (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a doppelganger. He knows his way around WP. So far, edits on the Indian military, Indian football, and South Indians. And, of course, AIT. Anyone with that interest set sanctioned or blocked lately? rudra (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

IAF (talk · contribs) returning? Would certainly fit with the military/aeronautical edits. Moreschi (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Rudrasharman, of course he knows his way around Misplaced Pages. He's been around for over 2 1/2 years. Vassyana (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Moreschi, based on my previous knowledge and experience with IAF and BalanceRestored, they are almost assuredly not the same person. They have differing views and their particular interests within the same topic areas are quite distinct. Vassyana (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, I will touch base with the editor on his talk page and try to nudge him in-bounds. I have dealt with him before. If some reasonable guidance fails and he really crosses the line, I will use blocks as necessary to get the point across. Vassyana (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Vassyana, we were talking about the new user Madmonk11 (talk · contribs). If you could apply some cluebat to BalanceRestored as well, however, that would be much appreciated :) Moreschi (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

((discreetly wipes the egg from his face)) Ah! I understand how the military background or interest and Hindutva POV are suspicious. However, it's not a terribly uncommon combination for that sort of editor and there is no overlap (so far) with IAF's identifying hot button issues. At the current time, I'd say keep an eye on him as you would any suspicious SPA. As for BR, I'm trying to discuss things with him now to see if we can clue him in. Vassyana (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I never asked anyone to do this either "Hindu myth should be taken as historical fact". Again, what about the writings we have accepted today as history? do you take the burden to save adequate proof about their verifiability either? What would be the situation with today's history 10000 years after? would it be fine, if future humans call them myth?BalanceΩrestored 08:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, did you not compare Hindu mythology to Newton's laws here? That would seem to negate your assertion. Auntie E. 16:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) is indeed something of a long-term troublemaker. He has escaped being banned because he is pronouncedly un-aggressive and mostly confines himself to trolling talkpages. When I say trolling I refer to what I think is a deliberate show of naiveté bordering on complete lack of basic comprehension. He is taking the stance of Socrates, which is the stance of a four-year-old toddler, that if you put completely naive questions to people long enough sooner or later they realize that they really know nothing. This may be cool for a guru, a Zen master or a Greek philosopher, but it is of course in egregious violation of everything Misplaced Pages aims to be, and it is also an insult to the intelligence of every editor unfortunate enough to come across this user.

So, while BR isn't doing any positive damage, he has also failed to contribute or show a good faith interest in contributing to the project and I believe a community ban is well arguable at this point.

This is purely a question of user conduct, btw, because BR isn't making any points of content worth bringing up even on this board. --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A far more interesting case is ICouldBeWrong (talk · contribs). He is the exact opposite of BR in that he is displaying his intelligence openly, and I haven't quite figured him out, but I strongly suspect an attempt at camouflaging a Hindutva account. I have only very rarely encountered elaborate attempts at building "reputation" for a new account in making actual useful contributions in another area before turning to the actual agenda. The approach may be "intelligent" because you have plausible deniability, but then it never really works because you spend far too much time on unrelated items for the little effect you end up having on the actual issue. It's interesting to see people try this but one should not overestimate the damage they do. Hell, they even contribute good content even if it's only as part of their cover :) --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For the interesting contributions from ICouldBeWrong, see the most recent threads at Talk:Sanskrit and Talk:Rigveda. We shall have to watch and wait on that one, I think. I'd be surprised right now if this is a reincarnation, as all the previous Hindutva boys of my acquaintance never got close to that level of mental and wikipolitical sophistication, unless Watch844 (talk · contribs) or someone like that actually got themselves an education. But quite possibly a cover for a clued-up newcomer to the party. We shall see.

Speaking of education, this is precisely the problem with BalanceRestored. I'm not sure his Socratic show is as deliberate as Dieter thinks. IMO this an extreme example of a well-observed phenomenon, of which Hkelkar (talk · contribs) was the best example. The educational background of the Hindutva crowd (many of whom were ABCD, although this does not seem to include BR) apparently precluded any serious study of the humanities: as a result, they have never learnt how to analyze sources, or to think in anything other than terms of black-and-white. And like Hkelkar, BR is from a physics background. At any rate, whatever the reasons, this mindset has repeatedly shown itself unfit for Misplaced Pages, and if BR keeps wasting our time (not to mention insulting our intelligence, as Dieter points out), then a community ban is probably in order. Moreschi (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "mention insulting our intelligence". When did I insult? BalanceΩrestored 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

When I ask someone to justify, reason should that be taken as an insult? BalanceΩrestored 18:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And this time I only added a {{fact}}BalanceΩrestored 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis and Bipedalism

Just saw a plea at WikiProject Rational Skepticism for eyes on both of these articles. The AAH one has been protected for 2 weeks, the other is unprotected. My experience of this debate elsewhere has not been pleasant. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this could use some attention. The first thing that hit my eye was that both participants could potentially use a break from their rollback buttons. Moreschi (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found that the person on the AAH page who included the references from the website has been very amenable to reasonable suggestions. This could be resolved positively yet.Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Would the participants be able to agree on a to-do list for the AAH article? My impression was that it was informative and presented info neutrally but that it was a bit sprawly and potentially needed restructuring. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Consciousness Project

An IP editor keeps introducing WP:OR with unreferenced "claraifications" for the vaguer parts of this vague piece of pseudo-science. Furthermore thye IP editor is claiming I have a WP:COI because of my materialist and skeptical user badges on my user page. Eyes needed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try to help out by improving the article Gonefishingforgood (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately those "improvements" consist of removing criticism and whitewashing flaws. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

Pleas esee Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Magnet therapy is no longer pseudoscience it seems

See here. Now, I don't know about these studies, but I do know sourcing a major statement in the lead with primary sources which negates a statement sourced with multiple secondary sources, and restating the reasoning behind the conclusions is a major red flag.

From:

Magnet therapy is considered pseudoscientific due to both physical and biological implausibility, as well as a lack of any established effect on health or healing.

To:

Magnet therapy was originally considered as pseudoscience, primarily due to inconsistent research findings. (same secondary sources source this statement as the previous)

However, more systematic research has confirmed that strong static magnetic fields from permanent magnets are able to constrict and dilate the walls of capillary blood vessels. This reduces inflammation and increases blood circulation respectively. Static magnet therapy has potentially effective applications in relief of pain and swelling after sports injury and blunt trauma, as well as wound healing after surgery.

It seems the latter paragraph is some primary sources strung together with a bit of OR. It looks like there could be something to these studies, but I'd like a to see a review from a reliable medical journal that supports these studies. Auntie E. 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

They're cherry-picking positive results. It's worth investigating, but the studies done so far are poor and lack dosing information so are mostly uninterpretable. Also see . A better summary than the use of the word 'pseudoscience' would be to say something like "Magnet therapy is used for conditions such as pain and osteoarthritis, but clinical studies have mostly been poor and lacking information on dosing, and there is little evidence for its efficacy". Fences and windows 22:17, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

If I may, maybe this is what they are talking about. It's called a cervical-stim Bone Growth Stimulator which is supposed to help get the blood moving for healing and reducing swelling or something like this. I got this after my neck surgery to wear around my neck 4 hours a day to help speed the healing processes. I'll admit feeling totally ridiculous wearing the thing but I did get my healing done quite fast. I plan on taking a picture of it for use in the project. If you would like more info I did put the site down where you can read about it. My husband did a search of it and found some reasonable stuff on it when it was given to me. Thought this might help with some of your questions, hope it does, :) --CrohnieGal 10:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I share the concerns voiced by Auntie E. and Fences and windows. It appears that Spades and an IP (possibly their's) is single handedly and as an SPA totally rewriting the article. I notice that I had previously reverted what at first appeared to be vandalism, but maybe I shouldn't have done that. It might have been the right thing to do.

What's not being dealt with properly is the difference between alternative medicine use and mainstream use. Previously the article dealt with alternative medicine use, but it looks like the SPA is mixing things up in a confusing manner. If it's proven to work, then it's not alternative medicine, yet there is still unproven and quackish use of magnets going on. The differences need to be made clear.

I have noted my concerns on the talk page there. More eyes are needed there pretty fast as the SPA is working fast. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at article but I seem to recall things about static electric fields and bone growwth. Searches on magnetic pickup a bunch of MRI but see some cites here,

http://www.spottext.com/wikimed.cfm?url=magnetic+field+%22bone+growth%22

wikimed script outputCount is 16 versus 16 Guo, X; Chan, YL; Cheng, JC; Burwell, RG; Dangerfield, PH (Nov-2005). "Relative anterior spinal overgrowth in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis--result of disproportionate endochondral-membranous bone growth? Summary of an electronic focus group debate of the IBSE". European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 14 (9): 862–73. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-1002-7. PMC 10.1007/s00586-005-1002-7. PMID 16133084. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Stanosz, S; Wysocki, K (Sep-2004). "". Polski merkuriusz lekarski : organ Polskiego Towarzystwa Lekarskiego. 17 (99): 229–31. PMID 15628046. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Johnson, MT; Nindl, G (2004). "Noninvasive treatment of inflammation using electromagnetic fields: current and emerging therapeutic potential". Biomedical sciences instrumentation. 40: 469–74. PMID 15134003.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Markaki, AE (Aug-2004). "Magneto-mechanical stimulation of bone growth in a bonded array of ferromagnetic fibres". Biomaterials. 25 (19): 4805–15. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.041. PMC 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.041. PMID 15120527. {{cite journal}}: Check |pmc= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Linovitz, RJ; Bernhardt, M; Green, D; Law, MD; McGuire, RA; Montesano, PX; Rechtine, G; Salib, RM; Ryaby, JT; Faden, JS; Ponder, R; Muenz, LR; Magee, FP; Garfin, SA (1-Jul-2002). "Combined magnetic fields accelerate and increase spine fusion: a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study". Spine. 27 (13): 1383–9, discussion 1389. PMID 12131732. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Hanft, JR; Landsman, A; Surprenant, M. "The role of combined magnetic field bone growth stimulation as an adjunct in the treatment of neuroarthropathy/Charcot joint: an expanded pilot study". The Journal of foot and ankle surgery : official publication of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. 37 (6): 510–5, discussion 550-1. PMID 9879046.

Mitchell, MJ. "Radiation-induced changes in bone". Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 18 (5): 1125–36, quiz 1242-3. PMID 9747611.

Linder-Aronson, A; Rygh, P; Lindskog, S (Dec-1996). "Tissue response to space closure in monkeys: a comparison of orthodontic magnets and superelastic coil springs". European journal of orthodontics. 18 (6): 581–8. PMID 9009422. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

McCleary, VL; Aasen, GH (1991). "Low magnetic field effects on embryonic bone growth". Biomedical sciences instrumentation. 27: 205–17. PMID 2065156.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Papatheofanis, FJ (Mar-1989). "Short-term effect of exposure to intense magnetic fields on hematologic indices of bone metabolism". Investigative radiology. 24 (3): 221–3. PMID 2753637. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Dormer, KJ; McGee, M; Hough, JV; Shew, RL (Nov-1986). "An implantable hearing device: osseointegration of a titanium-magnet temporal bone stimulator". The American journal of otology. 7 (6): 399–408. PMID 3812640. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Dunn, AW (Dec-1984). "Electrical stimulation in treatment of delayed union and nonunion of fractures and osteotomies". Southern medical journal. 77 (12): 1530–4. PMID 6390697. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Haupt, HA (Jan-1984). "Electrical stimulation of osteogenesis". Southern medical journal. 77 (1): 56–64. PMID 6364371. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Smith, RL (Dec-1983). "Effects of pulsing electromagnetic fields on bone growth and articular cartilage". Clinical orthopaedics and related research (181): 277–82. PMID 6641061. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Reddy, GN (Oct-1983). "A variable pulse-burst electromagnetic generator for electrical stimulation of biological systems". Journal of biomedical engineering. 5 (4): 336–9. PMID 6632846. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Reddy, GN; Tuai, GL. "A pulsed electromagnetic stimulator for bone-growth studies". Medical instrumentation. 17 (5): 347–50. PMID 6646021.

I was also concerned about reasoning from plausibility, not necessarily in a negative way but you have to be careful. I'm pushing the improved predictive value of literature but you want to reason from the known, not the lack of knowledge and AFAIK these isn't much known about this and it doesn't obviously require that accept alws be ignored. ( corrections appreciated) Confirmation bias, or reasonaing along the lines of "this has to work" has been a problem.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Which shows why we have to have secondary reliable interpretations of these studies to show that they are indeed relevant and the result of "magnet therapy" as defined. Auntie E. 18:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to argue merit from statistical tests, you only need to run 40 or so and publish the successes to show it works :) Without knowing all the trials its hard to come up with a stats based conclusion. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to argue the merit of the tests. Entropy's point is that we don't cite directly from those tests, we wait for reliable sources to publish conclusions based on them. — The Hand That Feeds You:

Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide

At Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes there have been claims that the concept of "Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide in Genocide: a sociological perspective by Helen Fein a founder and the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars is a fringe theory? Any comments? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the bigger issue is the validity of the article. Simply put, no one sensible doubts that communist regimes, by their inherently anti-consensual nature, are more prone to mass killing than most other types of government. However, whether the field of study of comparative analysis of communist killing is big enough to sustain a Misplaced Pages article is up for debate. If this is just going to be a synthesized list it's nothing but a drama magnet.

As a side-note, this is strictly my personal opinion, but it really irks me when people call the Holodomor genocide. For a genocide to be genocide it has to be aimed at a genus, and the terror-famine was aimed at crushing the resistance of the peasantry to collectivization, not at annihilating the Ukrainians. Of course, the Ukrainians were much less inclined to knuckle under than others, so naturally the blow fell hardest there, but this was a secondary consequence. "Crimes against humanity", yes, monstrous barbarism yes, genocide, no.Moreschi (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Drama magnet? Communism has been dead and buried for about 20 years and this is still a drama magnet? Regarding people call the Holodomor genocide? I guess this is a complaint that should be addressed to Raphael Lemkin the one who coined the word genocide and first referred to the famine in Ukraine as "Soviet Genocide in Ukraine", . But that's not the point or the question here. Is Helen Fein a fringe theorist because she has termed the state sponsored mass killings in communist run countries as Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide?--Termer (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Communism may, for the most part, be dead and buried, but sub-Marxist sludge is still around in various forms, and of course nationalism of all shapes and sizes is very much alive. Hence drama magnet.

No, doubtless Fein is not a fringe theorist, but this is simply not the point. It's scratching around the surface of the problem rather than addressing it directly. For a decent article to be written here the author (you?) has to establish the existence of a body of academic literature dealing with, and analyzing in depth, communist killings as a whole, rather than just individual works discussing separate events. And then you have to cite from that body of literature, of course (and note that this body of academic literature has to be distinct from general genocide literature, in addition). If you can do that, well, bully for you, and we should get a decent article as a result. If not, this falls foul of WP:SYNTH. Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, any SYNTH concerns could be raised at a relevant notice board or for example taken directly to Cornell University Press & Benjamin A. Valentino PhD on Communist mass killings etc. And thanks for your opinion on Fain! That's yet another source that has analyzed communist killings as a whole.--Termer (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On "sub-Marxist sludge is still around in various forms, and of course nationalism of all shapes and sizes is very much alive. Hence drama magnet".So its a bad idea to have an article about Israeli–Palestinian conflict on wikipedia becaouse that must cause some real drama? I can't agree with you on that one. The world is the way it is and our job here is not to ignore it but provide wikipedia readers with all possible viewpoints on any subject, describe the dispute if any, without any drama.--Termer (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• You really are not understanding my point. There is no point taking this to another noticeboard when we can discuss it in perfect comfort here, and I am certainly not writing to some university press about synthesis concerns in Misplaced Pages articles!

• Alright. Since there are evidently some sources for this, the article should be based off them. That is, the right way to write this would be to make the current cursory "causes" section the entire article, and discuss solely causes and results, with events themselves covered in passing as part of that discussion. At the moment this is a "List of big communist state killings" with a little section discussing in little details the views of various authors as why these events have happened. Either make it one or the other. But if you want to have both, we need separate articles for that.

• By the way, it really grates to see big lists of "Foo said X" pretending to be encyclopedia articles. Ideas X should be introduced and discussed, and then cited to specific authors. Not before. The whole "causes" section, right now, is a terrible example of this kind of semi-writing.

• Oh, and naturally we don't delete articles because they are drama magnets. But if an article serves no encyclopedic purpose and is a drama magnet, then there are excellent reasons for deletion. Moreschi (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All these are excellent points and have been brought up and addressed on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes several times. I only posted this here to find out either the term "Communist genocide" refers to a fringe theory like claimed on the talk page. It appears its not, it's just a way some scholars among them Helen Fein has called the state sponsored mass killings in communist countries. And at the moment there is nothing more to it.--Termer (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Here is what I'm talking about .--Termer (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

After a relatively quiet period there's lots of dispute on this article once more. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the Christ myth theory is the claim that Jesus never existed, and the stories about him are fabricated myths. This is a fringe theory, and is called so by multiple scholarly sources. Current disputes on the article include the definition of the theory itself; whether scholars' comparisons of the theory to Holocaust denial should be included in the lead (or at all), and whether the article should be rolled back to the version of December 5, reverting a substantial number of edits. Of course, many of those edits were reverts--two editors have recently been blocked for edit warring on the article, and the page is currently fully protected. Some new voices might help. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been up on this board at least half a dozen times already. Each time consensus is clear: this is a fringe theory (specifically, the theory that Christ never existed and is a purely mythical figure) of a highly kooky nature and should be written about as such. We are now moving into the stage where discussion ends and sanctions begin. If it's just the same few voices coming up again and again then they need to be topic-banned: if different accounts each time, then we need some kind of article parole in the style of the Obama articles probation. Moreschi (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

After spending a couple of hours reading and commenting on this issue, I have to agree with Moreschi - this is indeed a fringe theory and sanctions should begin. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, it seems the New Testament is a WP:RS now and anybody who questions it is a fringe theorist, and this is what consensus on wikipedia says? this is scary!--Termer (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Termer, that's not it at all. Try reading up on the subject, huh? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see it on black and white up here, Christ myth theory is considered a fringe theory according to consensus. At the time when it is a fact that all evidence on Jesus' existence come in scripts written about 200 years after the supposed events. And most of those scripts were bound into the New testament. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus Christ is most likely a character from literature created in the beginning of first millennium. But consensus on wikipedia has declared the possibility that the stories about Jesus Christ are simply a myth a fringe theory? Or am I missing something here?--Termer (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You're mistaken about what the theory is--it's the idea that Jesus didn't exist. One can easily think that Jesus was a real person and believe that the Gospel accounts are largely mythical/fictional/exaggerated. Very few mainstream scholars, if any, take the Gospels as reliable historical documents on their face. On the other hand, nearly all scholars think that Jesus existed, too. (Also, you're pretty far off on the dates of the Gospels, but that's neither here nor there.) --Akhilleus (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

everybody is free to believe whatever they want. One thing is for sure though, it's not our job here to take sides in such controversial questions by declaring it fringe according to wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Termer, try applying some clue before sounding off. The existence of Jesus is not disputed in academia, ergo it is not disputed on Misplaced Pages, ergo theories to the contrary fall under WP:FRINGE. Simple as. Really! Moreschi (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

well, lets see about this, Constantin-François Volney, Charles François Dupuis, Bruno Bauer, Will Durant, George Albert Wells, Robert M. Price etc. are all fringe theorists? But as long as someone knows what exactly the Truth is, what can I say.--Termer (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact Durant is not a believer in the theory (he is quoted to summarise its claims). The other writers are either woefully obsolete, misrepresented, or, yes, fringe. Also, no-one thinks that the gospels were written 200 years after Jesus's lifetime, and the earliest attestations of Jesus were written well within living memory. For some reason some non-Christians seem to confuse belief in Jesus' existence with "belief in Jesus", as if believing in Muhammad's or Marx's existence were the same as being a Muslim or a Marxist. Paul B (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are missing is...wait...let me cut/paste some of my comments from the talk page in question:

...since there is more textual evidence for the existence of JC than any other historical figure of that time, then the historicity of Julius Caesar, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Herod the Great, etc., are in even in more doubt. So, those who would deny the historicity of JC would also be forced to deny the historicity of all of the aforementioned personages, and the pursuit of ancient history becomes a meaningless endeavor.

Unlike the "hard sciences", accurate history is determined by the probabilities assessed by individual historians, and consensus by groups of historians. (Ancient historians don't offer proof; rather, they offer evidence.) In other words, the probability that JC is a historical person is high enough to make the vast majority of historians to come to the consensus that he really did exist.

Also, although the NT is a reliable source, it is NOT (generally speaking) a WP:RS because it is written by authors with a POV; a POV that they were willing to die for. Misplaced Pages articles, on the other hand, must be written with NPOV, and are not concerned with truth but with verifiability. So, is the NT a reliable source for JC's claims? Yes. Is the NT a WP:RS for the truth of JC's claims? No. The NT can only offer evidence that JC's claims are true; it cannot verify them.

So, as of right now, the "Christ myth" theory is a fringe theory, but it is certainly possible (although not probable) that that can change in the future. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The NT is not a "reliable source for JC's claims". Its a reliable source for early claims about "JC". In WP terms it's the equivalent of using the website of an organisation to describe its beliefs. Paul B (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The NT makes certain claims "about" JC, is true enough. Hmmm...I thought that is what I said...but, whatever. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it matters, but you said it's a "reliable source for JC's claims". Assuming that JC is Jesus Christ, since he was not the author we have to take the word of the Gospel writers that he said what they say he did. Among nonliteralist scholars, afak, Mark is generally thought a bit more reliable than John, but neither is taken as...gospel. Paul B (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, we agree. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The people you list above are probably not the best examples as we have actual primary sources (that is sources written by themselves) from 5 out of 6 (not to mention contemporary epigraphy regarding 3 out of the 6, especially a lot of epigraphy concerning Caesar and Herod), so strictly speaking from a historians viewpoint we do have more certain knowledge of the existence of these persons than of Jesus Christ, as we only have later secondary sources on him. But other than that I agree with you, Christ myth theory is fringe based on Misplaced Pages criteria. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Christ myth" theory is a fringe theory.--Termer (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is your citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe#Identifying_fringe_theories Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We have indeed dealt with this over and over again, with the same end result (it's Fringe). It is time to move this debate up the dispute resolution ladder. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's some advice from a skeptic. It is indeed a fringe theory. While there are myths about Christ, myths are nearly always created around some existing person, and if they aren't, they remain children's bedtime stories without any disciples who are willing to die for what they experienced. Could/did the disciples and other followers start embellishing on the Christ they knew? Sure. But that doesn't mean he didn't exist at all. Somehow those who deny the existence of Christ seem to be threatened by that fact. They shouldn't. One can believe that he existed without having to believe in him or his teachings. It almost seems like deniers are just as religious in their denials as Christians are in their missionary endeavors. That's unnecessary. Just ignore him if you don't believe. Cut that umbilical cord and get on with your life. Your very denials keep you tied to a Christ you don't believe in. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One can question whether there was a singular historical Jesus without being threatened if it turns out there was. The historical record is present but weak if one excludes the new testament. I would say that it is equally likely that there was an historical Jesus as it is that there was an historical Gautama Siddhartha Buddha and that the record for the existence of Socrates is somewhat better than for the existence of either of the above. On the balance of probabilities I'd say it is nearly certain the last of the three existed and that it is more likely than not that the other two did. I'd say that neither had any supernatural abilities of any sort provided they existed; any such stories are myths built around the figures. Regardless, considering that the records of Jesus are weak (though present), I'd say that it is a bit harsh to call those who doubt the existence of an historical Jesus fringe theorists. Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not our personal evaluations of the topic that matter, it's what scholarship says. The scholarship unambiguously calls this a fringe theory. And anyway, if you look at my original posting above, the problem is not currently whether the theory is fringe or not. There are specific content issues at the article that need outside voices. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I can see from all the discussion and the sources that it really is regarded by scholars as a fringe theory. By "scholars" we mean mainly theologists and they mainly have a Christian background, although it is not necessary to be a Christian to be regarded as a scholar of Jesus. I was surprised to see how thickly they were laying on the comparisons with holocaust denial etc., but they do seem to be doing that, so there you go. I'm not sure if it needs to be stated so heavily in the lede, though, and it would be better to write the lede without the need for citations. Also, I thought the talk page discussion was mostly reasonable, but as usual an injection of AGF wouldn't go amiss. Someone mentioned a scholar who has a more generous view of the "myth" writers - it would seem to be important to include her somewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As ever, Judith supplies a nice dash of UCS. The lead should of course not contain inline citations (and, as a consequence, should not contain {{fact}} tags either). As per WP:LEDE, it should also summarise the article, so unless the comparison-to-hololcaust-deniers stuff is developed upon and discussed in the body of the article, it should be in the main text, not the lede. On cursory reading I don't see any such development? Moreschi (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the problem about the holocaust denial phrase alone, or does the problem also apply to the comparisons of "flat earthers" and "faked moon landings"? Also, if the sources for the holocaust denial don't "develop" it (and I doubt that they do, since it seems to me to indicate merely the extreme level of fringe-ness), the comparison should remain in the lead. But if they DO develop it, then it should appear in both the lead and the body, as Moreschi suggested. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} Well, yes, Judith always is good at the UCS stuff. My statements were rather a specific response to Brangifer's comments. As somebody who does not consider the historicity of JC to be entirely settled but who is entirely unthreatened if it turned out that he did exist I felt a response was necessary. Judith has, as usual, cut nicely to the heart of the matter. Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments gave the impression that skeptics were fringy types. Not at all. It is the theory itself that's considered a fringe theory. Many reasonable people believe it, in fact some are extremely intelligent and very well-articulated. I meant no aspersions on the skeptics as persons. I just believe they shouldn't feel threatened. You seem to have a healthy skepticism, and that's a good thing. It is Christians, OTOH, who have a lot invested in whether Christ existed or not. They are the ones who would become unglued if their beliefs were shown to be false. They are the ones who have something very fundamental to lose. Skeptics have nothing to lose, so they shouldn't get emotionally entangled in the subject, and yet some of them do. I suspect some of them might be former Christians who realize that if their skepticism is wrong, they are lost. I could well be wrong, but I suspect that in some cases that's why they react so strongly. It's just my opinion, so it really has no weight in the grand scheme of things. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the Christ myth theory is there are WP:RS that show the idea is not exclusively the idea that Jesus didn't exist but that he has been mythologized so much little if anything remains of the actual man. You have Dodd, C. H. (1938) who said t could include reports of an "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name", Price called Wells a Christ-myth theorist in 1999 and 2002 even though Wells was accepting a historical 1st century teacher behind Q back in 1996, and Pike with his "Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin."

The list of supporters is little help either as even people like Schweitzer get confused and change their positions of who belongs where. For example, Schweitzer includes James George Frazer (who held there was a historical Jesus) with Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in 1931. Bromiley has similar problems as he mixes in Lucian and Bertrand Russell together with Wells. The debate is not if the non-historical position is fringe--we can all agree that is fringe but if the very term "Christ myth theory" is exclusively use in that manner and the WP:RS shows it is not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BruceGrubb has raised this objection over and over again on the article's talk page and every time he has been shown to be wrong (even some of the sources he's provided in defense of his view have backfired on him). So now he has begun advocating here it seems. The sources used in the lead make it very clear that the subject of the "Christ Myth theory" article is the belief that Jesus never even existed. To give only a single example out of very many, "Negative as these conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder." Goguel, Maurice, "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), 117-118. Eugeneacurry (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement analysis

Just wikified this and took out a large number of potentially BLP-violating examples. It seems to be a valid technique - google scholar gives a few hits - but the article is currently unreferenced and it does seem that a lot of really daft and unverified ideas can attach to the field. Has anyone any expertise in this area, or can help find an expert? I'm not sure that there's a relevant wikiproject. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting bit of original research.....the text probably currently overstates the effectiveness, but without sources.....who can tell? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

it also seems to have some pretty solid copyvio stuff. grrr. i'll axe some away. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern

An editor has proposed changes to the Tom Van Flandern article, here: Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern#Article_revsion. Flandern's ideas have at times been labelled fringe, so any input from editors who watch this page would probably be appreciated. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the deal with User:6324xxxx? Something deeply suspect going on there. Artw (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out User:Mikevf which is Van Flandern's son's talk page . Akuvar (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that needs to be mentioned is his marginalization and, indeed, denigration by mainstream scientists who have bothered to comment. This seems to be lacking right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure how to word that or provide any source material/citations. Although it is accurate, I think without an external reference the people that are guilty of that behavior would insist it be removed from the article. If you can create a statement that can be cited or referenced, please post it under the TVF discussion page or on my Talk. Thanks Akuvar (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion. I do not beleive anything good is going to come out of that situation. Artw (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, that's not the way to handle these issues. I think the first thing to do is look for third-party independent sources and rewrite the article based on the summaries and details they provide. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a revised and updated article being proposed to replace the current entry. It can be found on Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern#Article_revsion it had strong support but the Nomination to delete the article has placed any changes on hold until 1-13-2010. Akuvar (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Plovdiv

In this article, it is being claimed that Plovdiv has a history going back 6000 years and is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities. Yet this claim is sourced to a single source that is primarily environmental, not archeological in focus, and hence off-topic and inappropriate. Even worse, the phrase is lifted verbatim from the source, and then cut-and-pasted twice in the article (firstly in the second sentence of the lead, then again in the history section). Further on, in the History section it is claimed that an established settlement existed in Plovdiv since the 7th millennium BC. This is sourced the Plovdiv Museum website (a dead link) and to two inaccessible Bulgarian language publications. These are exceptional claims, and exceptional claims require high-quality sources. If the claim that Plovdiv is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited city were reflected in the international academic consensus, it shouldn't be hard to find mainstream English-language reliable sources that would reflect this consensus. This is clearly NOT the case here, the case here being one of "antiquity frenzy", fringe-POV pushing, WP:UNDUE and manipulation of WP:RS. The arguments put forth by the users that support these claims are even more outrageous , using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, sarcasm, and sophistry. I brought this up on the article talkpage and this was the response I got. Any help in dealing with this matter would be greatly appreciated. --Athenean (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is WP:Fringe as much as it is a violation of WP:RS, because the one source is indeed "off-topic and inappropriate". Also, the response from Avidius is rude and snarky. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Claiming a continuous history of over 6000 years based on dubious sourcing is definitely fringe and WP:UNDUE. --Athenean (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not also fringe. What I was trying to say is that the first WP violation is WP:RS. Once a source is given, then we can apply the "fringe" label. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't we actually have a List of cities by time of continuous habitation? That would be worth looking at to see what caliber sources we typically accept for claims of this type. Moreschi (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For Plovdiv, the same source is used in that article as well. List of cities by time of continuous habitation mostly relies on high-quality archeological sources, but I also note the occasional website and Complete Idiot's Guide type source, not to mention tertiary sources as well. --Athenean (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem also is organization. That list could use a little work: IMO dubious ones (and it's not just Plovdiv either) should not be bundled with in dead certs. Ideally there should be a dead certs list, and then underneath that a shortest of ones that are academically controversial. Moreschi (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The list can certainly use a lot of work, although I think better sourcing is the best remedy. Ideally, for each city that is dubiously sourced (e.g. Byblos, Plovdiv), a better source should be sought. Back to the subject of Plovdiv, though, where does that leave us? Do we go with the Rodwell source because that is better than nothing, or remove the "6000 years of continuous habitation" on the grounds that it is dubiously sourced (which is going to be fiercely resisted)? --Athenean (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way it is the same in Sofia: "One of the oldest cities in Europe, the history of Serdica-Sredets-Sofia can be traced back some 7000 years;" And this completely unsourced. There is some serious antiquity frenzy going on in these articles. --Athenean (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Same in Stara Zagora: According to the city's chamber of commerce, it is one of the oldest settlements in Europe, being at least eight thousand years old.. Similar in Varna. --Athenean (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-sourced statements like that can and should be deleted outright. And I agree that even in the Plovdiv article there should be more reliable sourcing to establish such a dubious claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Radon therapy

Back in September, I nominated Radon therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion because I felt that no article was better that that article. The result was a NAC keep for lack of grounds to delete. Since then, it's improvement has been decidedly underwhelming. Article essentially claims that radon therapy should be generally recognized as safe and effective. See talk page for brief discussion of "big pharma" (a hallmark of medical fringe theories and pseudoscience). Since radon hasn't seriously been used as a treatment since ~1970's (at least in the U.S.), the article needs some help (at a minimum; I think it should ideally be completely rewritten). --Thinboy00 @216, i.e. 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also some copyright violations in there - several sections are directly listed from some of the "sources" used in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Uggh, its first paragraph reads like an advertisement, even if one suited more for a medical journal. And it doesn't get much better... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's now been gutted to due (apparent) copyvio and sourcing, and now basically a stub. Should we mark as resolved? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged it as a stub (under "alternative medicine"). I think we're done here. --Thinboy00 @002, i.e. 23:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually it seems to me that Radon therapy is a perfectly legitimate topic for an article. It is an historical/cultural phenomenon that began after the discovery of radon and was linked to the quasi-magical properties it was thought to have at the time. A history of its use would be a desirable article if it could be sourced. Paul B (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Under Our Skin

Some of you may or may not remember some of the issues related to advocacy for chronic Lyme disease here awhile back (if not, Talk:Lyme disease and its archives bear mute witness). In any case, I've found myself in a bit of a back-and-forth with another editor at Under Our Skin, an article about a film which advocates one side of this political/medical controversy. The article appears generally untrafficked, so to break the cycle of back-and-forth I'd like to invite outside eyes and opinions. MastCell  06:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies

Having had some problems at Juan Ponce de León y Loayza, I decided to see how many article reference or mention Menzies. A lot, it seems, see - anyone want to help clear up any misusing him as a source? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the situation isn't nearly as bad as you might think. Most of the references to Menzies' works are used specifically to cite his claims, as in Mahogany Ship, for example. (Of course, issues of undue weight could remain.) I removed all instances of clear misuse of Menzies as a source a few days ago; except at Juan Ponce de León y Loayza, these edits seem to be sticking. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about Mylodon? I can't see any justification for using Menzies for this. WP:UNDUE? Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nei Jing

An essay entry I found. It is about a concept that I am told is "salient" and also "the key to unlock the secrets of advanced kung fu". --dab (𒁳) 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I used some nei jing on the essay, to reduce the unencyclopedic-ness of it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh! Let me help! Simonm223 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a content fork with Nei Jin. I turned it into a redirect. BTW: tempted to move Nei Jin to Nei Jing as the latter is correct pingyin for the term. Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

excellent work, and quick! Pure wiki kung fu. --dab (𒁳) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

it turns out it should probably all be merged into Neijia. See also pushing hands,Silk reeling. --dab (𒁳) 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Neijia would work. One of the fun things with CMA is that there is frequently 3 or 4 terms for the same thing. More if you include the Cantonese ways of saying stuff too. Simonm223 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand it, Nei Jing and Nei Jia are not synonymous: Nei Jing is the skill and Nei Jia are the schools teaching this skill. For the purposes of Misplaced Pages, this is still one single topic. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed a couple of double redirects. There really does seem to be quite the walled garden here, vigorous merging definitely required. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I also spent some more time tending this corner and I think it's reasonably ok, albeit poorly referenced in general. But there is Internal alchemy which is completely inacceptable in its nonchalant conflation of Taoism and Hermeticism. --dab (𒁳) 22:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

never mind, this one just needed redirection to Neidan. --dab (𒁳) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Location hypotheses of Atlantis#Mediterranean fact vs. conjecture

I reverted an edit at the main article as the editor has a clear COI, and he had changed cited text. He has, as I ask him to, brought it to the talk page, and I'd appreciate it if someone less involved with the article took a look. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That article always gives me a headache. Can't we just turn it to a redirect for "plato's imagination" and have done? Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's useful for keeping cruft out of Atlantis, if nothing else. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL, true enough. Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What's fun is when proponents edit war. The important thing I think is to keep people from adding trivial ideas/websites etc. I don't think talking at a conference entitles anyone to a place in the article. Being mentioned in a reliable source, or maybe in the news depending how prominently, would do, but these conferences seem to accept anyone who can pay their way. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Paleolithic Continuity Theory

I've looked at this after I left it alone for a couple of months. A classic WP:FRINGE case, not all-out lunatic, but as mad as you can get and still be scholarly reviewed. In fact rather similar to the problems we see at New Chronology (Rohl). There are a number of polite reviews but nobody would even dream of subscribing to the core thesis. There are the usual problems with presenting the topic duly, i.e. accurately without creating the impression that anyone is taking it at all seriously, as usual further complicated by a couple aficionado editors who want the theory seen presented in the best light that is at all arguable. --dab (𒁳) 10:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Watchlisted. Do we have any tertiary sources discussing the topic on which an overall evaluation could be based? Moreschi (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Some WP:DUE issues. Article might benefit from being stubbed a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anatolian hypothesis

The academese used to write this IP edit makes it rather hard to figure out what is actually being proposed here, but I think it could use some attention. Moreschi (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Skinwalker Ranch

Entirely sourced to conspiracy websites, blogs, radio talk show hosts, and UFO literature. Article infobox asserts this "location" is "active". Criticism is ghettoized (and largely OR, since no reliable sources appear to give this topic any attention). Ripe for cleanup. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of internal contradiction and dubious claims. Beginning preliminary reading and tagging. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or should it be AfD'd if there is not a single RS? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Still reviewing. There appears to be some local "mystery spot" hyping style RSes. Also there is Coast to Coast AM which is touted as an RS by fringe proponents. Still... a good stubbing would be good for now pending decision on the reliability of available sources. Gotta finish reading it first. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The article refers to a place called the National Institute for Discovery Science as doing some kind of "research" connected to "the military-industrial complex". It's beginning to sound like an urban legend to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Found a decent ref in a book of Utah legends and stubbed the article down accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome job LuckyLouie. I was in the processing of a not-as-good stubbing when you finished. I trimmed some of the external links that went to defunct newspapers and bookselling sites. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Coast to Coast AM

I've put it to question wheter this counts as a WP:RS at the appropriate message board. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Marian apparitions

A lot of material about Marian apparitions appears to be quite credulously presented. A short list from what I briefly encountered today:

• Virgin of Guadalupe#Beliefs and Miracles
• Our Lady of Lourdes (Please note the "secular views" section, which provide little such substance)

• Also, the fork Lourdes apparitions

• Our Lady of La Salette
• Our Lady of Fatima

The attention of some FTN regulars to this topic area is desperately needed. A lot of secular and skeptical authorities have written about the general phenomena and most of the notable apparitions. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is excessive skepticism, it is undisputed that these apparitions are "real" in the sense that people do experience them. Not even the Roman Catholic Church claims anything beyond this, other than that it is a matter of Faith to choose to interpret such experiences as divine, so there is nothing fringy about it, it's just human religious experience. Creating separate "secular view" sections would appear as of the lady-protests-too-much kind. It is perfectly straightforward to treat visionary experience as a secular (neurological) topic beginning to end, no "however" clauses are necessary. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at them all in detail, but the main article seems to me to be reasonably well-constructed; my one possible quibble with it is the prominence it gives to some recent cases which may not really be that important. Mangoe (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my impression as well. The articles appear to be mostly well-written and place belief in the apparitions/phenomena in the context of religious experience rather than fringe claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic user

User:William S. Saturn seems to be an ideologically-motivated user with no regards for WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe. Recently he unilaterally moved the page "Iran and state terrorism" to a new POV-tainted called State terrorism committed by the theocratic Iranian regime without filling a request for move, seeking a consensus, or initiating any discussion at all, to the dismay of other editors. Further, he made a bunch of questionable edits, as outlined by another user here. He has also been edit-warring on Iraq War to add Iran as a combatant of the war. Given his history of edit-warring, POV-pushing and stubbornness, I really don't wish to get engaged in an edit-war with this person, and appreciate it if the other editors here could share their thought on how to handle such an editor, and keep an eye on these pages. --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"State terrorism committed by the theocratic Iranian regime" is not a fringe theory so much as a political opinion, or a politically biased choice of vocabulary in discussing recent headlines. Try Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

If I may say so, Iran and state terrorism is an appaling example of "zomg NPOV" weasling gone wrong. How many perpetrators of state terrorism can you have per state? That's right, just the state itself, otherwise it wouldn't be state terrorism. Hence "Iran and state terrorism" is a silly title. --dab (#56435;) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is about par for the course for this editor. He spent a month trying to get "Waterboarding is a form of torture" out of the lede for that article. He's blinded by his PoV. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

With due respect, the claim that waterboarding is torture is somewhat controversial, with many persons arguing that it is not torture. Since the term "torture" is only loosely defined, I can understand persons of good will doubting that waterboarding is torture. (I am not one of those persons, but the fact that someone else is doesn't mean that he is blinded by his biases.) Phiwum (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but I'm pretty sure that the more commonly held view in WP:RS is that Waterboarding is considered a form of torture. WP articles should reflect the prevelant view (NPOV) with significant minority views being noted in the article and fringe minority views (Waterboarding is a form of relaxing exercise) either ignored totally or given a small mention. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Darn. and I was just about to add in a scan of the "Spa Guantanamo" brochure the CIA has been distributing. Waterboarding, high-intensity manicures, hot/cold treatments, drug therapies... the newest thing in spiritual retreats. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(To Ravensfire) Yes, and I'm not saying that William S. Saturn was right in trying to change the lede. I'm merely saying that his attempt to change the lede in the waterboarding article is not good evidence that he's blinded by his biases. (Of course, he might well be so blinded.) Phiwum (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

House of Numbers

More editorial and administrative eyes would probably be useful at House of Numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a film that espouses AIDS denialism, and it has proven quite popular as a forum for accounts which espouse a similar agenda (currently, Sarcher70 (talk · contribs) is up to 5RR or so). Anyhow, more eyes would probably help ensure that the site's policies are not getting trampled in the rush to prove that HIV is harmless. MastCell  04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Any idea what Sarcher70's previous/main account might be? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The movie happens to have brought a few AIDS denialists out of the woodwork. Given how small this particular fringe is, the likelihood is that most new denialist agenda accounts are either socks or (more likely) solicited by the various AIDS-denialist newsgroups which occasionally complain about Misplaced Pages's coverage of HIV/AIDS. I think this is probably the latter, and it doesn't trigger any obvious sock alarms. MastCell  23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect

• See also: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, TM, etc. Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 4#TM-Sidhi Program and Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Maharishi Vedic Science

The Transcendental Meditation movement of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi proposes that the group practice of meditation advanced techniques, the TM-Sidhi program, leads to two separate phenomenon. First, they assert that practitioners spontaneously rise off the ground in the first stage of a three stage progression toward full flying. They have demonstrated this phenomenon and outside observers say that it appears to be ordinary hopping.

Second, the movement asserts that even this first stage of Yogic Flying is sufficient to create a field of coherence which radiates out to affect the surrounding population of non-practitioners and protect them from negativity, including everything from crime and accidents to bad weather and pollen. They call this the Maharishi Effect (ME) and say that it makes communities and even nations invincible through a mechanism comparable to the Meissner Effect, and which is propagated through quantum consciousness. They, and no one else, have conducted dozens of scientific studies which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. At least three of those studies have received outside notice and comment, almost all of which is skeptical of the hypothesis and some of which say that the studies were flawed. The theory and practice have been called "pseudoscience". One of the proponents, John Hagelin, appeared in the film What the Bleep Do We Know!? and received an Ig Nobel Prize for his research. Some editors assert that it is not a fringe theory since it has been published in peer reviewed journals and has received popular attention. Other editors, including myself, say that there is no sign of it being accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

For the purposes of this guideline, would it be correct to categorize Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect as fringe theories? If it is, how much weight should be given to studies of the effect conducted by members of the movement which have not received comment in any secondary sources?   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd further like to ask for a clear delineation on these points:

• Opinions on a clarification on what Misplaced Pages considers a fringe theory, and whether 40-50 or so peer reviewed studies can be defined as fringe studies or are they studies that have been done on a so called fringe theory, if what we have here is a fringe theory.

• Is there a difference between using a study to support a claim made outside of a study, as opposed to listing with explanation studies done on the ME to help

I have always thought that people will need to be really desperate for a guru before choosing to follow this one. I don't think this falls under "fringe theory" so much as pseudoscience, similar to other quasi-religious topics like Scientology etc. The fact that they apparently managed to get some of this stuff into peer-reviewed journals (on what?) might actually raise (not lower) this topic to the status of "fringe theory", but I would be hesitant to go so far to call something a fringe theory just because some scholars were annoyed enough to note they think it is nonsense. For all practical purposes, this is just pseudoscience of the quantum-mysticism type. --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of our fringe categories, this falls into "obvious pseudoscience", I'd say. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are 50 or so peer reviewed studies can this still be called pseudoscience...Wouldn't that number of studies start to put the research more into mainstream... I really don't know where the line is. Certainly the idea itself might be called a pseudoscience idea until or if it becomes well accepted or even proven as an idea. Any further thoughts on that.(olive (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

the number of studies has nothing to do with it. Counting studies is as bad as counting google hits. This would move out of the pseudoscience corner if (a) some studies were written by people unrelated to the TM movement, ideally at large universities, or (b) if there were reviews on these studies, ideally not all condemning, written by relevant scholars, ideally holding tenure at large universities. --dab (𒁳) 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would peer review by independent journals be considered biased. Misplaced Pages values peer review per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals", and WP:RS says,"Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.". Sorry but I think you may be off on this. From my point I don't care if the studies are used or not but if not, for the right reasons and as per the policy and guideline as I am quoting them. Thanks for your comments.(olive (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

(to Judith) yes, in wiki-jargon, we do not tend to distinguish pseudoscience from fringe theories, it's all "WP:FRINGE". Strictly speaking, a fringe theory is on the fringe of scholarship, not well outside anything reasonably discussed in scholarship. Pseudoscience on the other hand is simply outside scholarship and sold to the credulous hoi polloi. TM is clearly not "fringe" but "pseudoscience" in this sense (I mean, levitation due to a "Meissner Effect" of "quantum consciousness", I ask you...), but it has aspects of religion. Thus, it is partly obvious pseudoscience (the parts dealing with studies and "quantum consciousness" and what not) and partly a new religious movement to be discussed as such. --dab (𒁳) 16:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

it turns out that problems these article suffer is apparent WP:COI editing on the part of Littleolive oil (talk · contribs). Apart from this, there appear to be a number of good editors already giving attention to the article. This should be comparatively easy to fix. --dab (𒁳) 17:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You comment is astonishing in the extreme. Do not accuse me of what you cannot support. You spend five minutes on an article and you make those kinds of accusations. Do not. Take it to the Notice board or keep it to yourself, but do not post on these pages where such comments are out of place in a civil discussion. You are out of line. And rather than spend your time attacking me you might add an opinion about an honestly asked question above. (olive (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

Dbachmann isn't the first editor to raise questions about the COI editing of TM-related articles. There have been five separate threads on the COIN, in addition to complaints on article and user talk pages. Promotion of fringe or pseudo-scientific theories by people associated with the companies or institutions that offer goods, services, and training is typically problematic, and in that regard this is little different from many other topics where similar problems have been seen before.

Relevant to this discussion, the headquarters of the Transcendental Meditation movement is in little Fairfield, Iowa, and so is the institution conducting almost all of this research, Maharishi University of Management (MUM). We have editors here who are associated with or even employed by MUM adding studies done by MUM faculty to promote a fringe view held only by members of what is often called a new religious movement. Misplaced Pages is not here to promote fringe views or pseudo-scientific theories.   Will Beback  talk  02:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, this is not the place to once again attempt to hang editors for what you consider to be COI editing. If you have a complaint take it to the COI Notice board. (olive (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution