Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Choess (talk | contribs) at 05:24, 9 November 2010 (→Chivalry: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths

This is worth looking at I believe, at least for those who don't think the word 'myth' should be driven from Misplaced Pages. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The article seems like original research to me. Of course the word myth ought not to be driven from the Wiki but what's the encyclopedic value of that entry in the first place? What we don't need are Christian apologists and skeptics battling it out over their own non-scholarly understandings of "myth". Ugh.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look at the articles just skimmed the mediation. There's some serious argumentation about stupid things. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is pretty odd. I'm debating whether I want to wade in and rewrite it - It could use it, but I'm not sure the effort would be worth the subsequent headaches. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching it for a while and wondering what on earth can be done with it. At first sight there seem to be two completely different issues covered: the myths and religious beliefs of pre-literate and proto-literate societies, and the modern - 19th century onwards - potentially verifiable stories about long-lived people. But perhaps also social anthropologists might see a continuity, so that in remote areas even today people tell stories about their long-lived elders in much the same way that they have done for millennia. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:TNT. At least split the pre-modern stuff from the "unverifiable claims" of modern provenance. --dab (𒁳) 14:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I used not TNT but a big pair of shears. Please feel free to be bolder. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Shears help, but is there really a category of myth called "longevity myth"? Perhaps claims of longevity are a minor motif in some myths and other traditional stories, but not a category of myth as far as I can tell. Most of the examples in the entry are claims of human longevity found within myths and other stories. It really does appear that myth is used in the entry in sense of "urban myths" or other falsehoods that can be debunked. My gut tells me that there is a subject matter here, something that does connect claims of longevity in traditional stories and even in contemporary settings, but if this subject matter has found its way into scholarship I'm not seeing it in the entry, and I wouldn't imagine it was through the study of "longevity myths".Griswaldo (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that perhaps longevity has been a topic or an example in the social anthropological/cultural anthropological study of myth and belief. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

While I would expect so ... do we know this for a fact? Are their studies of longevity in myth, or are we assuming that sources exist are because we like the topic? Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I wonder as well. Like I said my gut says yes (at least in terms of motif) but some lazy research on my part hasn't turned much up yet ... though I emphasize the lazy part. Until something turns up I feel like this is original research.Griswaldo (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Longevity.2C_ticklish_situation. Forget everything I said above. Straight to AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The background of User:Ryoung122, who appears to be a primary author and defender of the entry adds more fodder to the "straight to AfD" suggestion as well. From what I can tell, his book uses the term myth strictly in the sense of "fiction" or "falsehood". In his book he "debunks" longevity claims. Of course skeptics also like to "debunk" some religious beliefs that originate in stories that are truly myths, in the technical sense, but I'm not seeing that part of the equation. Is anyone?Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As the author of the hoax question, I thank you for noticing this issue, which was first challenged in 2004. But permit me to hold that it's not an AfD or shears material. There is a basic consensus at this family of articles (this one, then longevity claims, then list of supercentenarians, and not to mention such titles as list of centenarians (educators, school administrators, social scientists and linguists)) that all 110-year-old claims are notable, although more rigorous monitoring has traditionally started at 113. However, because most editors of these topics are acquaintances of Ryoung122 through the Yahoo group World's Oldest People (also attempted as a wikigroup WP:WOP), their original-research classifications have stood all these years, even against numerous policies. For instance, the 18th-20th-century cases listed (and just deleted) at this article are here primarily because the Group doesn't want them counted as longevity claims. We are in a promising situation building toward agreement on the distinction between these articles, but the bold editing just shown needs to be enfolded into this discussion. Now that y'all have stepped in while there is an ongoing mediation, linked above, I would ask you to contribute to "new consensus" by working the following questions.

1. Are all secondary-source 110-year-old claims in fact notable? That is the old consensus, in that 110 is the disciplinary definition of "supercentenarian", there are a manageable number of cases (under 1000 living), and the semi-arbitrary age 110 has the benefit of longstanding acceptance. The sudden deletion of much sourced material is troubling unless the consensus changes that this information is no longer valid for WP. Because this one looks so obvious to me, I'll be doing a careful WP:BRD revert so as not to lose the essential content (primarily contributed by myself, cough). Note that because of the recentism bias of the Group, these and many more classical sources have been overlooked, and could and should be brought to bear to bring the big-picture view of past longevity claims that WP is noted for.
2. Is there a distinction between more "modern" claims and more "traditional" claims? We have agreed there is but not on what it is, a subject of the mediation. The GRG/WOP group has pretty well said the only distinction is that claims of 131 years, 0 days, are false and thus "myths" (in the sense forbidden to WP by WP:RNPOV). I have no problem discussing the mythos of longevity (in the permitted sense), but as this board has noticed, there is zero sourcing of the topic of "longevity myths" in sociologists or mythologists: it is all done by gerontologists, who routinely use the word "myth" in the verboten sense. (Ryoung122 has failed for 18 months to provide on-point sources.) You will note that the age 131 years, 0 days, is very arbitrary and subjective, and, I think, math abuse (Ryoung122 admits it is based on a statement by scientist Jay Olshansky that 130 is possible but not 150, which is only one POV). Having studied the case closely, I proposed a minimal-fuss objective division point that properly addresses WP's need to WP:SUMMARY the material into separate articles and that is both a clear distinction and not a significant intrusion. I said that we could file an uncontroverted claim at (modern) "claim" if updated after 1955 (the beginning of Guinness World Records modern standards) OR if earlier but containing full birthdate and deathdate; and at the other article ("tradition" or "myth") otherwise. This means swapping only a handful of names from one article to the other, but Ryoung122 has not commented on this proposal yet. While any distinction between the two articles would be a form of OR, a subjective one based on flouting WP:RNPOV should be replaced by an objective one that is not much different from alphabetical breakdown.
3. What should the "traditional" article be called? As you note, "longevity myths" breaks policy. My attempts to go to "longevity traditions", "longevity stories", "longevity folklore" and the like have been fought tooth and nail. Given that the topic is notable and the division is objective, the question would be how to name it, as well as its associated category (currently forked into two categories "traditions" and "myths").

The various subcategory questions at mediation need not be addressed by this board, but these basic questions above are apropos and worthy of a consensus by outside Wikipedians that has not materialized for 6 years. JJB 16:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have to say that I fail to see the encyclopedic value of anything associated with this category -- Category:Supercentenarians. Have we become the guiness book of world records all of a sudden? Talk about WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Griswaldo (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A significant rationale is that this area is rife for misinformation and that people who want to know what reliable sources say about any given supercentenarian they hear of would want a balanced article rather than to rely on the rarefied GWR, or any other nontertiary (noncomparative) source. If you see an unexpandable stub at any point, it can be merged back into a main article. But in general, most category members meet independent notability guidelines, or can be given to AFD individually in case you might disagree. Many of these predate GWR as well and WP is the perfect place to collate promoting mentions with debunking mentions insofar as both exist. And, yes, records in general are something we do quite a lot of, in our own way. Would you mind commenting more directly on my 3 board questions above? Thank you. This notability for individuals is not to preclude the axing of some of the regurgitative list articles based on WP:N and WP:NOR, especially when they can be shown to be overweight re-presentations of other articles. Dealing with the larger WP:WALLEDGARDEN of such articles needs many hands and is why my wife calls this thing "PickyWeedia". JJB 01:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The same rationale is possible for any piece of information that someone could conceivably want to know. We do not collect and publish all such pieces of information as I understand it. You say the area is rife with misinformation, but so what? How does that make the information encyclopedic, and really how important is it for people to have the correct information available at Misplaced Pages about any given centenarian supercentenarian? I said this before but there are hobbyists who are obsessed with all kinds of things, I don't think we ought to publish all the lists of information that every such group likes to collect. As to your points above I've already expressed my views on the article. It is original research and ought to get the axe. Salvageable information in it should go elsewhere. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I said supercentenarians, not centenarians; there are less than 1000 living supercentenarians and most of them do not appear in secondary sources. The issue of lists of notable centenarians is another topic entirely. But I fail to see the OR today except for the title (18 months ago it was quite obvious). JJB 05:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what the entry is based on. 1) A recent notion of maximum age and 2) an indiscriminate list of individuals (whether historical or mythical) whom someone claimed lived longer than they possibly could have. Mix and matching the historical and mythical is pretty "smack you in face" obviously OR. But don't take my word for it, take a good look at the big crater like hole in the entry's sourcing when it comes to reliable sources that actually treat this as a viable subject matter in its own right. I really don't know what more I can say about this, I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point, and not for the first time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge back into longevity is the only solution I can see. 2-3 paras in that article, with links to the Sumerian kings, the Biblical stories, any other things that have their own articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. Leaving aside the fact that those are all WP:SOFIXIT issues brought in by the 7 years of imbalance (there is no maximum-age notion left except for the one I am fighting in mediation; there is no claim of living "longer than they possibly could", as that makes a scientific judgment which scientists dispute; as for sourcing, other editors have ignored tertiary sourcing beyond Thoms, Boia, MPG and GWR, but I brought in the more comprehensive Haller 18th c., Hulbert 1825, Prichard 1836, Brewer 1905, Custance 1976, Wright 1996, Faig 2002), let me ask you a favor please. If you believe that not all people above a certain age (viz., 110) are notable for line-inclusion in lists, could you please start any AFD process by seeking consensus on some other article than this one that I've worked quite hard to bring up to standard? It looks like we have been spared some of the GRG specials like "last living people born in the 1890s", but here's some ideas for AFD:

• list of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service
• list of the verified oldest men
• list of oldest people by year of birth
• list of Belgian supercentenarians
• list of oldest twins
• list of verified supercentenarians who died in 2009
• list of centenarians (miscellaneous)

I almost merged that last one myself but just didn't have enough impetus. Also ping me on the AFD because I don't watchlist them! If you want to work on the OR walled-garden, it is a much bigger field than the patch I've been working on last year and this year. Thanks! JJB 11:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning all this up needs a collective effort. Many hands make light work, and I suggest that you take this through WikiProject World's Oldest People. Get agreement on what makes a list notable, etc. But also from time to time bring in people completely outside the wikiproject, because the article we started off discussing here might have seemed OK to someone deeply involved in the topic, but it definitely didn't look OK to people coming to it out of the blue. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Done already (note date, and response). JJB 14:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed merger back into the parent longevity article; please join in the discussion on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible solution.Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

More eyes are needed at this page. "Longevity myth", as defined on this page is simply not a viable subject matter. It appears that some record experts and possibly even medical experts use a very sloppy notion of "myth" to encompass both actual myths that include characters who could not have lived as long as claimed, and urban myths, rumors and various other false but more contemporaneous claims to old age. If we do indeed care about the retention and proper use of terms like "myth" here on the encyclopedia then sorting this mess out would be helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank y'all for coming in despite our disagreements. I agree more eyes are needed but I propose we do this by adjourning from this board and continuing at the hot topic WP:COIN#User:Ryoung122 on Longevity myths, as well as the articles and an RFC I am likely to start. I am counting mediation on hold due to mediator's last edit being 21:47, 1 Oct. JJB 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Did it without RFC at Talk:Longevity myths#Questions to Griswaldo, thanks. JJB 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is restarting, with a new mediator. I have posted on what I think is the main item for discussion (i.e. whether the article should exist at all, cf first posts in this thread). Please, all FTN people have a look and a say in the mediation. This has been too messy too long. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument about what "myth" means might benefit from a reading of The Power of Myth. Myth does not equal false. Nor does it equal, necessarily, religious. I was pretty sure Joseph Campbell acolytes as diverse as George Lucas and Bill Moyers had helped settle these questions. It's hard for me to see why these topics are worth the number of electrons wasted disputing them. One clear problem is pugnacious incivility. Others include obvious violations of WP:COI and, especially, violations of WP:OWN. Also a truly jaw-dropping, blithely wiki-ignorant effort to bolster an argument by citation to an editor's own doctoral thesis. Not to mention an "expert" who has been judged, by consensus, to be non-notable. Reasonable people can resolve their differences collaboratively. But that pre-supposes a condition that's clearly lacking here.David in DC (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Longevity-cruft

Further to threads passim, what, if anything at all, is worth keeping from:

In my very humble opinion it is a walled garden guarded by WP:OWNers. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Don't forget everything here -- Category:Supercentenarians. Much of the material on these pages is sourced solely to the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), members and fans of which apparently belong to the same Yahoo group and edit these entries on Misplaced Pages almost exclusively.Griswaldo (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• On their website the GRG describe themselves as "Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers dedicated to the quest to slow and ultimately reverse human aging within the next 20 years." I know nothing about gerontology but I wonder if this means they are at the fringes of the discipline. As a layman I would imagine most people who study aspects of aging do not share this objective.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

From grg website the prime mover is L. Stephen Coles. According to his bio he qualified in electronic engineering and then again in obstetrics and gynecology. But the source could be regarded as SPS. He has published mainly in Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine, now Rejuvenation Research, which seems to be the house journal of this group. It's starting to look on the fringey side. Are any of our resident biologists/medics around? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For most everything they cite here, i.e., world records, they are as skeptical as the best of this board. They are also skeptical about resveratrol, Okinawa diet, and swamis. But as you two have noted, what they are is qualified gerontologists and amateur folklorists and (maybe) statisticians, and the allied editors are editing folklore and statistics. (It is probable that they have some basic grasp of statistics, but I have already presented evidence the prime mover Ryoung122 doesn't.)

Please stop with the personal attacks. If you believe that Noah lived to 950 when the scientific record is 122, the real fringe theorist is YOU and the real person who does not have a grasp of statistics is YOU, JJ.Ryoung122 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the walled garden, I have been trying to rally for careful scope definition so we can determine what is WP keepable and what is plain vanity. As already said, I will back you up on the majority of AFD proposals. But I think a go-slow approach will work better to actually complete the massive job. I've thrown out all sorts of ideas for merge or delete in prior discussions. I would say, what do you two want to delete first, let me share my thoughts, and then we'll message WP:WOP and User:Ryoung122 and wait a couple days so we have a fair and notified start on AFDs. Going too fast would jeopardize a valid process by inviting accusations of, um, going too fast. JJB 16:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Actually I will make a recommendation: let's start with the three by-continent articles as the least defensible. I'd want to confirm I felt this way after reading the articles and histories, of course. (Yes I did just say delete prior to reading them, that shows how bad it is, hearing an inclusionist says that.) JJB 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a great map of the garden! JJB 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with notability criteria for lists, but something that really strikes me is the lists of centenarians. We have to draw the line somewhere, and since these days a lot of people live beyond 100... Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Read it as "list of notable centenarians". Those are actually tamer because they resemble the unimpeachable list of Eagle Scouts (notable), but their breakdown is arbitrary, the titles abysmal, and a merge-to-biglonglist not inconsiderable. Another take is that you could delete the main article as redundant with the template and keep it occupationally or alphabetically broken down. (An agreement on subarticle max size would be needed, 100K is accepted by many people, these articles are much shorter than that.) But "delete all" would be a steeper climb because there are more articles, and they're more of a WP-style topic taken over by WP:WOP and thus a fixit. As to supercentenary articles, they don't require notability, but the idea that they should require at least one secondary source per name is also often flouted and thus can be another entry point. JJB 17:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the list of centenarians, it might be best to turn the list into a list of only those centenarians who meet notability guidelines, specifically including WP:NE, which would mean that those who are only notable for having reached an advanced age would not be included. I have a feeling that might include a large number of them. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for looking at this area. I think the list of centenarians already met your suggestion of being limited only to those with WP articles, and due to their all having occupational categories very few are likely to be notable solely for being 100 (which I agree would delete them there if so). The problem on that set is not OR/SYN or unencyclopedicity, but only presentation. There are a lot worse problems afoot though. Feel free to dip in anywhere. JJB 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on User:NickOrnstein's activity (apparently favoring deletion) on these articles, I have completed and/or created deletion nominations on the following:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of the oldest living men
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Katie McMenamin
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eva McConnell
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mary Dolan Quinn
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Dolan (centenarian)

JJB 04:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the usual suspects...JJBulten, Grismaldo, Itsmejudith and DavidinDC. I could call this the anti-supercentenarian attack cabal.Ryoung122 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"The anti-supercentenarian attack cabal"? Ha. I've seen it all. You belong to the GRG and affiliated yahoo group that I'm finding out controls the relevant wikiproject here that inflicts upon the encyclopedia your own unencyclopedic hobby. The editors you name are not a cabal, but merely a number of people concerned about your trivia cruft for different reasons. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that this stuff is crufty, I have to ask... why is it being discussed here, on this noticeboard? I don't see a Fringe theory being presented when it comes to these articles. I would think this would be better discussed at WT:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar: the original attraction of Itsmejudith and Griswaldo was the possibility that I might have been inserting creation science into the one article (currently called longevity myths) that deals with ancient longevity cases. I think the consensus is that it's fine to mention the views of Biblical apologists in a single graf of that article balanced by a skeptical graf. There was also some concern that I used apologist Arthur Custance as a source (balanced by a skeptical source) relating to the outline of the article, but that has faded with apparent silent consensus accepting him, as he is not quoted on a creation science point.

Anyway, without putting myself at risk of being considered a forum shopper, I think WT:NOTE might be a good next step, but you might enjoy Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Might_wanna_Wake_Up.21 and following. David in DC seems to agree on wanting a centralized discussion, but there may not be critical mass for one yet. JJB 20:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Heim theory

An editor insists that this is an "emerging" physics theory. A previous version of the article called it "non-mainstream". There may be other issues too. Eyes on this article would be appreciated. Cardamon (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That same editor Terra Novus (talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced statements to the lede, as well as a template ("beyond the standard model", which I removed as inappropriate), that continue to give the reader the impression that this theory has been accepted in mainstream physics. As many users have indicated on the article talk page, this does not seem to be the case. In addition Terra Novus has added Heim theory to that template. I have provisionally removed it. Terra Novus has been reported multiple times at ANI for these kinds of contentious edits; each time he replies that he will reform and then four of five days later continues with similarly problematic edits. Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

MathSci, can you do anything more to clean up the article? I don't expect to understand physics articles, but I do expect them to let me know where theories stand in relation to the mainstream. Does the article perhaps need stubbing right down? Or merging with the article on Heim? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a completely separate problem and not one I'll tangle with. The stub ECE theory was not dissimilar; however, it was easy to write because of peer-reviewed criticisms and the public editorial in a journal by the Nobel laureate 't Hooft. In this case, there has been almost no reaction in the scientific literature to Heim's theories since their inception. Speaking off the record, I believe that the unpublished criticisms of Bruhn on difference operators are probably correct; and up till now there has been no account in print of a consistent and rigorous theory of difference operators on an arbitrary manifold. It is not a case of the jury being out on Heim theory: here it seems there's nobody on the jury! Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tagged it for an expert in Physics but am not holding my breath because Theory of everything has been so tagged since 2008. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Terra Novus has perhaps broken one promise to many, looking at his talk page he's still adding YEC viewpoints to articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how my edits at Heim theory have anything to do with YEC. It strikes me that the editors involved with Heim theory need to discuss instead of continuing edit wars. I see my edits (in this case) as productive and adding to an area of Misplaced Pages that seems to be purposely neglected...--Novus Orator 06:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith raises the very pertinent question of how a non-scientist can deduce if a topic in science is inside or outside the scientific mainstream. The answer is that it is in the mainstream if many scientists refer to it and it is outside the mainstream if few do. Nowadays it is easy to determine how much a subject is referred to by examining citations to it in citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. These databases record how many times the topic or person is cited in scholarly publications that are peer reviewed, these are ipse facto mainstream publications. A subject that is accepted as part of the mainstream is likely to have many thousands of citations, one that is not accepted very few. Heim theory, in the latter category, provides an archetypal example of this principle. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

See the ANI discussion for why your reasoning is incorrect. Having a theory in a certain database does not make or break its scientific status. Most scientists are very specialized, so they are only qualified to determine the status of a very narrow field, thus making that point misplaced.--Novus Orator 08:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What Xxanthippe wrote is perfectly correct and very well put. The notability and acceptance of a subject are assessed on wikipedia using WP:RS. In this case there are none. There are no review articles. As Cardamon has written elsewhere, wikipedia is not about gazing into a crystal ball. Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Update Fresh off his block Terra Novus has made the following statement. The following two edits are also not particularly encouraging. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

May I ask how they are not encouraging?--Novus Orator 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how my joining a WikiProject and requesting a citation on a sentence is contentious. My opinion statement was on a user talk page (where it is appropriate to discuss) and not on an article...--Novus Orator 13:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The last time things were explained to you was here. Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how my joining a WikiProject and requesting a citation on a sentence is contentious. My opinion statement was on a user talk page (where it is appropriate to discuss) and not on an article (FTL editors are being encouraged to take the topic off article see here)...--Novus Orator 13:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci I am afraid I don't see how the ban explanation has any specific bearing on your complaint of my current contentious behavior. I have not edited contentiously on any article since the expiration of my ban, so there is no substance to this thread...--Novus Orator 13:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism which at the moment has not been submitted through the normal channels for approval by the council for wikiprojects. The only supporter at the moment seems to be Terra Novus. In addition, it is not advisable for a single user, with a known record for problematic edits to physics articles, to create a template for emerging physics in his user space and then soapbox about it on Talk:Heim theory. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been submitted through the normal channels here. I have the right to have experiments in my userspace. I am afraid I don't see how this relates to the topic....--Novus Orator 07:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My advice to the users involved in this conflict is to assume WP:Good Faith and to contribute constructively to discussions, instead of bickering on noticeboards...--Novus Orator 07:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by a single person cannot be described as a "dispute". The WikiProject YEC page is up for speedy deletion. Multiple editors have pointed out problems on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism (now copied to user space). The experiment with the template is listed in the category "physics templates". It is the only such unapproved "experimental" template to appear there. Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I will remove it from the category (Thanks for pointing that out-my bad). As for the WikiProject YEC, please take all discussion here. This is now a legitimate proposal so I suggest that you contribute constructively to the proposal thread.--Novus Orator 08:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And this fits in with your promise to avoid edting in "large areas of Misplaced Pages (such as Creation-Evolution related articles)" how?

Electrotrichogenesis

This article is very peculiar: it starts out with a medical study, but then has a bit criticizing the methodology and implying if not stating that the thing is quackery. I'm not sure whether this is a spammish article or not. Anyway, people with experience evaluating this sort of thing should take a look. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs some medical people on the case. I share your concerns. There's a reference to a paper in a bona fide journal but it is a) old and b) a small sample. Then someone has added their concerns not on the talk page but as text in the article. Who's around and knows about biology/medicine? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. There are moderately decent primary sources from the 1990s, but the method has received very little attention from MEDRS-quality review articles, and the couple that mention it don't make anything approaching a definitive statement. The tone of the existing article is definitely overstated in that there is no MEDRS source stating that the method is effective; however there is also no source stating that it is snake oil. Looie496 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've sent this over to the dermatology task force for some expert opinion. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

• List of conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

This is a landing page for several conspiracy theory searches (most notably, Jewish conspiracy), but the state of sourcing is very dire. I think a concerted effort to improve the sourcing for this wouldn't be too hard; as it serves the purpose of an index, we can use citations from other articles. In addition, we could include brief summaries of conspiracy theories we've just linked to in a bulletted list. Sceptre 14:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat shows three encyclopedias of conspiracy theories here and at least two of them look to probably qualify as reliable sources as per RS. They would probably be a good start for referencing, if anyone has access to them. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I own the third one on that list - Conspiracy encyclopedia : the encyclopedia of conspiracy theories. It's very long. Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And almost entirely avail on google books at http://books.google.com/books?id=4QBjaEMELSsC&pg=PA92&dq=Conspiracy+encyclopedia+:+the+encyclopedia+of+conspiracy+theories&hl=en&ei=pTPHTMaJKsT6lwfkuMTrAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Conspiracy%20encyclopedia%20%3A%20the%20encyclopedia%20of%20conspiracy%20theories&f=false Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And as a publication of the Penguin Group, it is certainly RS. I think it would make sense to reference everything possible from that book, and maybe some of the others, indicate all the others as unreferenced, and maybe add the Template:dynamic list to the page. Then, after some time, if the unreferenced ones aren't referenced, or referencable by those sources, remove them as unreferenced. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Serpent (symbolism)

Repeated edition of stuff about Tiamat contradicted by the main article and not properly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is our generic "proto-article" of random material heaped up waiting to be turned into an actual article. --dab (𒁳) 05:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion of Ancient Israel

New article which I'm not sure is fringe or just weird/bad. If you look at the history or the talk page, it's about the "Religion of Moses and Israel " which seems to be something distinct from Judaism. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is original research. The original title was "Religion of Moses and Israel", which may have biblical roots but I know this phrase from Jewish wedding ceremonies, where I take it to mean simply the Jewish religion, or Judaism. The author of the entry in question also refers to the subject matter as "Moseic religion". This phrase is probably a misspelling of "Mosaic religion" which is just a very outdated synonym for Judaism, once again. There is nothing of worth covered in the entry that can't be covered in Judaism. I say blank and redirect it.Griswaldo (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

redirected. we'll see if it lasts. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the initiative.Griswaldo (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Religion of Ancient Israel" would be about the pre-exilic, pre-monotheistic religion and as such a sub-topic of Ancient Semitic religions. But this would generate needless controversy. It is probably best to redirect to Jewish_history#Ancient_Israelites. --dab (𒁳) 05:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.Griswaldo (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The original author complained that already the move to "Religion of Ancient Israel" was a mistake, and I agree. What he was trying to create was an article on the term "Mosaic religion", which is indeed a synonym of Judaism, but which as a term does not seem to be addressed anywhere yet. --dab (𒁳) 06:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Raëlism

I haven't yet found out how many related articles there are, but there's even one on Raëlian Church membership estimates (s that really a notable topic?). Probably a bit of a walled garden. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The membership estimate entry is inconsequential trivia. I think WP:AFD is the answer. We allow too many lists of trivia here all around.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Now this comes as a huge surprise. Not. I added well sourced text noting that Sitchin and von Daniken influenced Raelism, and it was actually changed to something the sources didn't say and I was told it was Undue Weight -- we have a little ownership problem in this garden. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you put there who made those claims as I had done with numerous authors referenced in that article. If you had done that, I would not have considered it to be undue weight. For the record, you had put there: "Writers who have influenced Raëlian beliefs include Zechariah Sitchin and Erich von Däniken.<-ref>Genta, Giancarlo (2007). Lonely Minds in the Universe: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Springer. p. 231. ISBN 978-0387339252.<-/ref><-ref>Colavito, Jason (2005). The cult of alien gods: H.P. Lovecraft and extraterrestrial pop culture. Prometheus. p. 320. ISBN 978-1591023524.<-/ref>" (without the -'s). I have no dispute over the current version of this sentence, "According to Giancarlo Genta and Jason Colavito, writers who have influenced Raëlian beliefs include Zechariah Sitchin and Erich von Däniken.<-ref>Genta, Giancarlo (2007). Lonely Minds in the Universe: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Springer. p. 231. ISBN 978-0387339252.<-/ref><-ref>Colavito, Jason (2005). The cult of alien gods: H.P. Lovecraft and extraterrestrial pop culture. Prometheus. p. 320. ISBN 978-1591023524.<-/ref>". To point out in prose which authors have asserted that Sitchin and von Daniken have influenced Raelism gives you what is needed to make this a NPOV statement.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 16:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Most of this seems to involve behavior of Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want some interesting case study, check out the GA Review(s) history at these:

1. Talk:Claude Vorilhon
2. Talk:Raëlism
3. Talk:Raëlian beliefs and practices
4. Talk:History of Raëlism

Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit not being familiar enough with the GA process (my bad, I know it in principle but not enough in practice) to comment. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have an entry called Raëlian beliefs and practices in the first place? For a marginal subject that's a heck of a lot of content. If UFO religions are "exciting" then lets leave the tabloids to excite people.Griswaldo (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

An AFD on several Urantia Book articles a long time back concluded with "merge all" on grounds that I would affirm as very similarly applicable here. Delete anything written in-universe, e.g. JJB 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that would lead to a giant article. Are you sure it cannot be merged into two or three articles instead?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the sources in Raëlian Church membership estimates are no longer available. Nearly all of the rest are either behind a pay wall or don't actually quote reliable(or any) numbers about the numbers of members. If we removed the unsourced info the article wouldn't have anything left. I wonder if the other articles are any better? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

@Dougweller, regarding the GA process - this is just my impression, but it appears as if Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs) has nominated the above-listed "GA" articles multiple times. So perhaps there were issues of neutrality raised and questionable promotional material, etc, NPOV concerns, and maybe that is why the GA Reviews resulted in fail multiple times - but perhaps the GA Reviewers just got tired out after a while - in other words, kind of like, "asking the other parent" ... ? -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see that now. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the GA Reviewers simply gave up, as though the articles were not improved in the process, but rather strayed closer to a POV? That is quite a claim for someone not inclined to spend much time reviewing the history of edits in these articles. You do realize that they also helped improved the quality of these articles, correct?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 16:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have nominated the article "Claude Vorilhon" five times before getting it accepted, "Raëlism" six times, "History of Raëlism" twice (but is now delisted), and "Raëlian beliefs and practices" once (which has also passed a GA assessment).Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 16:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of Raëlian article sprawl. There's a lame category which is throwing off the whole bishops category hierarchy, and a lame disambiguation page which actually seems to be a directory of Raëlian articles. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, the whole Category:Raëlism seems to me anyway to maybe be more than a bit excessive considering WorldCat here lists so far as I can see only one clearly independent book about the subject, the book by Susan Palmer. I think some real serious pruning could be done here. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You could not see far enough to find that the article cites the books of at least two clearly independent authors. If we include only those with wiki articles, they are James R. Lewis (scholar) and Gregory Stock. Also, the search link you provided obviously captures the works of more than one author. If you said, "I can see only one clearly independent book dealing exclusively about the subject," then that is closer to the truth. See the following link to Google Books to get a real picture of the depth of this subject: http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&q=raelians . Magazines alone will give you 5 results http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1%2Cbkt%3Am&q=raelians+-%22weekly+world+news%22 (excluding the Weekly World News for obvious reasons).Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 16:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment, by John Carter. -- Cirt (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Raëlian Church membership estimates is currently being considered for deletion here. I suggest any intereseted parties express their opinions. Other articles which strike me as being somewhat questionable are Honorary Guides of the Raelian Movement, which seems to have a very, very few independent sources, including the National Enquirer and Star of all things. Geniocracy seems to have as its almost sole independent basis an article from the South Florida News Sentinel, which is evidence of, basically, only local notability. I think that article may well fail WP:N. The Sensual Meditation article provides quite a few details about that practice, all of which seem to be exclusively based on internal documents. The apparently limited amount of independent discussion of the topic could probably easily be merged elsewhere. And it does seem that there is almost exclusively one editor involved with these articles. Whether that individual is an adherent of Raelism is not the only indicator of possible POV pushing.

Personally, as some of you might remember, I am in favor of having separate articles on virtually every extant denomination or group out there which meets basic notability guidelines as per WP:N. But that is for a single article, not for a group of articles which seem to be almost exclusively repetitions of the statements of a clearly biased party, the founder of the group.

Anyway, I welcome further input from anyone else seeing this. John Carter (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Personally, as some of you might remember, I am in favor of having separate articles on virtually every extant denomination or group out there which meets basic notability guidelines as per WP:N. But that is for a single article, not for a group of articles which seem to be almost exclusively repetitions of the statements of a clearly biased party, the founder of the group." Is this position unanimous among administrators? How about contacting administrators who disagree with you on this point (that is, if they exist).Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: See also articles created by Kmarinas86. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• You might want to also see where my edits have gone, which is not fully captured by the list of the pages I have created on Wiki namespace.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Opposed to merging the subject to just one article

There are least three separate articles besides this one that deserve there own page. These are:

• Claude Vorhilon
• Brigitte Boisselier
• Clonaid

As for the main article:

There are two articles in question directly related to books, which could easily be merged in the main article:

• Sensual Meditation
• Geniocracy

These articles also could be merged without much problem into the main article:

• Raëlian Embassy for Extraterrestrials
• Raëlian Cosmology

I also think that both tables related to membership estimates could be merged into the main article provided that it does not take too much prominence in the article:

• Raëlian Church membership estimates

The content of the following articles could be reorganized into separate sections "Raëlism in the media" and "Studies on Raëlism":

• Raëlian beliefs and practices
• History of Raëlism

It appears that the following articles will not survive the transition:

• Economic humanitarianism (Raëlianism) (except for 1 source)
• Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement (except for 6 sources)
• Raëlian Foundation (except 1 source)

Does anyone here want to approve, modify, reject, or make a similar proposal?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 20:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here what my attempt at merging these articles looks like:

• User:Kmarinas86/Raëlism Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages) 22:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the biographies of notable individuals are a separate matter. I do however still question why the one single event about which the group has apparently received the greatest degree of attention, including in scholarly journals, the baby Eve cloning incident, is given only a single paragraph in the Clonaid article. Also, there is not yet an article on Criticism of Raëlism, or even a clear and specific devoted section in the main article, which is one of the standard primary subarticles. It is most unusual that this, one of the most notable topics of most religious movements, receives such little coverage in these artiles, particularly considering that the group has drawn a good deal of critical response, including at least two articles specifically about Raelism in Skeptical Inquirer. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Free space

See Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin

As he died recently this article is getting a bit of attention - including an edit warrior now on 4 or 5RR despite a warning. If people could just keep a light eye on it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are now a few other editors involved, but it's getting pretty messy with at least, I believe, one BLP violation (to do with a historian, not Sitchin). Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've place a 24 hr block for the edit warring, not to mention personal attacks. We'll see if that motivates any change in behavior. Looie496 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Circus (film) - Time Traveler ???

Israelites

This article's lead states " The term "Israelites" (or theTwelve Tribes or Children of Israel) means both a people, the descendants of the patriarch Jacob/Israel, and those who worship the god of the people Israel, regardless of ethnic origin." Not surprisingly, on the talk page it is being insisted, if I read it correctly, that the Israelites never had any other gods than Yahweh. Is this a fringe view or a different sort of problem? Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Israelites" and "Jews". "those who worship the god of the people Israel, regardless of ethnic origin" are known as "Jews" or "Jewish converts", not "Israelites". "Israelites" is a historical term, referring to the period of the 11th to 7th centuries BC. By the testimony of the Hebrew Bible itself, this people worshipped lots of deities, especially "Baals", and only towards the very end of the 7th century came to worship the "God of Israel" exclusively. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SAQ RfC-NPOV issues

An RfC is in process here, the purpose of which is to decide which version best fulfills this directive in terms of Misplaced Pages policies and standards. Version 1 Version 2

Comments are solicited from participants of this noticeboard.. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Greeks

Hi, I'm posting my concerns about the info box statistics in the Greeks article here because I am being completely ignored on the discussion page. I have been trying to discuss the matter for almost a month without having disputes or edit-wars yet there are no improvements. On 9th October 2010, I expressed my concerns (see here: ) about the inflation of numbers. In return User:Athenean placed the Turkish people info box on this notice board arguing that it was in fact that article which had numbers inflated (see here: ). I am not being taken seriously by this user, or anyone else for that matter. I have tried to use the discuss page but no one is replying to my comments. Furthermore, User:Athenean has already expressed that they will not discuss the matter of the Greeks info box with me (see here: ) as they believe that I am creating some kind of retaliation.

Here are my concerns:

• Greece: Greece's census does not collect data on ethnicity thus that figure includes all Greek citizens regardless of their ethnicity. As CIA states 'percents represent citizenship, since Greece does not collect data on ethnicity'.
• Cyprus: The reference being used is the CIA which I am fine with. However, if one looks at the discussion page Greek users have objected to CIA being used for estimating the Greek population in Greece or Albania as it gives a significantly lower figure. CIA gives the following information:
  • Greece. Population: 10,737,428. Greeks: 93% = 9,985,808 Greeks
  • Albania. Population: 3,639,453. Greeks: 3% = 109,183 Greeks
  • Cyprus. Population: 1,084,748. Greeks: 77% = 835,255 Greeks

Currently, CIA is only being used for the estimated population in Cyprus- probably because of the high estimate. I don't mind either way if CIA is used or not BUT we must have consistency. If CIA is reliable enough for Cyprus then why not Greece or Albania?

• Australia: The reference being used is by the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs which lists the population of all the Greek diaspora in one table. However, the source is only being used for Australia as it gives a high estimate of 700,000 yet it is not being used for the other countries (some in which the source gives lower estimates e.g. the United Kingdom est 200,000 Greeks).
• Germany: This figure includes all Greek citizens including a noticeable Turkish minority from Western Thrace (see: Turks in Germany and Greeks in Germany).
• Turkey: a footnote has been provided in the footnotes section of the info box stating the following: There are over 1,500,000 Greek Muslims though most identify as Turks. I tried to remove this as there is no reference provided but it was reverted by an edit from User:Athenean.
• There are many more problems; some of the references are in fact dead links whilst others are questionable too.

I hope I will be taken seriously here. I must admit that I fear that the Turkish people article will suffer the consequences due to me writing all this here. Turco85 (Talk) 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Hapgood

Following the problems at the Sitchin article, we now have problems at this article, eg (only fringe writers believe the Piri Reis Map shows Antarctica, Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This bio shows signs of once having been a coatrack for "Polar Shift", e.g. little sections for "Evidence" and "Continuing Work", stuff covered at Polar shift theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The USAF claim comes from one of his own books, that cannot be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic fringiness

Two new chiropractic articles have been transferred from a user's sandbox. Not only are they not NPOV and are promotional, they are pushing unscientific BS as if it were reality, all without proper references. The articles need more eyes on them and some working over:

• Bio-Geometric Integration

• Potential Energy Theory of Subluxation

-- Brangifer (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The second article was speedily deleted as a copy vio and I tagged the first article for speedy deletion because parts of it were a copy-paste of the FAQ section of the eponymous institute of Sue Brown, DC. Mathsci (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Collapse of the United States‎

The Collapse of the United States‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could probably bear closer scrutiny. The very skimpy sourcing includes Jeffrey Nyquist and some obscure apocalyptic Christian website. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed all the apcalyptic links, and now just have the Russian interview...--Novus Orator 09:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The content of the article is discussed at greater length and in its proper context in Igor Panarin#Prediction of the USA's collapse in 2010. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'll merge the content...--Novus Orator 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, it should never have been an independent article. Panarin biography should be reorganised so that it deals with each of his books/other major publications in turn, summarising the arguments of each, including review comments. That way readers can see how his ideas developed in context and how they were responded to. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Chivalry

Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs) has twice re-inserted a paragraph into Chivalry attributing the origins of that institution to Arab contact, despite unresolved issues discussed on the talk page. In brief: the source relied on (Haines) is antiquated in its scholarship (late 19th Century), and appears largely to observe similarities between the honor codes of chivalric and earlier Arab culture without putting forth a plausible mechanism of transmission. Furthermore, Haines, in the full text of Christianity and Islam in Spain, A.D. 756-1031 (available on Google Books) attributes the appearance of chivalry to the reign of Charlemagne.

Compare a more relevant modern source: Maurice Keen's Chivalry (1984). Keen attributes the development of chivalry to a variety of military and social changes (the tactical rise of the charge with couched lance, the development of tournaments to train such warriors, etc.) taking place during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, well after Charlemagne, as giving rise to the chivalric ethos. This is consistent with the other source I can lay hands on at the moment (Koch's "Medieval Warfare", 1978): "Nor can it be said that all the virtues associated with the age of chivalry were present in the medieval knight at the end of the eleventh century." Keen, in 303 pp., says nothing whatsoever about a supposed Arabic origin for chivalry.

The existence of cultural norms of conduct for a military class, is, of course, widespread and the norms are often parallel (consider bushido, or Herodotus' description of Persian education), but the article deals with chivalry sensu stricto, the medieval European institution, and not with these cultural codes in general. Barring more reliable evidence, I tend to believe that the paragraph should be removed as unsupported by contemporary scholarship. Choess (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution