Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 28 July 2017

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 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Gary Renard

Gary Renard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notable enough for a WP:FRINGEBLP? WP:AUTHOR? WP:GNG? Do we yet know who in the vast WP:Walled Garden of A Course in Miracles community is notable and who isn't? How do we decide? (At least Wayne Dyer did a huge number of PBS specials). jps (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

jps (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination). jps (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Related: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/3 Magic Words]. jps (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with some tedious arguments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (3rd nomination). In particular, there is a weird claim right now that the section to which WP:FRINGEBLP links doesn't apply to people is too tiresome to deal with. That and categories. Categories mean that the biography is notable. Looking at the editing history of Softlavender (talk · contribs), I am curious as to whether there is some sort of vested interest in New Age self-helpdom. Perhaps Oprah-inspired. jps (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Good grief, that's not what I said at all, as anyone can see. I have repeatedly said that the two topics that Gary Renard has written four books on, A Course in Miracles and New Thought, both have wide coverage on Misplaced Pages, including their own navboxes (Template:A Course in Miracles, Template:NewThought) and Categories (Category:A Course in Miracles, Category:New Thought). I have only said those things because you keep bringing up WP:NFRINGE, when the relevant guidelines are WP:NAUTHOR (which he easily meets, as detailed in the AfD) and WP:FRINGEBLP. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you not see where WP:FRINGEBLP links to WP:NFRINGE? I've tried to explain this to you, but you seem to ignore this. jps (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Haven't paid much attention to this but BLPFRINGE says "notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person" (mirroring WP:GNG). Independence would be the issue: has this person received decent coverage in RS outside the fringe spiritual milieu? There are plenty of examples of "walled gardens" where clusters of participants write about each other (in Theosophy, ufology, altmed, etc.) Alexbrn (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly this. When the ace in the hole is, "Oh, Wayne Dyer mentioned this person, so a biography is perfectly encyclopedic", you begin to think that there may not be a lot out there which is beyond the "do you believe in magic?" community patting each other on the back. jps (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course it is linked from that, but even the topics he (the author that easily meets WP:NAUTHOR) writes on greatly surpass that and are massively notable by Misplaced Pages standards, as I've said numerous times, so that's moot in itself. Softlavender (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The topics one writes on are not what makes one notable. If I write a book on ACIM or New Thought that rises to #12 on a sub-subsection of Amazon lists, that does not automatically make me notable. However, that is basically your argument and when I point out what Alexbrn is trying to say you reply with a repetition of the same strawman point. jps (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I never said the topics he writes on makes him notable. I've said he meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is of course (this is a general reply, so not indented as a reply to one user) one of the peculiarities of our concept of notability, a book can be more notable then the author (and yes I have even created just such a page). It seems a bit counter intuitive, but it is how Misplaced Pages functions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree on that point, and have dealt with self-generated author pages that had to go whereas their self-generated article on their book turned out to be notable once we got the author's hands off the article (he got blocked a few times) and re-wrote it. However, in this case, Renard's notability is independent of his first book. That's not to say the book would not meet notability as well; I'm pretty sure there used to be a wiki article on it at one point but somewhere along the line it got deleted (I vaguely recall the article being very crappily written). Softlavender (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have said what I have to say on his notability on the AFD page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Closed as No Consensus. Sigh. jps (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hah, and I didn't bother to !vote because I thought this was obvious for deletion. Dontcha love Misplaced Pages!? Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Look at the bright side: We got a nice MP reference out of it.

Give it a month or two and try again. It's fairly obvious there's no real consensus to keep this, but I don't blame Ritchie for a second, given the way the discussion went off the reservation and never really came back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What is an MP reference? Roxy the dog. bark 18:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Old school comedy gold. (MP stands for Monty Python.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen a deletion discussion that lopsided in favor of delete be ruled "no consensus" before. I guess I could ask for a WP:DRV. If the closer would just look at the arguments in the AfD it would be clear that they ran along the lines of A:Here's a lot of sources. B: None of them are usable according to WP:FRIND, WP:RS, etc. A: Yes they are! B: Explain. A: (silence). Isn't that a fair summary of the discussion? jps (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a good summary up until the end. Replace "(silence)" with "(makes accusations of bad behavior and everyone starts discussing that, instead, including that handsome hammer fellow.)" and it would be perfect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(pinged) A delete close would have been possible as well but Ritchie's analysis that the discussion has deteriorated into a shouting match due to accusations of canvassing along the lines of MjolnirPants' comment above is accurate and thus it's reasonable to close this as no consensus at this point simply because despite the relist further discussion about the subject did not happen. As MjolnirPants notes above, give it 1-2 months and nominate it again. I don't see a DRV as helpful here. Regards SoWhy 06:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much my closing rationale in a nutshell. Ritchie333 07:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this represents a breakdown of analytical capabilities. The WP:ONUS is on those who believe that compliant sources for article exist. That simple standard was not met. jps (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2017 July 28#Gary Renard. jps (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually what WP:ONUS says is "just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean you should put it in an article". It's for things like this. I think we've heard your views loud and clear now jps, time for somebody else to put their 2c in. Ritchie333 10:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like all the people "heard" my voice as self-published and vanity-published books are still being touted as "sources" at the DRV. It would be nice if Misplaced Pages powers-that-be would deal substantively with the actionable policy/guideline points made by the discussants (and note that the reason to exclude the content from the article is because the sources are problematic -- exclusion of all content from an article implies deletion). jps (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we please leave it now, the AFD is over the decision was keep.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. The decision was "no consensus" and there is currently a DRV. jps (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Canada's Stonehenge

Canada's Stonehenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - looks like either WP:ARTSPAM or WP:BOOKSPAM (love the bit of text " says Freeman, a laughing, vigorous 78" which is copied from the source. The site is actually known as the "Majorville medicine wheel" or "Majorville cairn" although fringe sources refer to as the Alberta Sun Temple. We need an article for the medicine wheel. No we don't, while writing this I've done a stub for Majorville Cairn and Medicine Wheel site. The book article is notable but clearly pov. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you could probably nominate this one for an AfD. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not at all notable unless and until the author starts defending us from invading aliens by flinging random pieces of debris at them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Squatty Potty

• Squatty Potty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Uncritically relayed the health claims of the company. I've pecked at this a bit but there seems to be a lack of mainstream coverage with the exception of something from Skeptoid. Is Skeptoid useful per WP:PARITY I wonder. Alexbrn (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There definitely is mainstream coverage of this product: E.g. , . There are some good critical tidbits to be found in those pieces. jps (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The coverage, such as it is, appears to be mostly amusement - at least to my eye. The article itself smacks of WP:PROMO, and I'm not convinced it needs to be in the encyclopedia. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 16:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Nearly a decade ago, now, I had a conversation with User:DGG about what the biggest pitfall with Misplaced Pages was and he said that the problem was it didn't fork -- which is to say that serious scientific/math articles go in one project, popular culture in another, etc. I think no serious desk reference would ever consider the Squatty Potty encyclopedic, but at Misplaced Pages there is a community of editors who writes articles on just about every product that they see in the media. This is especially true in areas such as video games, media, and (most notoriously) Pokemon, but it necessarily causes consternation when there are claims that we as WP:FTN regulars need to monitor. My feeling is that we as WP:FTN regulars do our best to delete articles where WP:FRINGE is most clearly violated (or where, perhaps, other WP:N problems are seen) and make sure that uncritical WP:REDFLAGs don't go uncritically included in articlespace. Apart from that, I don't think we can get Misplaced Pages to be reimagined to avoid eye-rolling issues like this one. jps (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, the article is largely the result of WP:PAID editing too. IME it's no good trying to get things deleted if there's so much as a sniff of coverage, no matter how shit the quality. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

To the list of video games, media, and (most notoriously) Pokemon, provided by jps, I would like to add 'Wrestling in the USA'. Those guys have edit wars. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not think it is a fringe or even an unusual health claim that many people find it easier to defecate in a squatting position. I've noticed toilets of different heights. and a variety of devices. The problem here is different: this is a pure advertisement, and I've tagged it accordingly.

As for forking, what I suggested was a "Wikipedia2," which included all the contents of our familiar WP, and in addition content that did not require WP:N but only WP:V and NPOV, For some purposes I think people would use one, for some purposes the other. It could of course be said that Wikia does fairly well at this--and even that the improved state of Google as compared to ten years ago also meets the need. The advantage of this at the current time would be moving out 1/4 of our content, but the disadvantage would be using the Misplaced Pages name for it, which would dilute our reputation. And if we used a different name, COI people would still want to be in the regular WP.

But I do not think it correct to say for even wrestling, let alone products, that we accept everything. About half the articles on commercial products end up deleted, as do a substantial number of wrestling articles. Even many of the Pokemon articles that were here 10 years ago have been since merged. If what we have here bothers you, you need to look more often at the New Pages feed and see what gets submitted, or participate as an OTRS volunteer, and see the stuff that people ask to have included. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it should, at best, just be merged into squat toilet -- MacAddct1984 14:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• The unicorn ad might be notable enough for its own article, but I strongly suspect the product it advertised is not. I'd merge into squat toilet as well. Notice my herculean restraint in not making any "this is a shitty article" or "this doesn't pass the sniff test" comments. It wasn't easy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Links between "The Trump Dossier" and the "Trump Jr Meeting"

There seems to be a modest effort to retrospectively link Fusion GPS (the opposition-research firm which was hired by both Democrats and Republicans prior to the 2016 US Election) with Rinat Akhmetshin(a Russian lawyer who allegedly met with Donald Trump Jr in summer of 2016). This seems to be a conspiracy theory born in the last 2 weeks. I've found some reliable sources that attest to the fact that Senator Chuck Grassley has made Justice Department complaint against the company, but no reliable, independent reporting that links the company with the Russian lawyer. I expect this to heat up very soon. --Salimfadhley (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Flying ointment

Not sure if this is the best forum, but there seems to be quite a bit of OR regarding this article about a witchcraft-related subject going on. I've been poking through adding tags and cleaning things up, but there's quite a few problems. A lot of it is MOS type stuff, but I'm sure some regulars here could help with that, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Theory of The Month: Morse Code on Mars

http://www.disclose.tv/news/morse_code_on_mars_photos_showing_a_series_of_strange_patterns/132976

"...just a story conjured up by NASA to divert our attention from the truth... From the very start we are taught (brainwashed) that there is a molten core in the centre of earth, but the reality could be something else that NASA or the concerned authorities do not want us to know as it will shake our belief in God and religion and there will be an uprising which certain powers would not like." --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Guy, but I got there ahead of you. Dr. K. 04:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

NEE NED ZB 6TNN DEIBEDH SIEFI EBEEE SSIEI ESEE SEEE!! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There you are. Not difficult to speak Martian, is it? Dr. K. 05:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a cookbook! - Nunh-huh 05:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course! Dr. K. 06:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Klaatu barada nikto - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a melody. - Location (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

One thing I know for sure. After this, we can safely close this noticeboard. Any other fringe theory will look plausible by comparison. Dr. K. 17:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Even more than this gem I came across the other day? (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that this is a parody, but Poe's Law is hard to shake). jps (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol. I know, fringe theories is a pretty vast field. Perhaps, there's still work to be done here after all. Keep up the good work jps. Nice talking to you after such a long time. :) Dr. K. 18:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Fringe mathematical theory?

In my opinion, Talk:0.999...#Request for comment: Which version neutrally summarizes the cited sources with appropriate weight? is a blatant attempt to give the fringe theory that 0.999… does not equal 1 undue weight. I would appreciate more eyes on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to the assertion here, it is not a "blatant attempt to give the fringe theory ... undue weight". Instead, it is an attempt to point out that the first two "proofs" fall well short of being mathematically valid demonstrations of the fact. The actual proof that ${\displaystyle 0.999...=1}$ requires using the completeness property of the real number system, and cannot simply be proven by facile algebraic manipulation. Furthermore, this is precisely the context in which these proofs are discussed in reliable sources. Obviously, more eyes would be appreciated. But this request seems prejudicial, and completely misstates the intent of the supposed "blatant attempt". Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały is unquestionably wrong in this case. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Instead, it is an attempt to point out that the first two "proofs" fall well short of being mathematically valid demonstrations of the fact. If they are not rigorous, please show how they are not (I have, in the past, been presented with exactly those by qualified mathematicians and told in no uncertain terms that they are indeed proofs in the most formal sense). I have read the section and I do not see where you have presented any conditions under which an equation formed from the stated proofs could be shown to be false. Neither the discussion at talk nor the section cites any sources, so I cannot understand why you are making statements about what "the sources" say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me just preface this by saying that "the real numbers 0.999... and 1 are equal" is unquestionably true, and the idea that I am intending to promote a fringe theory is frankly laughable. Part of your post answers itself: a discussion that cites no sources is problematic for other reasons. But there are sources cited in footnote 1 of the Discussion section. They are easy to miss, and indeed the whole section itself is a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV for this reason. I'll remind you that contentious material is required to be supported by direct citations under policy. In any case, my proposed edit actually does include citations to the sources on which the section under discussion is actually based (see the statement of the RfC, where the edit includes sources for every statement (I use Harvard references)). It includes direct quotations to the sources, and overall summarizes what those sources have to say, contrary to the status quo revision. Regarding the validity of the proofs, I have explained in great detail on the talk page the sense in which these algebraic proofs are valid and the sense in which they are not valid. The concluding paragraph of that summary states: "Accordingly, all of these algebraic proofs are actually perfectly valid in the s-interpretation, but are subtly fallacious in the d-interpretation. To be sure, the s-interpretation is the one that is standard in mathematics, so indeed the proofs are not quite wrong. But they are deceptive, because they have the great potential to mislead the reader into thinking that we have used a property that d lacks (homomorphismhood), when the argument promptly establishes that the opposite is true." So it's not quite a binary valid/invalid judgement; it's a question of what the proofs actually mean. The s-interpretation is the correct one (which is why professional mathematicians may say that it is a correct argument, but will also doubtless acknowledge the proof to be incomplete – as others do below – because the ${\displaystyle 9\times 0.111...=0.999...}$ is a topological statement about the real number system that itself requires justification), but the d-interpretation is by far the one that is more common in those who have not studied real analysis at the undergraduate level (which includes most non-math majors), according to sources in the pedagogy literature (in particular Byers, but also Peressini and Peressini, who are less detailed). This is exacerbated by the failure of the article to define the notation "0.999..." properly until after the identity has been proven, and then only in a very implicit way that is easy to miss. (Yes, yes, we say it's a real number, but probably most of our readers will think they know what this means, but actually do not.) So the structure of the lead and first proofs has the effect of tricking the most likely readers of the article into believing a false proof. To give an analogy, I could write a correct statement that mathematicians would agree on, but using the word "triangle" to mean hyperbolic triangle: e.g., "There exists a triangle the sum of whose interior angles equals ${\displaystyle 14^{\circ }}$". The proof that is understood by a reader without this context would then very likely be a false one, even if those that know the context understand a true proof. Furthermore, the falsity of that proof is a rather subtle thing to notice. Speaking from experience, more than half of all freshman mathematics errors are believing that something is a homomorphism when it isn't (e.g., ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {a+b}}={\sqrt {a}}+{\sqrt {b}}}$.) So not only do readers now apparently believe a false proof, but one of the standard errors they are likely to make elsewhere has inadvertently been reinforced. Furthermore, they rail against the wrongness of their interpretation of the equation ${\displaystyle 1=0.999...}$, because they do not realize that there is a difference between a real number and its decimal representation. And they are right to be skeptical! Indeed, under their interpretation of things, the identity is a false one, because they do not know what a real number is. That urgently needs to be corrected. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• These are indeed non-rigorous proofs, and thus strictly non-proofs, as there is, for instance, no rule in elementary maritmetics that 9*0.111... = 0.999... or 9+0.999... = 9.999... or 10*0.999... = 9.999... for the simple reason that 0.999... is—in that context—not a well defined number. The real numbers must have been introduced for that. When the integers and the rationals are introduced and available, we can indeed write 9*0.111 = 0.999 and 9+0.999 = 9.999 and 10*0.999 = 9.990—all without the dots. Just read 0.999...#Algebraic proofs. It says: "However, these proofs are incomplete or not rigorous, as they do not include a clear definition of 0.999… and of the operations that are allowed on such a notation." A source is given in 0.999...#Discussion and referred to in the talk page discussion. No fringe is being pushed here. On the contrary: precision is being pushed. This incident should be closed. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

After an edit conflict, I contest the claims that

• "0.999… does not equal 1" is a fringe theory within several number systems. It is just simply false within the reals and their usual decimal representation, but holds within these systems. Mentioning this fact might even ease the acceptance of equality within the reals.
• being "unquestionably wrong" could ever be a valid argument within this context
• the unimproved versions of what are called "Algebraic proofs" in the challenged wording resemble in even the slightest way even a sketch of a formal proof. To the contrary, the given statements look like intentionally hiding the inherent difficulties in establishing the equality within the real numbers
• there are "no cited sources".

For the purpose of confirming my claims, please, have a look here. Purgy (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in the RFC discussion is disputing that 0.999... = 1 in the real numbers or that a rigorous mathematical proof of this fact exists. The discussion is around whether and to what extent the non-rigorous proofs/motivations/explanations/arguments/demonstrations in the "Algebraic proofs" section of the article should be qualified. Not an FTN issue in my opinion. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think I'm seeing the problem here. First off, I think those supporting the proposed change should be aware that there is a fringe group of people who contend that 0.999... != 1. I've encountered them before, in real life and on the internet, and they are frighteningly passionate about their belief (as many fringe proponents are).It's not clear, based on the arguments here, that you all are aware of that. Hell, it's the reason we have the article.

The second thing is that those of you supporting the proposed change should consider taking a step back and trying to read it from the perspective of the average person. The proposed change really does look like it's trying to undermine the proofs, even though that's not its intention. Many, many people will stop reading after the first sentence of an explanatory paragraph, if they think that sentence sums it up. The proposal truly, honestly looks like it's working to undermine the proofs shown above it. It looks like a POV push.

Sławomir Biały, your argument about credentials does nothing to help, as you critique what you believe to be the credentials of others without offering any evidence (or even claims, as of my last reading) of your own. That is not an argumentation tactic that suggests that you have any credentials, indeed quite the opposite. It suggests that you're unwilling to lie directly about having credentials out of a fear of being called out, but simultaneously unwilling to concede the point that you lack any credentials. I'm not saying that you don't have any such credentials because I don't know, but I can tell you quite clearly that if I had to take a guess based only on your arguments there, it would be "Hell no". To be honest, I am a bit reluctant to say this because I have otherwise found you to be an excellent editor. I'm not critiquing you or your credentials, mind. Just the argument as you made it in that thread.

I strongly suggest you ignore the issue of credentials entirely and understand that the purpose of the article is to inform those who are, by definition, lacking mathematical credentials. Indeed, credentials could well be a hindrance for the editor attempting to write that or any other highly-technical article with a broad base of interest.

So my advice is to not be pedantic about it. The examples given are a shorthand for the actual proofs, which use the same basic logic described, but do so in a more rigorous way (to be fair, the experts who have shown me those proofs did include a caveat to that effect, though they were insistent that they are legitimate and formal proofs). Consider the proofs given as a brief summary of the more rigorous proofs, and treat it like that as you draft a new one. I accept without reservation that no-one is contenting that 0.999... != 1, but I also have to back up Guy completely; the proposed text looks like a fringe POV-push. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect MPants, the credentials issue has been kept alive by a single editor at the discussion page, who first raised the issue, and (until his latest comment) appears to continue to believe that it is relevant. I have told him to drop it, and so far he has. But since you now seem to demand an unambiguous statement: I have a PhD in mathematics from a major international research university and have held appointments at major universities as well, including a temporary appointment at any American Ivy League university. I have more than a decade of experience teaching calculus and mathematical analysis to undergraduates from diverse backgrounds. I would be more than happy to affirm this by OTRS if you really need to be convinced. Other editors, whose mathematical credentials are hopefully beyond question, have supported my revisions to the article. In any case, the credentials issue is not and should not be the focus of the discussion. The credentials issue is only relevant, however, because it is frustrating that so many editors lack the background to have a meaningful discussion in the first place (but seem to think that they do have that background). I suppose that it should be easy to predict that, if 99% of what I write is "math" (and thus not something that people read), the other 1% gets inappropriately cast as the substance of the discussion. But please, let's focus on the substance instead of shooting the messenger.

Yes, I am aware that there is a fringe group that believe very strongly that ${\displaystyle 0.999...\not =1}$. I contend that whether our readers believe this is beside the point. They may either take our word for it (or rather, that of reliable sources) or not. That's already covered by WP:V. Belief isn't required; just verifiability. We aren't under any obligation to convince the reader of anything. Usually mathematics articles on Misplaced Pages do not even include proofs, those being easily found in the secondary literature. Furthermore, the fact itself ${\displaystyle 0.999...=1}$ is not even mathematically important!

The problem with the first two proofs in the article is not merely that they lack some formal details, but otherwise provide some intuition why the result should be true. Indeed, not only do the proofs lack formal detail, but they actually mislead their presumptive target audience. The sources Peresinni and Peresinni, and Byers, tell us that the sources provide no intuition for why the result is true. Byers says that even a student who is convinced by the algebraic proofs, but fails to grasp this underlying issue, fails to understand the equation at all. Indeed, the proofs are not merely lacking some formal details: a complete restructuring of the concept of "number" is required. What I see is the systematic efforts to minimize this in the article and its talk page, in the name of making what is a genuinely difficult concept "accessible" (by failing to explain that concept at all), and I am disappointed to see this being further bolstered by outside opinions (who weirdly persist in continuing the inquest over my "credentials", as if there were some serious doubt of my competence in this area).

Regarding the issue that " Many, many people will stop reading after the first sentence of an explanatory paragraph, if they think that sentence sums it up." this is actually a good point. I have modified the first sentence of the first paragraph to clarify its meaning. (In addition, I incorporated another suggestion that I inferred from Arthur Rubin's comment, but he has so far not responded). Does this satisfy your objections? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding credentials, once again; I am not making any statements about your credentials, but about the way you argued about credentials. It was a poor debate tactic with significant subtext that did not reflect well upon you. Whether or not you have credentials, whether or not you are right, and whether or not you understand the subject of both being credentialed and of mathematics is immaterial. I don't have a problem accepting that you have a respectable expertise in the subject, as your proposed text seems focused on the minutiae in a way that a person lacking any expertise would not write about.

My point is that the problem is not with what you proposed we say, but rather how you have proposed we say it. In all of Guy's comments, he has clearly stated that it is the appearance of a fringe POV-push that he objects to. I wholeheartedly concur with this assessment.

The diff you provided in this last comment seems to be a very good move towards addressing that. I would, however, replace the word "valid" with the word "rigorous", as to the uninitiated, the word "valid" implies "accurate," while the word "rigorous" does not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of how Introduction to general relativity was created in order to forestall problems with imprecise language that is almost certainly required to begin teaching the topic of general relativity which is, as an article, impenetrable to those without serious physics and mathematics chops. Similar things could be done here, perhaps. jps (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to do that; deniers of GR (yes, they exist) are a small and relatively unvocal group. Deniers of 0.999... = 1 are disproportionately vocal, and any regular on physics or mathematics forums can attest to their dogged perseverance. Putting very politically worded phrasing in an Introduction to why 0.999... = 1 article, and more formally but less self-aware wording in a more advanced article would just fuel their arguing. "See? The more technical Misplaced Pages articles says those proofs aren't fully complete! It's only the baby article that agrees with you, man!" (imagine that being said in Thomas Chong voice). But to be fair, there is the argument to be made that it's not incumbent upon us to undermine the conspiracy theorists; just to be as accurate and neutral as possible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I inhabit realms where GR deniers can easily be found and they absolutely dismiss the baby article in favor of their twisted reinterpretations of the "more technical" article. That's not Misplaced Pages's fault, however. jps (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think we have invited thus on ourselves by patronizing the reader. It is perfectly ok for a reader to say "I don't understand." Quite simply, there are some topics that the average reader will not understand properly. But what we've done is no doubt lulled many readers into a false sense that they do understand. The algebraic "proof", which seems so straightforward and simple, appears to be quite easy. Furthermore, it is not difficult to see that a wrong understanding of the proof leads immediately to a paradox, and the article as currently written does its very best to avoid correcting that wrong understanding in a coherent way. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You mean, lulling them into a true sense of security? Most readers will accept the simple proof, and then the more rigorous treatment for those who have studied (or are studying analysis. Topics need to be pitched at an appropriate level. If the reader wants more information, they can drill don't into increasingly complex articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This misses the point. The algebraic proofs are not easier to understand than the proofs that appear later in the article; they only seem to be. Acceptance of the simple proof by a reader without any knowledge of mathematical analysis has nothing to do with understanding of the topic. We have no obligation to convince such a reader of anything, and these proofs should not be convincing to such a reader anyway. Skepticism of arguments like these is actually more important than blind acceptance. If a reader wants to understand why 0.999... and 1 are equal real numbers, they need to know what a real number is. That is the substance of the proof, not the facile algebraic manipulations. If you want to make the subject understandable to a broad audience, don't include an argument that deliberately obscures the most important aspects and claim that it explains the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of our maths articles (and quite a lot of hard science ones) are unpalatable to a general audience because they have been edited over a number of years into a state using arguments like the above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

My point is that if we want readers to understand the subject, then we should convey an understanding of the subject. It needs to be explained. The proof under discussion completely fails to do that. Its only purpose is to convince the reader (by misleading them). But not only is "convincing" the reader not part of WP:V, but misleading the reader is actively against one or more of our policies (WP:NPOV, for one). If the proof has any merit whatsoever, it is as a teaching moment: here is this proof, here is why it is unsatisfactory. Does that make sense? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that this discussion has strayed sufficiently off-topic for this board. Perhaps to bring it back around a bit: it is clear that there is a risk of propagating misunderstandings/fringe theories regardless of how you frame this particular article. People on the frontline of math education for the general populace will be concerned with an article that goes into technical detail and loses an audience who is prone to believing demonstrably incorrect ideas (such as ${\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\infty }9/10^{n}\neq 1}$) while those who are experts who think carefully about mathematics will be concerned that the article doesn't present common misconceptions as truths encouraging the middle-brow reader into accepting demonstrably incorrect ideas about the nature of real numbers. What is important is that we are true to the sources about the topic that are written and editorially verified by experts. Beyond that, we cannot change the problems that come with a crowdsourced encyclopedia that is supposed to be all things to all people. jps (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Bradley Ayers, revisted

Bradley Ayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am acting on an earlier discussion in Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Bradley Ayers in which I received a recommendation from A13ean and Salimfadhley that this should go to Afd. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bradley Ayers if you wish to provide additional feedback. -Location (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Predatory Journals Hit By ‘Star Wars’ Sting

The review article in question makes novel use of our Mitochondrion article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Now, just wait for some fringe proponent to use that as an excuse to argue for days on end that WP is peer-reviewed, so they must be able to cite WP pages to support their POV push. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy

• Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this really a "controversy" that is documented in pertinent RS? Much of the sourcing seems to be synthesizing the topic from sources that do not discuss any such "controversy". (Also posted to WT:MED). Alexbrn (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Suicide of Vince Foster, revisited

Suicide of Vince Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone check out this edit that moved Suicide of Vince Foster to Death of Vince Foster? This change appears to have been implemented based upon the claims of Miguel Rodriguez whose views don't get any substantial coverage in reliable source. Related: See current discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death of Vincent Foster and previous at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Suicide of Vince Foster. -Location (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this usually done at a move request? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The move has been addressed. Sourcing issues could use a few more eyes. -Location (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Pritikin diet

• Pritikin Diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -Location (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The Chamberlain Key

The article doesn't exist yet, but it may well soon, so this is a heads-up. See The Chamberlain Key: Unlocking the God Code to Reveal Divine Messages Hidden in the Bible. --Thnidu (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry (removed my comment), this is a warning, yep I think this will soon fetch up.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

How did Eugene Ulrich get roped in to writing the foreward? jps (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it´s not selfpublished(?). Any decent coverage in sources? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Might as well put the redlinks here The Chamberlain Key Chamberlain Key just so everyone can easily tell if they get blued (as it were). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

According to my friend the Rabbi (a native Hebrew speaker), the story is a very inaccurate and twisted stretch—at best. Which means, yes, an article will sprout here in no time. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 21:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe could be mentioned in Bible code if popular enough (maybe too soon for this)? —PaleoNeonate - 21:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is just all the old Bible code claptrap rehashed for the Dan Brown generation isn't it? If so, and the book becomes moderately notable then it should get a short mention in that article and maybe a redirect from its name to it. If it becomes a genuine hit, and being claptrap has often been no impediment to that, then I guess we have to have an article on it. It is not like it would be the worst book or author we have an article about. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution