Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:14, 22 July 2011

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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Lloyd Pye

Lloyd Pye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The guy is fringe "science theorist" but the article currently consists of a lot of content WP:SYNthesized by wikipedia editors to disprove the claims and relying on Pyes posted criticism of his Misplaced Pages article in some bad WP:CIRCULAR claims - in otherwords a mess.

Can someone come clean it up? (also cross posting on BLP notice board). Active Banana (

Leuren Moret

Bringing here for wider attention an issue I have just seen at WP:NORN. The article subject seems to be a promoter of pseudoscience ideas; certainly the idea that earthquakes are being deliberately caused is pretty odd. Article has been through 4 AfDs. It just might be notable conspiracy theory, but it doesn't look all that notable or well sourced to me. Physicists around? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a physicist, but I did want to speak up here to agree with you. I think notability is a real concern - I know it survived 3 out of the 4 AFDs - but if you really dig into the Google news hits, none of the articles are about her, they merely mention her in passing. It's also worth noting that the sources are almost all obscure internet-only sites.

I was combing through the gnews hits was to see if I could find any reliable sources that were questioning her theories or calling her a crackpot, and I found none. I think she's basically beneath notice of reliable science stories. Does anyone have any more sources about Moret? Her claims really smack of fringe conspiracy pseudoscience theories; it would be nice to be able to say so in the article. I'm tempted to bring it to AFD again with a thorough explanation of why I don't think the coverage of Moret amounts to substantial, independent and reliable, but it survived an AFD so recently that I won't be doing that any time soon. Anyhow, this could probably use some attention from someone more experienced than me, so I'll stop blathering. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at this, and I'm really not convinced that this individual is notable in any real sense. In the article's current state, the main claim seems to be that she is "educating citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other officials" but I, for one, would need some fairly substantial sources to back up such a exceptional (yet vague) claim. I have checked journal archives with no success, but have found results in a news archive. LM has commented extensively on the Japan nuclear crisis and a number of other nuclear events. She is described variously as

Independent Scientist/DU Radiation Expert (Atlantic Free Press, Leuren Moret and Alfred Webre call for International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal, claiming "9/11 was a False Flag Operation by an international War Crimes Racketeering Organization, to provide a pretext to engage in Genocidal & Ecocidal Depleted Uranium (DU) bombing of Central Asia (Afghanistan and Iraq) and to implement the final stages of a world Depopulation policy")

world renowned geoscientist and authority on depleted uranium (Mehr News Agency, "The genetic future of the Iraqi people for the most part, is destroyed The long- term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence. Iraq is a toxic wasteland. Anyone who is there stands a good chance of coming down with cancer and leukemia. "the (Iraq) environment now is completely radioactive.")

nuclear authority (Pacific Free Press, Nuke Ammo Fired in Mid-East Could Kill More than Fat Man and Little Boy"

"An independent radiation specialist, who has worked in 46 countries as a professional geo-scientist. An expert witness on Depleted Uranium weaponry at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan in Tokyo, she was also appointed as an expert witness on DU for the Canadian Parliament and has published on HAARP, weather-modification, tectonic warfare, mind-control, 4th generation nuclear weapons, and scientific issues related to 9/11." (Atlantic Free Press, The Science and the Politics of 9/11 Conference To Be Held in Madison, Wisconsin, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth will be holding its first conference, "The Science and the Politics of 9/ What's Controversial, What's Not", at the Radisson Madison from August 3-5 in Madison, Wisconsin.")

Of 28 total results, these are the best; the oldest results I can see are from 2002, but those mention LM as being on Berkeley's environmental commission (in local press/newswires). In 2003, she was advocating that ""Nanoscience will be used to implement the Pentagon's global plan, which is to take out 50 percent of the world's population", but the geophysicist/nuclear expert business didn't appear until an article she wrote for the Japan Times in 2004 ("Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette") where the article blurb describes her as " a geoscientist who worked at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory on the Yucca Mountain Project, and became a whistle-blower in 1991 by reporting science fraud on the project and at Livermore. She is an independent and international radiation specialist, and the Environmental Commissioner in the city of Berkeley, Calif. She has visited Japan four times to work with Japanese citizens, scientists and elected officials on radiation and peace issues."

I have 2 concerns: first, that these are not particularly reliable sources (aside from the Japan Times, although I don't know how they check their author bios). They appear to be similar to published newswire or press releases, and I suspect they have not done much background work to verify whether the subject's claims are true. "World-renowned" "nuclear authority" are very serious claims, and I have seen absolutely nothing which backs them up in any way, nor have I found anything which confirms any of the other claims made about the subject. This is my other concern: LM presumably says she is a nuclear authority, sources with little or no fact-checking (or no interest in reducing puffery or hyperbole) back it up, and it proliferates throughout the Internet. That is the impression I am getting here.

Likewise, the coverage in GBooks, GScholar and GNews all seems to originate from extremely fringe sources, but I don't feel she is a notable fringe (speaker? scientist?). I have found not one source which comments on her, or is a critique or review of her work.

There does seem to be a profile of her in a book called Warrior Mothers - Stories to Awaken the Flames of the Heart by Thais Mazur (Rising Star Press), which is a series of profiles about female activists. It's out of print, and seems to be available in 10 US libraries, so may be difficult to obtain.

I also came across a letter published in the East Bay Express on 27 December 2006. Obviously I can't guarantee it came from the subject (although it is signed by someone of that name):

President Bush's vicious nationwide attack on whistleblowers comes to Berkeley via an all-too-obliging city council mayor, and police department

Since becoming a Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab whistleblower in 1991 I have worked diligently and effectively for the past six years as an independent scientist, to educate the global community on radiation issues both locally and internationally. The dark legacy of Dr. Strangelove, former Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab Director Edward Teller, is the fact that the University of California will forever be known as "the University that poisoned the world." The University of California has turned Planet Earth into a Death Star.

The problems with my cars and the Berkeley Police Department started after I did a presentation on radiation and depleted uranium on September 11, 2005 for Physicians for Social Responsibility.

When I left the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab in 1991 I was told, "You're in a police net for the rest of your life," and to a reasonable person it seems I have been. I have been subjected to car theft, damage to personal property, the University of California/Homeland Security Special - "gangstalking," and very frequently experienced documents missing from my home. My daughter was kidnapped when she was 13 facilitated by the University of California and Livermore Lab, and I did not see her for 5 years.

On three occasions in the past several years my cars have been towed by Berkeley Police Department using selective enforcement the timing of which coincided with major radiation disclosures I have made. Some would think they were related since the Berkeley Police Department "Red Squad" was actively killing the Free Speech Movement in the '60s and I have observed them covertly spying on demonstrations recently.

Leuren Moret Berkeley

I honestly do not think it would be wise to make any assertions about the subject without absolutely cast-iron sources (by which I mean top-rank newspapers and journals, which we can guarantee have not taken information about LM from random Internet sites, less reliable news articles or Misplaced Pages, without thoroughly fact-checking them before publication.) --Kateshortforbob _talk 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Apologies for the lengthy post; I must learn brevity!

I think you are correct. I did a lexis-nexis academic search on "Leuren Moret" limiting the search to major world publications, and got only 4 hits. Three were in articles about the documentary "Blowin' in the wind". In all news publications, there are 29 hits. I've checked about 1/3 of those, and I do not see what I would say is significant coverage in reliables sources about her--there are numerous passing mentions and quotes by her, and some of the standard blurbs "about the author" for things she has written. No hits in ISI Web of Science in author or topic, nor in Health Source. Google scholar does not find any article written by her in academic journals. So it appears to me that she is a pundit, with a sensationalist slant, who's been been quoted in a number of reliable sources. I'm not sure there would be any problem bringing it up at AFD again, the last round did not involve many editors, and the discussion was a bit limited. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference to a book which has its own Misplaced Pages article: Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, maybe this is the "cast-iron" source Kateshortforbob is looking for. Please do not bring up the article on AfD again as Mrs Moret clearly passes WP:GNG.

I have furthermore rewritten this stub, and I believe that for now every single assertion is backed by the references. I do contest the view that only "major world publications" are eligible as sources for WP articles: Tehran Times is perfectly suitable for issues concerning Iran. What I did not find yet are reliable sources saying that Moret's views are fringe. I'll be working on it later today. --Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's see exactly three mentions of Moret's name in the book you refer to looks like a trivial mention to me. Also, the article on the book doesn't establish its notability as far as I can see, just a couple of reviews in very minor publications. Oh, and the title of the article in the Tehran Times is "Globalists attempting to depopulate the world". So much for WP:RS. Why, exactly do you think she meets WP:GNG? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Because multiple, independent, reliable sources have printed in-depth coverage about her views. Whether or not you agree with the Tehran Times is entirely inconsequential, but even if we don't want to accept sources from the Axis of Evil there is still the Sydney Herald, the Daily News, and the book. --Pgallert (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The mention in the book is brief and trivial; it does not help establish notability. The story in the Sydney Herald uses her as a source for opinion; it's not a profile or a story about her; this does not establish notability. The Misplaced Pages article on the Tehran Times says that it calls itself "the voice of the Islamic Revolution". This doesn't sound reliable or neutral to me; it sounds fringe. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And one more, somewhat technical comment: As her biography is certainly not fringe, and her (admittedly odd) views are not covered in the article due to unavailability of reliable sources, I believe this is the wrong forum to discuss her BLP stub. --Pgallert (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What forum would you recommend? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

My recommendation would be some discussion about sources on the article's talk page, just to see if we can reach consensus, and ask for some more opinions, but my inclination is to bring it back up at AFD. No rush, but I'm not seeing sources that establish notability in the general sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There's not really a discussion developing on that talk page; the questions have been there since March. Maybe someone from this forum could offer an opinion there? --Pgallert (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend the Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard because the argument all seems to be about it. I'm not a regular here at FRINGE but I would assume that as long as a biography only states an individual's fringe opinion and does not make the transition to postulate that fringe as fact, then the biography itself is not fringe. Feel free to trout slap me if I'm wrong. --Pgallert (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• As it offers an opportunity to also ask the general question of how impartial a reliable source must be, I have posted two questions on Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Leuren_Moret. --Pgallert (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not feel'n the notability for an article, which is too bad as I think a bio on her would go a long way towards manageing some of the puffery in her author bios. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, someone has removed the notability tag I put on the article. I really think non-notable, and the WP bio is being used to promote this pseudoscience and conspiracy. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Three issues: notability, "fringiness", and reliability of sources

My own thought is that we have three different issues with this article, which should be addressed separately.

(1) Is Leuren Moret notable enough for an article? I think not; if someone who agrees wants to nominate the article for deletion and point me there, I'll show up.

(2) If she is notable (or in the interim while the deletion discussion goes on), is the fringe nature of her stances reflected reasonably in the article? Here, I think the article is in good shape. All facts seem correct, and are cited to sources. Puffery has been removed. The article refers to Moret's "crusade"; her specific fringe beliefs about the 2011 Japanese earthquake are stated, but clearly as opinion rather than fact. Do others agree?

(3) Are reliable sources used in establishing her notability, her opinions, her background? On this issue I'm not clear. Sure, the minutes from the Berkeley CEAC are unimpeachable. But the Tehran Times and a conspiracy-laden personal website are used to source some of Moret's quotations and public stances. I guess I'm okay with propaganda machines and fringe websites for sourcing what are clearly fringe claims; it's sort of like quoting a homeopathist about what a homeopathic remedy is supposed to do. But I'm not experienced enough with Misplaced Pages's general tolerance for such sources, and I'd definitely appreciate some others' thoughts here.

I know this noticeboard is only technically concerned with (2), but as Pgallert notes, talk page discussion has not progressed. Thoughts? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Vakkalagadda

This topic has many contradictory statements. This doesn't have any citation to prove that. Those statements were removed multiple times, but someone is adding those purposefully to damage the reputation of the other political party over there, thus providing some false information in Misplaced Pages(which is not acceptable). Wherever the citation needed is asked, please provide the appropriate citation, or else please remove those statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppinnam (talk • contribs) 01:46, 1 July 2011

Richard L. Thompson

Big rewrite by an IP, latest version has removed all sources and all mention of his book Forbidden Archeology. Hopefully this will be replaced as without it it clearly fails NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't time to look at it carefully but it looks as though Forbidden Archeology is back. 2 editors, one an IP spa. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, even the old version seems to be problematical -- I'm seeing little in the way of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- most of it seems to be unsourced, sourced to affiliated websites, or to material on Michael Cremo, rather than Thompson. But I'm not seeing any evidence to date that the new version is any improvement. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science

Back in 1981 Thompson wrote a book titled Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science (available online here. One of Thompson's followers is attempting to foist the following quote on us as a description of the book:

attractive quality of this book is that Thompson writes as a scientist about science with a clarity, accuracy, and objectivity that should engender respect both from scientists and from those whose religious persuasions are other than his own. . . . Scientists reading the book need not feel betrayed by Thompson, for he shows throughout both a respect and love for good science. Because he loves science, he is pained by its contradictions and seeks its intelligibility in a larger context...

On balance, I think this book is a very valuable addition to the current literature in science and religion. Thompson's choice of examples from science that seem to upset contemporary scientific paradigms is superb. They are all relevant. They are carefully explained and in one book. Many come from quite recent developments (including punctuated equilibrium model of evolution by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould) which I have not outlined in this review. These examples form test cases that must be applied to any philosophy of religion that claims adequacy to represent science. The process theologian or Thomist, for example, can examine how process philosophy or Thomism can handle the puzzles and anomalies arising in science that seem to discredit current scientific explanation, as well as compare the success of such philosophies with one derived from the Bhagavad-gita.

-- Henry, Granville C (1984). "book review: Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science". Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. 19 (3): 369–382. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I don't have access to the full review, and I have concerns -- both as to whether the above, heavily-ellipsised, passage is an accurate reflection of the review as a whole, and also whether the author is competent to evaluate the scientific (as opposed to philosophical or mathematical -- he's listed as "a Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College") merits of the work. Certainly citing discussion of "punctuated equilibrium model of evolution by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould" as a positive seems somewhat naive (at least in hindsight), given the pervasive creationist misrepresentation of their work. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Satoshi Kanazawa

There is currently controversy in the University of London surrounding this individual's publications. In these circumstances, when serious ethical questions have been raised and his scholarship placed in doubt, is it permissible to cite his work as a reliable source on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology overreach. Most EPs don't don't take such extreme positions but Kanazawa is one those in the extreme camp. As far as his camp of EP is concerned every Western Bourgeoisie bias can be explained by evolution. I can't speak for all his work but this latest article is definitly not reliable. The article was essentially a WP:SPS on his blog hosted on Psychology Today website. This did not go through any peer review process nor did an editor approve it before it was posted there. This why WP:SPS even when written by an expert in their field can be dubious for a source. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Creationist views on the Second Law of Thermodynamics

A new editor is inserting some rather strange claims from a reasonably prominent British creationist. The articles involved are:

• Objections to evolution‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andrew McIntosh (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the creationist in question)

The claim is:

McIntosh declares that decrease in entropy is generally possible, however there are nanomachines necessary to achieve for that effect, and he even tries to demonstrate it with examples that the chemical bonds between nucleotides require an extra free energy to take part in the process, an this extra energy can be provided in his view only by means of these molecular machines. He argues that if, for example, guanine and cytosine, i.e. nucleotides paired in DNA, would be placed in a Petri dish, they would refrain from bonding together as there is no machine (such as Molecular tweezer) to provide a free energy in a specific way to enable that bond to happen. Further on he points out that after living organism dies and these machines cease working, the DNA starts falling apart even while still being exposed to extra energy. Thus, he believes natural selection has no power to create new functional structures.<ref>McIntosh, A.C.: Functional Information and Entropy in living system, pp.115-126, Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering , Vol 87 of WIT Transactions on Ecology and the environment, Editor Brebbia C.A., WIT Press, 2006.</ref>

Discussion of McIntosh & the claim can be found at Talk:Objections to evolution#Add. "Too specific" or actual argument not welcome?. I'm concerned about adding such a claim without some sort of evaluation from mainstream science as to what the claim actually means, and whether it is credible (and/or merely making the commonplace seem miraculous). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 04:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you could go either way with this. The argument is spectacularly thin (once pulled apart DNA doesn't naturally put itself together again, therefore there's no evolution (eh? run that past me again), nanomachines just dropped in as a red herring). But maybe it is a typical statement of the creationist entropy-based argument and thus worth using in order to set out that argument (as far as you can call it an argument, but that's the case all the way through). There is already a crystal-clear statement linked to, showing that entropy is reversed in natural processes all the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The text appears to fail WP:UNDUE: Misplaced Pages does not attempt to expound every odd idea ever proposed. I wonder what "declares that decrease in entropy is generally possible" means: the laws of thermodynamics do not require anyone to make a declaration. If the interpretations of science presented in the quoted piece had any scientific standing there would be reliable sources with peer-reviewed discussions of the matter. Given that study of biology and medicine is based on evolutionary principles, WP:REDFLAG would require multiple and highly reliable sources to support a claim invented by a small number of people. If the claim is a well known "objection to evolution", a greatly reduced summary of the idea might be worth mentioning, but it is not Misplaced Pages's role to present such text (which is dressed and presented as if it were science), unless there are suitable scientific sources. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is worthless. WIT Press is a vanity press that charges authors 50 Euro a page to publish their work ]. I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry. It's basically just a slapdash rehash of irreducible complexity and complex information tripe interspersed with some irrelevant claptrap about the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, it's poorly sourced, and clearly not peer reviewed. As such, it violates WP:SELFPUB. Clearly not a source that meets WP guidelines in any way, shape or form, and not notable as well.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be please possible to enlist the three major fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry you have managed to find in that text? Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of weird that people who have nothing to do with termodynamics are providing "peer-review" for position of professor of thermodynamics. --Stephfo (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To summarize my position:

My problem is that evolutionists who posted the aledged objection to evolution on the second law of thermodynamics completely altered the argument and when I made already two versions of modification they are erasing it within minute and do not allow even for NPOV discussion to be raised. I'm convinced that the objection is manipulated to something else than what it really is and thus it is misleading the Misplaced Pages reader. It is very tricky case: group A, evolutionists, with opinion X, declares that their opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be still ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection.--Stephfo (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Vobisdu is clearly correct that this goes nowhere near meeting requirements for sourcing of factual information. The only quibble here is that this isn't an article about science (I think), but an article about "objections to evolution". About a non-scientific set of arguments. In the mid 19th century there were some scientific objections to evolution and even after that there were many unsettled questions, and some debates. Now, however, there are no longer any scientific objections to evolution. If the topic is encyclopedic at all, and I'm not 100% sure it is, then we have to use some of the non-scientific texts that object to evolution. A text like this, on the other hand, is arguably primary for this article. Can the whole article be written up entirely from non-involved sources. Is an argument only notable if it has hit the New York Times? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a primary source for an argument put out by one specific young earth creationist. If it's significant to the topic it should be possible to find discussion of it by reliable secondary sources which show it in the mainstream context required by weight policy. Without such sources, putting it in the article without context would give "equal validity" to a non-notable and essentially insignificant fringe view.
The editor promoting inclusion is apparently concerned that linking it from the Andrew McIntosh article is wrong as it doesn't give a specific rebuttal to McIntosh's tosh. Probably the best option is to remove all mention of this insignificant argument from both articles, unless a secondary source is found examining these specific claims from a majority viewpoint. . . dave souza, talk 21:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Add. "apparently ..." Not really: I'm disputing this article section because it clearly violates this WP policy (“Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”)- the article misrepresents the position of proponents of this argument and replaces it with a strawman. In the article devoted to A.McIntosh (Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds) there had been a hyperlink to this section (that I removed but it was already several times put back) thus creating false impression that this section should be expression of his position as creationist. That's why I propose to present the real position of proponents of this argument as stated above, properly sourced in their papers (the first refused version was sourced from BBC Radio Ulster) and not just its stripped version. If anybody feels that argument is wrong, it is possible to state it below that text with all the reasoning without the need to remove the text explaining creationist’s position (the section declares: “Creationists argue that” but it fails to present the full version of heir position).

The article "objections to evolution" obviously attempts to state that it is enlisting and possibly refuting objections raised against evolution. If one of the objection (namely “Violation of the second law of thermodynamics”) is regarded as not allowed to be presented as it is declared, then I believe the whole section should disappear because it is then presenting something else than argument itself and misleading the Misplaced Pages reader, creating false notion about argument raised and even possibly unethically damaging the reputation of a person by twisting his position (WP:V“Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people”). I do not care whether creationists are right or wrong, or if someone is able to refute their claims or not, but if someone atributes some opinion to them, then this opinion should be of theirs, and not replaced by something else.--Stephfo (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Flavio Gioia

In researching my paternal blood line I came upon your article about a Flavio Gioia Italian mariner and navigator reputed to have perfected the magnetic compass. While I am unsure of this mans contributions in maritime navigational instruments; there is no doubt in my mind the man Flavio Gioia existed. It would be a difficult pill for anyone to swallow when being told by some neophyte that ones ancestor is simply a figment of their familial imaginations! Flavio Gioia's decendants come from a long line of the Gioia family; which includes Di Gaetano and Bologna blood. My paternal grandmother Concetta Bologna ni Di Gaetano was a Gioia on her mothers side and consistently spoke about Flavio as a distant maternal relative. Certainly; the Gioia name is a prominant Italian Amercican surename of whom many I have met. Therefore; it seems obvious that such a man going by the name of Flavio Gioia existed. As to whether or not he actually had anything to do with perfecting the magnetic compass I am unsure of; and so seems the case with historians as well because they obviously cannot make up their minds as to whether or not such a man existed. Perhaps they should speak with contemporary Gioia family members to put this matter to rest once and for all?

Sincerely Yours

James J. Bologna part Di Gaetano; part Gioia; part Kelly; part Baer!

Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages articles need to be based on published reliable sources, rather than the testimony of descendants. I suggest that you would be best advised to direct your attempts to get your ancestor's role recognised elsewhere - Misplaced Pages doesn't do research, we report that done by others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Objections to evolution

Just putting the board on notice that on Objections to evolution User:Stephfo has been WP:POINTY and has probably crossed 3RR at this point (I would do the report myself but I really hate putting together 3RR cases) as both his username and User:88.88.83.52. He appears to be a creationist attempting to push his POV and if you check out the talk page I think you'll see immediately why I'm bringing it here for attention. I'm also not quite willing to make the accusation, but his writing style is reminding me of someone else, I'll wait and see if anyone else picks up on that before I mention any names. Nformation 01:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is actually directly tied to the to the postings two topics above this. It should probably be combined.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ages in Chaos

Ages in Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I got involved in this article a couple of years back, but had forgotten it until it came up on my watchlist. The article is mostly a recap of the author's, Immanuel Velikovsky's, claims with only a tiny section on the end, mentioning the complete evisceration of these claims. Also, as another editor pointed out, most of this section is criticism of Velikovsky's claims generally, rather than specific criticism of this book. I am therefore going to nominate the article for merger into the author's article. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ley line and Earth mysteries

I have proposed merger of the two above articles which have so much overlap there is little point in keeping them separate. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Gus W. Weiss

Gus W. Weiss (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New article on a possibly-notable individual suffers from a lack of proper sourcing. The citations currently in use include rense.com, Alex Constantine's 911review.org and SciForums.com...beyond that it's a paid NYT obit and a primary source from the CIA. Fringey stuff, and it needs a good look.

I'm headed out the door, so I can't perform due diligence. Hopefully some of you will be willing to check in on this article. — Scientizzle 20:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't know why it was written using fringe sourcing, there seems to be a number of legit news mentions for a bio. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rense.com should never be used as a source except in a very limited way at Rense.com. Not so long ago I deleted all such links from Misplaced Pages. I'll happily do the same at this article. Should we consider putting it on the blacklist? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted all the sources save one from the article because they were all clearly worthless sources. The one source I left is an article of some sort by Weiss hosted on the CIA's website, but there is no indication of where the article was originally published or why it's on the CIA's site. The whole thing needs careful verification and may be a candidate for deletion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work, everyone...the article is much improved! — Scientizzle 15:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

UFO Phil

Would someone be able to take a look at the UFO Phil article? Practically everything that has been written about this guy (from his own website to newspaper articles) is tongue-in-cheek, but the article presents too many of his claims as facts. I highly doubt that he was actually born in Roswell, for example. I'm not even sure if Phil Hill is his real name.

This is probably more of an "in-universe" issue than a fringe theories issue, but I figured this would be the best place to ask for assistance. Zagalejo^^^ 02:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think saying he was "reportedly" born in Roswell is appropriate, especially if there are only one or two "news of the weird" references to support that statement. Other than that, the article suffers from WP:CITEKILL, e.g. 14 citations for a single sentence (he plans to build a pyramid). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The guy seems to be a tongue-in-cheek self-promoting UFO enthusiast who has made enough noise and acted weird in public enough to get some equally tongue-in-cheek local coverage that was picked up by other papers and stations for their weekly "news of the weird" feature. I honestly question whether there's notability here. It looks to me like he's trying to logroll that coverage into a Misplaced Pages article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

There seem to be renewed problems on this page and the associated article Criticism of evolutionary psychology. This relatively new subject is not universally accepted and there have been a series of critiques of certain aspects of the theory. Some of these for example were summarised in an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Stephen Downes here. Since the topic area is controversial, I am posting here, because of a loose relation of some aspects of the subject with fringe science. It would be good if more eyes could look at what appear to be attempts to rewrite the article so that readers get the impression that all criticisms might have been invalidated. My own feeling is that it is inappropriate for wikipedia editors to use primary sources to make arguments for or against the different facets of this subject: the area is far from being black and white. Some aspects of the theory are not controversial, whereas others are. At present there seems to be a mismatch between the two wikipedia articles and the Stanford article: that seems to be a problem. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A subject with thousands of peer-reviewed articles, including in major psychology journals, if of course not fringe.Miradre (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that—as described for example in the survey article by Downes—there is "a loose relation of some aspects of the subject with fringe science." That makes this the most appropriate noticeboard for a general discussion. (Miradre is by the way one of the editors involved in the latest round of revisions to the articles.) Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we could usefully discuss how to categorise it. It isn't "obvious pseudoscience", that much is clear. It might, like psychoanalysis, come into the category of "questionable science". Or perhaps it is an "alternative theoretical formulation", or perhaps just mainstream science.

Personally, I think I can distinguish a weak EP, which anyone who accepts Darwinian evolution would agree with, and a strong EP, which seems to put barriers round itself. If I suddenly feel very hungry at 7 o'clock this evening, and start to eat, that's because I'm an ape that has evolved to eat at certain times of day. (Weak EP claim.) If I eat fish and chips, and refuse to eat snails, that's cultural. (A "snail-eating gene" would be a strong EP claim.) But I don't know if that helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a good illustration of why the words "certain aspects of EP" are used and why there are no black and white arguments. Since that can be read in independent surveys, e.g. the one above, that should be reflected in the articles. Mathsci (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC) As a Brit living in France, I couldn't possibly comment on the food aspects... although I occasionally have the uneasy feeling that after a decade in France I have undergone a slight mutation — I ate tripes provencales in December.

I've actually eaten snails often enough to know that the only nice thing about them is the garlic and parsley butter. I draw the line at tripe, even a la mode de Caen. I think the French find the concept of fish and chips fundamentally flawed - two fried foods together, and they have a point. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is arguing that there are no criticisms. We have a whole article on the subject. Does not mean it is "fringe". I quote a 2010 review in American Psychologist: "Evolutionary psychology has emerged over the past 15 years as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science."DOI: 10.1037/a0018413 Miradre (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion here is not about whether this subject is fringe or not. The discussion is about the problem of the articles being rewritten so that a reader of wikipedia might go away with the impression that all criticisms have been dismissed. Mathsci (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Miradre seems to have a particular view that he/she is wanting to push. Deleting the lead on the criticism page boarders on vandalism and in the past 48hrs major revisions have been made to make an EP biased article even more so. Some additional help on that page would be appreciated.

I will also note that I respectfully disagree about distinguishing between 'weak' and 'strong' EP when the textbooks on evolutionary psychology do not make that distinction. The textbooks on EP come with all sorts of assumptions about how the mind works - that's where the critics take issue. 'Weak EP', in my mind, is nothing more than psychologists applying evolutionary thinking to psychology. In that way, it is no different from the work of Freud, Bowlby, or even Skinner. Evolutionary psychology means something different and I think we are doing the reader a huge disservice by confusing the potential meaning of EP. By doing so, we are potentially setting up a situation where the criticisms become impotent, since EP is no longer described as being committed to any core set of theoretical assumptions. This is not how evolutionary psychology is seen by proponents within that field. The textbooks in evolutionary psychology are very clear about how their field defines the mind: as innately pre-specified, domain-specific information-processing mechanisms, that originated in the Pleistocene due to their having served a specific adaptive function. This is the evolutionary psychology that critics attack. The EP textbooks do not make other distinctions - why should we? Logic prevails (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that in mainspace it is imperative to follow the definitions used in the scholarly debate. I only offered the distinction as a possible guide to our discussion. Psychology that recognises evolution, one kettle of fish; Evolutionary Psychology in caps, another kettle of snails. We are only talking about the latter. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems that the regular anti-EP who hang out at the article are commenting. However, this is clearly not the correct forum. EP, as a major research area in psychology with thousands of peer-reviewed articles, including in major psychology journals, and a steadly increasing influence, see above for source, is clearly not a "fringe theory".Miradre (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems like you want to label people pro and anti EP. Of course it is OK to raise the question here of how we should categorise EP. Anyway, let's hope we get some uninvolved comments now. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Miradre - Phrenology had just as much enthusiasm and peer-reviewed support in its day. We all know how that turned out. Logic prevails (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Phrenlology of course never had thousands of peer-reviewed articles published. Including in major psychological journals. I again quote a 2010 review in American Psychologist: "Evolutionary psychology has emerged over the past 15 years as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science." Miradre (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Only because Phrenology predates the proliferation of academic journals in the way that we have today. What they did have was overwhelming peer-reviewed support. It was very much held in high regard in its day. Also keep in mind what the word 'peer' really means here - other evolutionary psychologists. Logic prevails (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make a general dispute regarding peer-review in science, then this is the wrong forum and your task looks difficult indeed. Phrenology would of course never have been able to make correct predictions confirmed by empirical experiments unlike evolutionary psychology. Again, evolutionary psychology has thousands of peer-reviewed articles. Including in major, general psychology journals.Miradre (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be some misunderstandings about phrenology here. It was an important part of the development of psychiatry and neuroscience, most of its basic premises have been vindicated, but some aspects were rightly disputed and ridiculed. It also became embroiled in crankery and pseudoscience. Evolutionary psychology may have similar success in the long run, in the meantime we have to show significant viewpoints including disputes or criticisms. . dave souza, talk 20:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution