Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Second Quantization (talk | contribs) at 09:42, 6 August 2013 (→March Against Monsanto Deletion discussion: 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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Deepak Chopra

Some discussion coming to boil over whether Chopra's views on quantum science are really fringe, and whether/how skeptic commentary on him should be present. Wise editors' opinions could benefit the discussion I am sure. Alexbrn 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

how notable are the natterings of a famous person? Unless his comments have generated a lot of commentary in the quantum science world, I think they are best left off en.wp all together. He's a Dr. and health advocate, not a chemist or physicist. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that hardcore scientists just don't bother with it; skeptics and commentators on science pooh-pooh it, and new-age types might give it a more sympathetic hearing. It's one of those interesting cases where it's so nonsensical the scientists-in-question don't even bother to rebut it ... Alexbrn 19:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I can understand how this would happen. You wouldn't believe the sheer volume of crazy that shows up in your email inbox if you're listed on a physics department web site. I'm afraid I got lost with the wall of text on the talk page though. a13ean (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Chopra's views on quantum mechanics are fringe, but also quote famously fringe; plenty of sources do exist characterising the fringiness of his views. I'll dig up some at the weekend, but the current sources are fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Recipients of the Nobel Prize are obviously notable as such. I would presume that Ig Nobel laureates also are due some (though lesser) notability for that award, too.--R.S. Peale (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Valentino Bocca controversy

A new article on a case where an Italian judge apparently awarded damages to a family claiming the MMR vaccine causes autism. Some content on the same topic was added at MMR vaccine controversy which I reverted. No scientific literature is cited. I'm leaning towards a PROD or AfD but I'd like to ask for opinions here first. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The case should not, IMO have it's own article, but it clearly is relevant to MMR vaccine controversy, since it has created more controversy! It is citable to reliable sources that it is linked to the controversy. Obviously a legal judgement is not a scientific one, but that's a different issue. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been previously discussed at the MMR controversy article and the consensus appears to have been not to include it. Anyways, I've redirected the article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons

Possible topic ban in this fringe-medical-related topic. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A comment about this post by 84.* has been made here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#fringe_theories_notice_board_vs_forum_shop_.26_canvasing. More input welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Moderated discussion on the Tea Party movement

Is this a fringe theory or reliably sourced fact? Independent, high quality scholarship on this issue have concluded that the United States political movement known as the Tea Party consists of both grassroots and astroturf components. Several Misplaced Pages editors, however, have called this conclusion a "fringe theory", stating that the movement "is 100% grass-roots" and It's a grass-roots political movement. Period. These Misplaced Pages editors further claim that any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists.

The contesting Misplaced Pages editors have not, to date, produced any reliably sourced refutation of the scholarly consensus that the movement is made up of both grassroots and astroturf elements. They have, however, cited several sources (mostly news media reports) that only mention the "grassroots" components without mentioning the "astroturf" components, as proof that the movement must therefore be 100% grassroots. We'd like some uninvolved input on this matter. Are the above sources promoting a fringe theory? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As I expected, this was presented with a lot of high-velocity spin and some key facts which undercut Xenophrenic's argument were left out. Only three of these sources actually claim that any part of the Tea Party movement is Astroturfed. I will refer to them by the names of their principal authors: Zellner, Formisano and Dryzek. Dryzek is written by climate change experts and briefly mentions in passing some political phenomena in America. It's sort of a drive-by shooting from an academic standpoint. They're not writing about subject matter with which they have any expertise. They point their rhetorical guns at it, briefly spray some rhetorical bullets in its general direction, and move on as quickly as possible.

Zellner was a law student, not a professor. Almost all the other academic sources we use in the article are written by professors of law or political science, and many are chairs of their departments, teaching at Ivy League universities or other highly respected institutions, appearing multiple times on TV news networks as experts on the law and politics, etc. Zellner just isn't in the same league, and proves it by sourcing his Astroturfing claims with sources that Misplaced Pages would not consider reliable for anything but their own opinions: AlterNet and an opinion column by Paul Krugman, a highly partisan opponent of the Tea Party.

Formisano is a professor of history, not law, not political science, at the University of Kentucky. He has published at least two op-ed columns which demonstrate that he likes Barack Obama and the Democrats (political oopponents of the Tea Party) very, very much. Some of us suspect that an anti-Tea Party bias crept into Formisano's work, particularly since he has based his Astroturfing accusation on a claim that absolutely no one else has made: that the "Institute for Liberty," a genuine Astroturfing group which purports to speak on behalf of the Tea Party when it isn't Astroturfing for Indonesian corporate clients, is in fact a part of the Tea Party.

The remainder of the sources cited by Xenophrenic do not explicitly claim that any part of the Tea Party is Astroturfed, and to claim that they do is an example of WP:SYNTH. Some of them refer to "top-down" organizing, which is not necessarily Astroturfing; and when you take a closer look at the actual organizing activities they describe, it's the sort of thing that Formisano, Zellner and Dryzek would cheerfully call "community organizing" if it was done by Barack Obama instead of Dick Armey, with the same amount of money provided by billionaire George Soros instead of the billionaire Koch brothers.

This takes us to the next problem. Formisano, Zellner and Dryzek are trying to redefine the word "Astroturf" to include community organizing activity, but the word "Astroturfing" has been a stable and well-recognized political science term for roughly 30 years. It refers to a deceptive effort by paid corporate and political operatives to pretend that a grass-roots movement exists where there is no such thing. All these sources acknowledge that there is a very strong grass-roots or "bottom-up" element existing in the Tea Party. The rest of these elements merely amplify an actual existing grass-roots element, rather than manufacturing one where one does not actually exist.

Xenophrenic is left with three sources. Each is shaky in its own way. They're countered by literally dozens of reliable sources, including the peer-reviewed academic writings of Elizabeth Price Foley, a law professor who has repeatedly appeared as an expert on law and politics on CNN and other news networks. There are also sources from such eminently reliable, fact-checked news organizations as The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, CNN, and National Public Radio. Generally these sources say, "The Tea Party movement is a grass-roots movement." Period. Full stop. Or they refer to members as "grass-roots activists." Implicit in these statements is a refutation of the claim that the Tea Party is partially Astroturfed.

Xenophrenic presented only half of the truth. Now that the other half of the truth has been presented, let's hear from previously uninvolved editors and admins, to determine whether "The Tea Party is part Astroturf" is (A) the majority viewpoint that belongs in the article lede per WP:WEIGHT, (B) a minority viewpoint that belongs farther down in the article per WP:WEIGHT, or (C) a fringe opinion that doesn't belong in the article at all per WP:FRINGE. Xenophrenic supports (A). I support (B), along with four other editors. Arthur Rubin supports (C). What do you think? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC) (I've indicated no such support. -Xenophrenic)

"he likes Barack Obama and the Democrats" is not a valid reason to describe someone's opinions as 'fringe'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, and it's also not a valid reason to describe a fact as 'fringe', as several editors have attempted to do. Also, after having looked at the 2 links to Formisano pieces provided by P&W, the allegation of 'bias' is unsupported - not that it would matter anyway when determining the reliability of sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

All that is required to support a statement of fact is one reliable source. A book about the Tea Party written by a professor of history (Formisano) and published by Johns Hopkins University Press meets that standard. The publisher has determined that he is competent to write about the subject, and his personal opinions are irrelevant to whether the facts in his book are accurate. John Dryzek is an established expert on both democratic theory and evironmental politics. While Zellner was a law student, his article appeared in the Connecticut Law Review, which meets rs.

AFAIK there is nothing fringe in saying that the Tea Party movement consists of both groups set up by wealthy individuals and groups set up by concerned citizens, i.e., "astro-turf" and "grass-roots" organizations. Of course even reliable sources may be wrong. It could be for example that the Tea Party Express is not part of the Tea Party movement, or that it was not created by a Republican consulting firm, but was set up by tens of thousands of citizens acting together. If that is true, then the way to challenge what the sources say is to find sources that say something different.

TFD (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the above reliable sources say that the TP movement is astroturfed, not just three. Five of them specifically use the "astroturf" word, while the remaining sources explain the astroturfing in detail as "top down" organizing, inauthentic/fake grassroots advocacy, and "front group" manipulation -- all decades-old definitions of astroturfing in the context in which they are used. Your claim that several scholars published by Oxford, Princeton, Johns Hopkins and peer-reviewed journals have redefined "Astroturfing" doesn't help your argument; if true, it discredits your argument. Your claim that all of the above reliable sources are "countered by literally dozens of reliable sources" is false, and it is time to call your bluff. Please produce some here, with the exact verbatim text you are citing from those sources, that "counter" the fact that this grassroots movement is also astroturfed. All I've seen so far are sources that just mention the grassroots part, and there is no "implicit" or "explicit" refutation of the astroturfed part there. To quote a reliable source above: "Often the line between real grassroots and astroturf lobbying is blurred, however. A movement may be partly spontaneous but partly orchestrated." Your claim that being one "implicitly" disallows the other is a fiction. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Jumping is, as a completely uninvolved editor:

• I don't think this is a "fringe" issue; this is more about public relations and American politics isn't it?
• Astroturf has wide currency as a term meaning a fake/deceptive/paid-for effort to ape popular ("grass-roots") support; other uses of this word are peculiar
• The terms "grass-roots" and "astro-turf" are PR terms (POV-labelling) and we can expect them to be used by partial and hostile commentators respectively. I would usually avoid either of them in the lede of an article, except my impression (from across the Atlantic) was that the TP movement was formed largely from within the Republican party by disaffected members who formed a kind of mass pressure group. The proposed wording along the lines of "grass-roots with astro-turf components" is the kind of writing that makes WP look bad. Alexbrn 05:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right that this isn't a "fringe" issue, but at least 3 editors called it that. Looking at the argument above by P&W, it appears that WP:RSN and RS:NPOVN would be better suited to address his concerns. You are absolutely correct that "astroturf" and "grassroots" are PR terms, and the PR industry is partly responsible for the "peculiar" synonyms and definitions (Example: They redefine "astroturf" as "front group"). Proposed wording for the lede about the movement's dual nature (grassroots and astroturfed) would definitely benefit from a more thorough explanation of the nuanced make up of the movement. That might be better relegated to the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be forumshopping at its most intriguing. Not only is it not related to the stated topic of this noticeboard, is not phrased in a neutral manner etc. it also manages to take absurdist potshots at other editors without notifying them of this discussion, yet another venue for what the OP has posted in far too many places already. , the TPm moderated discussion page (multiple posts), self-deletion of his own RfC/U, BLP/N, AN and AN/I posts inter alia all pretty much insisting that he only wants the WP:TRUTH <g> Collect (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And that is yet another example of pure, unadulterated Collect, misstating the facts as usual. I did indeed announce this posting to the editors; I've taken this Talk page matter to only one noticeboard/forum, this one; I've never "self-deleted" an RfC/U, BLP/N, AN, or AN/I post. TRUTH-challenged as usual I see, but I'm sure you are just trying to be a "good faith participant " with your comment here. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is not fringe and TFD's summary appears to be correct. I'd suggest you guys go to DRN or similar, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not fringe. The arguments against "astroturfing" as an essential part of the founding story of the Tea Party Movement are squarely in the "I don't like it" category. Formisano is quite clear. Rosenthal and Trost are quite clear. Skocpol and Williamson are quite clear, etc. Binksternet (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• A theory can't be fringe unless there is some dominant mainstream academic point of view in its field, and I don't think we have that with the Tea Party movement. So this is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Also, much of it is a political argument. The disagreements over what sources are reliable could be discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, if they haven't been already..Cardamon (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Transgenerational epigenetic observations?

This seems like rather an exceptional claim (that circumstantial information is transmitted to subsequent generations genetically), also evident in the links from here. The Överkalix study seems to have had some press coverage and is also treated as "reviving" the evolutionary debate in this piece. Any geneticists in the house?

The specific result is a bit odd (the opposing gender-specificity of the descent), but the concept that there can be trans-generational effects mediated via epigenetics doesn't surprise me in the least. As big as genomics are, epigenetic inheritance is the hot topic in genetics these days. Maybe, though, I am missing your point. Is there something specific that raises issues for you? Agricolae (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite probably just my ignorance - but it seemed maybe some there was some suggestion of Lamarckian inheritance in play. Is it really mainstream science now that environmental influence is transmitted by some kind of genetics? Well, I live and learn! Alexbrn 07:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, environmental influences can induce systemic changes in DNA methylation and this can alter gene expression, and some DNA methylation differences are passed to subsequent generations. Neither of those are debated. Is that Lamarkian? Depends on your criteria for Lamarkianism, I guess. Bear in mind that the environmentally-induced epigenetic changes are not necessarily adaptive, so in one sense it is no different than exposure to a mutagen, which makes changes that are then passed down. With this particular study, I would have to read it to see whether they controlled appropriately - it may just be classic Darwinism. If the famine killed off one end of the gene pool, then the progeny of the survivors would have different allele frequency than the non-famine population, whether those allelic differences are methylation-based or simply nucleotide sequence-based. Still, the general concept is accepted, at least in theory. Agricolae (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is probably adaptive. I think the word "reviving" is hyperbole though. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I am reassured the article has wise eyes on it :-) Alexbrn 11:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew

Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Google Books However there is a dispute as to whether this is fringe?

The views of Papias were preserved by the early Christian historian, "Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, (Casey 2010. pp 87-88) and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” (Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101) & (Edwards 2009 pp 2-3) The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)

See most up to date sources:

• David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303
• William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
• Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101
• Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

See also older sources

Issue

Does the aforementioned scholarship on the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories?

Importance

Although most scholars no longer believe that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, many do believe the Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead or source of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew (hence the name). (See composite authorship)

- Ret.Prof (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What are the grounds given by those suggesting that this is fringe? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm My honest answer is there are not any. A NPOV discussion of the topic should have both those who support the Papias tradition and those who oppose. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If nobody has suggested that this is fringe, why are you asking here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The above material was deleted from the Gospel of Matthew and on the talk page it was said to be fringe. Best you look at it directly for I would hate to be accused of misrepresenting their position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So, in a nutshell, the question is: is the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis fringe, or not? Alexbrn 14:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be off topic. The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead! Most most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section in their article devoted to the Papias tradition in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, please do not edit your posts after people have responded to them. It makes understanding the flow of discussion difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry I forgot the link and to sign - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Gospel of Matthew talk page it appears that grounds have been given for the suggestion that this is fringe. As to whether this is correct or not, I am in no position to respond, and I suspect that few other WP:FTN regulars are likely to be able to either - Biblical scholarship is rather outside the scope of the sort of issues usually raised here. Evaluating sources regarding a specialist subject such as this may well be beyond most of us, and I suspect that you might do better to take this to dispute resolution, rather than expecting any sort of 'yes' or 'no' answer here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. They seem to agree the matter is clear, has been resolved and is a dog that won't hunt! I remember Casey, Ehrman etc being debated "as fringe" in Oral Gospel traditions, the heated discussion on the talk page as well as the fringe notice board discussion (consensus Ehrman not fringe) and I even remember some discussion with User:Smeat75, User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:IRWolfie-, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz, BUT I have no recollection of a "Fringe debate" on Ehrman, Casey, Blackwell etc re the Gospel of Matthew?? Nor was it ever brought to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ?? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

After a somewhat confused start due to my typing skills, we must look at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories and see if they apply here. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in here and offer an independent perspective. There needs to be a call by neutral third party observers on whether the topic Ret.Prof describes, i.e. the content, is fringe. Taking this to dispute resolution implies there is a conduct problem. That is beside the point here. I believe an RfC was tried previously, but it was dominated by the very same people arguing strenuously for removal of the material. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said and thanks for getting us back on track! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN deals with issues where there is no conduct problem. Someone should probably notify wikiproject Christianity, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a complex textual problem with a long history. It may well be beyond the scope of FTN. I agree that DRN would be a good next step to deal with the content part of this dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I will notify wikiproject Christianity now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

On the Google Scholar search Ehrman states in Jesus Interrupted that Papias was rendering fourth-hand information and that there are multiple credibility issues with this information. The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#20th century article states the 20th century consensus: there was no Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. So, Ehrman isn't fringe, but he does not pretend that there were a Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but what needs to be accounted for, speculative conjectures of modern scholars aside, is why Church Fathers from the earliest times right up to scholars at the end of the 19th century all thought there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. There is an abundance of primary literature attesting to that fact and many reliable secondary sources analyzing and summarizing that primary literature. Therefore, this should be discussed as a problem of WEIGHT rather than FRINGE. Ignocrates (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the term for that is historiography, and it is not only encyclopedic, but the stuff encyclopedias are made of: outlining the history of what people have thought, not only what some people say today. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. There is a difference between the claim that "there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" and the "canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew". No one has presented any relevant scholar who believes that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew; probably because no relevant scholar actually believes that. The problem is that the material that is sought to be added is so misleading as to leave that impression. Even the different claim that the gospel to which Papias was referring existed and was written in Hebrew is a minority opinion (Casey's). Ask yourself: What is the Casey- and Edwards-sourced material even doing there? Is it illuminating the topic of the article (the canonical Hebrew of Gospel)? Or is it talking about the separate topic of the Hebrew gospel, and just muddying the waters?

The view of McGrew and McGrew that all the early external evidence agrees that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew is completely fringe. Luckily, their view is not one of relevant scholars. They are not established critics of the New Testament. These remarks are merely incidental to their building of an Argument from Miracles (the subject of the paper). Neither are the editors of the volume (Craig and Moreland) established critics of the New Testament. And neither is the volume meant to be a source for New Testament criticism. The endeavour is metaphysical/theological in focus, not historical; and it is even one-sided at that (see Patrick Arnold's and Glenn M. Harden's reviews).

What was said above that "The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead!" is just plain wrong. Only McGrew and McGrew are. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. For something to be a fringe theory, it must be A) FRINGE and B) a THEORY

A) FRINGE

Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not fringe as its existence is supported, not only by the above contested sources but also by older sources from Lessing to Ehrman.

Davidson, (1848) p xii,

• Ebrard 1863 p 530,

• Baring-gould, 1874 p. 122

• Nicholson 1879 p 26

• Morison, 1902 p xxxvi

• Schoemaker 1902 p 199

• Barnes, 1905 p 361

• Cassels, 1905 p 420

• Paralipomena by Pick 1908

• Schonfield, 1937 p 246

• Andrews, 1962 p 46

• Harrison, 1971 p 152

• Pritz 1988 p 83

• Bütz 2009 p 176

Just a quick comment: Of all these books, only 3 date from the last half-century, which indicates that they're not quite the current state of play. The most recent is Jeffrey Butz, whose most recent book, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, "offers the thesis that the Judaistic teachings of Jesus were passed in underground fashion from groups such as the Nazarenes and Ebionites to the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, via the Cathars and Freemasons" (that's from his Misplaced Pages entry). I have doubts that Professor Butz is quite within the academic mainstream. PiCo (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

How can you claim that a formerly standard theory is now fringe? I'd understand if it were geocentrism but this is literary theory, not hard science. It is at least a "former standard theory". Shii (tock) 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A theory is fringe if it has no significant backing by reliable sources. Many theories which were previously standard (or even still are in the sense that many people subscribe to them) now have no backing in reliable sources for New Testament scholarship. For example, it was a standard view that Matthew the disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Now no reliable source supports that theory; so how could it not be fringe? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

B) Theory

Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not a theory but a "statement of fact". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)

This "statement of fact" may be contested. Scholars can debate whether or nor the "Gospel of Matthew" was a translation of the "Hebrew Gospel". They may argue that the Hebrew Gospel is the Fountainhead but they cannot say Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is theoretical.

Therefore WP Fringe Theory cannot apply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, not quite. The "fact" is not that the Hebrew Gospel existed; rather, it is that the Church believed it existed for 1700 years. Simply put, if the "mainstream" conjecture of modern scholarship is right, then 1700 years of Church history is wrong. Our job as an encyclopedia is not to elucidate the TRUTH of these two positions; it is to document the ongoing debate. Ignocrates (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You should also make some sort of visible effort to not attempt to engage in somewhat pointless editing, which, honestly, I believe that this rather inherently prejudicial thread is. There is a significant difference between WP:FRINGE, which you seem to have unilaterally and I believe falsely asserted is the reason for the contesting of this content, and WP:WEIGHT, which is in fact an entirely separate guideline. Please make a more visible effort to show willingness to engage in constructive dialogue with others, rather than starting threads such as this which could perhaps not unreasonably be seen as attempts at straw man arguments and also be seen as perhaps raising very serious questions regarding conduct. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a broad consensus that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. So whether Matthew's Hebrew Gospel actually existed (as in minority view), or not (as in majority view) is irrelevant in an article about what is now called the Gospel of Matthew, since if it ever existed it has nothing to do with what is called the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is broad consensus that the Gospel of Matthew is not a a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Casey, Ehrman & Edwards all state this. They further state that Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew and then Casey argues that Hebrew Matthew was the fountainhead or source for the Canonical Gospel of Matthew. Can you name any sources that disagree with Casey.

Most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. They present both those who support and oppose Papias. We should follow the reliable sources and also write our article from NPOV Google Books - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not what Casey 2010 argues. Casey argues that Matthew the apostle collected sayings in either Hebrew or Aramaic to which Papias was referring and which were a fountainhead for some traditions, and these traditions were in turn sources for the canonical Gospel of Matthew. He is not saying that Matthew wrote a gospel or some such work in Hebrew and the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew used this as a fountainhead or source. Such implies that what the apostle wrote was like Q or the Gospel of Mark, which is not what Casey is saying at all (in fact, he suggests that some of these traditions from Matthew the apostle made their way into Q !) But even this view of Casey has reliable sources that disagree with it, including sources which you have been citing: Duling 2010 (p. 302), Edwards 2009 (pp. 260–262). Try asking instead: What reliable sources agree with Casey on these points? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has become about SCOPE and WEIGHT, which can only be decided by consensus. Therefore, it should be ended here and continued on the article talk page or in DRN. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE - the meaning of Papias' statement is indeed discussed by just about every important scholar who writes about the composition of this gospel, but the important thing is that the overwhelming majority (and it really is overwhelming) don't see an Aramaic or Hebrew original behind it. We do discuss this in our article - we have a whole paragraph about it - and that's enough. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Is that correct? Is the discussion over as far as this noticeboard is concerned? I'm not sure how much this noticeboard can help rather than wikiproject christianity/religion. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I too agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE and I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Still, we should keep the discussion open a little longer to make sure nobody is left out and that everyone who is interested has been notified. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a simpler point to be made: you have quoted some reliable sources in order to prove exactly what these sources disagree with. So, you made a misleading summary of what these sources actually say. Do you expect such edits to pass as good faith edits? You were either unable or unwilling to render the actual viewpoints of the sources and posited your own view as if it were the view of the sources. So, this is not a case of weight vs. fringe, it is a case of something made up against something verifiable. The point which you have made up is not supported by the sources, except by the fundamentalist Christian apologist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to Ret.Prof, he brought this question to FTN because of a lot of loose talk on the article talk page about the fringiness of the topic of a Hebrew Gospel as a justification for the deletion of reliably-sourced content. I think we are in general agreement that this dispute is not, and never was, about FRINGE. The beginning of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith signals the end of rational discussion, so I propose this emotive dialogue stay on the article talk page and we finish up here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to others, much of that loose talk about fringiness was really his own fault, as at least one of the threads one the article talk page about it being "fringe" was started by himself. I agree that this never has been about WP:FRINGE, but WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Those are entirely separate pages, and I believe it would be in everyone's interests if certain editors made a clearer effort to familiarize themselves with all those pages, and the differences between them. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu - I just finished reading your comments, and I think I found the problem. You were reading from an older version of Ehrman. Please look at the following quotes, but sure to follow the links to see their context! Feel free to point out any errors, add any important material you feel was left out and of course add more up to date sources. Thanks for taking the time to join our discussion.

Taken from David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303

• Author and Setting The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together the sayings in Matthew the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)

Taken from William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed)' The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602

• We encounter a striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language...the widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. (quote from p 602)

Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 After quoting the Papias tradition which states "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue"

• Still, on one point there can be no doubt. Papias may pass on some legendary traditions about Jesus, but he is quite speciflc—and there is no reason to think he is telling a bald-faced lie—that he knows people who knew the apostles (or the apostles' companions). This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)

Taken from James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

• This is corroborated in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.7 and 14, where Eusebius says that Papias confessed to having received the words of the apostles from their followers. Of course, if John the Elder was in fact John the Apostle — although this seems unlikely — then Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead. It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age. Eusebius records Papias's relevant testimony: “Matthew organized the oracles (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”8 This testimony does not specifically identify the Hebrew work of Matthew as the Hebrew Gospel, but it is reasonable to equate the two.9 Papias's primary intent seems to have been to emphasize the Hebrew composition of the work. (quote from p 3)

Taken from Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88

• Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)

• It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew.It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now I hope this clears up the confusion. Thanks for being patient with an old guy who was clearly overwhelmed! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Ignocrates Thanks for restoring sanity when needed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The confusion and lack of "sanity" is I believe pretty much inherent in the prejudicial, emotional approach one editor, the starter of this thread, has seemingly taken from the very beginning. I once again extremely seriously urge that individual to review all the relevant conduct guidelines before engaging in further conduct which could not unreasonably perhaps be taken as both disruptive and tendentious. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as Ehrman's book is concerned, the quote starts with "Many conservative Christian scholars use this statement to prove that what Papias says is historically accurate (especially about Mark and Matthew), but that is going beyond what the evidence gives us." So, Ehrman does not claim that Papias would be accurate in his reports, except for reporting the fact that he knew people who knew the apostles or their companions. As shown from another source, Ehrman believes that almost everything else Papias told is inaccurate and there is no indication that Ehrman has changed his mind about Papias's reliability. So, you cannot make Ehrman say that what Papias reports about a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew would be a reliable report. What Ehrman stressed is that Papias is not a reliable source for the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and it could be even be inferred that Ehrman affirms that Papias is historically inaccurate (with the exception of knowing those people). Just read the quote above ignoring the parenthesis and you will see what I mean. So, using Ehrman to establish the historical reliability of Papias's report fails verification, it is using partial quotations to justify an idea that Ehrman rejects. So, I was at least right about misrepresenting Ehrman's view. That's why I said that I cannot assume a fair rendering of the viewpoints of those sources, either you have failed to understand Ehrman's point or you have willfully misrepresented it. At least you could concede that you have misread what Ehrman has to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the sources who say that the Gospel of Matthew was written anonymously:

• E P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, (Penguin, 1995) page 63 - 64.
• Bart D. Ehrman (2000:43) The New Testament: a historical introduction to early Christian writings. Oxford University Press.
• Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1995:287) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P MATTHEW, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Quote: „Matthew, like the other three Gospels is an anonymous document.”
• Donald Senior, Paul J. Achtemeier, Robert J. Karris (2002:328) Invitation to the Gospels Paulist Press.
• Keith Fullerton Nickle (2001:43) The Synoptic Gospels: an introduction Westminster John Knox Press.
• Ben Witherington (2004:44) The Gospel code: novel claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Da Vinci InterVarsity Press.
• F.F. Bruce (1994:1) The Gospel of John Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
• Patrick J. Flannagan (1997:16) The Gospel of Mark Made Easy Paulist Press

List by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Could use some eyes on Acupuncture. Some editors are trying to elevate some unsupported or poorly supported explanations to the level of "theories". A lot of the material in the section on "Proposed mechanisms of action" is not supported by sources complying with WP:MEDRS, and the most widespread explanation, the placebo effect, is played down, probably violating WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which of my sources do you think fail WP:MEDRS? -A1candidate (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which of the sources being used for highly speculative ideas about mechanisms violates WP:MEDRS? Is that your question? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

FTN Discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales

An editor has raised concerns with FT/N on UT:Jimbo, thread can be found at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#fringe_theories_notice_board_vs_forum_shop_.26_canvasing. Nformation 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Precognition

A new user Seleukos256 has been pushing some fringe views and deleting scientific sources on the precognition article. I did some further research. Here is one of his comments (it is obviously the same guy):

"I visited the Misplaced Pages page on precognition this morning and it was awful. It said things like: no replicable experiments, violates scientific principles (I have a Ph.D. in physics and say this is a B.S. excuse and no I don't mean the degree), no scientists believe in it... yadda, yadda. I fixed and replaced some of the most painfully false statements today. But I think we need to be more proactive in promoting and defending scientific parapsychological results on Misplaced Pages. It is the first place many people go for reference.

If you see these kinds of statements on Misplaced Pages pages, please DELETE! The "skeptics" have nothing to back them up."

From a spiritualist blog . Eyes may need to be put on some of these parapsychology articles, I suspect that other stuff may start being deleted and all kinds of crackpot claims are going to be inserted. I don't have time for this because I am busy working on some other articles. But just giving a heads up, if anyone wants to watch that article. Thanks. Fodor Fan (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Added to watchlist, I also note "I have a Ph.D. in physics and say this is a ..." is an appeal to authority, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The section on "Tachyon theory" does injustice to the word "theory". Surely this is conjecture at best? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed it wholesale, undue weight fringe theories. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory

Christ myth theory is a minority theory concerning the historical origins of Jesus. I'm concerned about some POV language in the article's lead section which gives the impression that this subject is fringe or bogus history:

"Modern scholarship has generally dismissed these analogies as without formal basis, and a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors."

The quote about "parallelomania" comes from a single specific Jesuit Priest Gerald O'Collins who seems to be quite a mainstream Catholic theologian but hardly representative of historians in general.

The article presents a comprehensive list of mainstream objections to the theory, however none of suggest that the theory is 'laden with historical error'. I think it's also odd that this is characterized as "Modern scholarship" - as these objections to Christ Myth theory have existed for as long as as the theory. I can only suspect that the editor may have been trying to suggest that this theory has been recently debunked. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would love Misplaced Pages to demand genuine reliable sources (not historians' interpretations) for the claims about the existence of religious figures, but it ain't gonna happen. Any argument like this is going to be coloured by the beliefs of the participants. It's a waste of time and energy. It will never be properly encyclopaedic. Just forget it, and let the believers and non-believers believe. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I share your frustration but that's really not a very constructive thought! ;-) --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess that it could be a good idea to list some related discussions from the archives:

• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Zeitgeist: The Movie - is Christ Myth Theory a conspiracy theory?
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Jesus myth theory and fringe
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Christ myth theory RfC
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Christ myth theory
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Christ myth theory
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Christ myth theory and Historicity of Jesus
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Jesus myth hypothesis
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jesus myth hypothesis, part 7295
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Jesus myth hypothesis
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Jesus myth hypothesis, part 624
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Jesus myth hypothesis

So, let's see what do we have now... You do not like "Modern scholarship has generally dismissed these analogies as without formal basis, and a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors."? Especially "I think it's also odd that this is characterized as "Modern scholarship" - as these objections to Christ Myth theory have existed for as long as as the theory.? Well, as far as I understand, that statement means that the theory was more popular at some time, but now is fringe. By itself it does not say if this change is because of new evidence or because of change of fashion. Anyway, the statement looks true and no reason to think otherwise has been given, thus there is no need to change anything at the moment.

Also, HiLo48, "I would love Misplaced Pages to demand genuine reliable sources (not historians' interpretations) for the claims about the existence of religious figures, but it ain't gonna happen." corresponds to wishes of supporters of many fringe historical (and non-historical) theories. You might think that this theory is unpopular unjustly, but Misplaced Pages must make sure it does not correct any existing injustice (it is somewhat related to Misplaced Pages:Righting great wrongs)... If you don't like that, read the archives of this noticeboard and (hopefully) you will start hating the alternatives far more. If that won't help, there's also my essay Misplaced Pages:Wikiheresy...

Anything else..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have read far more into my comment than I said, or meant, and I meant little more than I said. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Then... Um... OK, I guess..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• So far as I know, there are no credible academic sources supporting the idea that Jesus never existed. Nor any support for the idea that he might have existed but the gospel-epistle writers made up his teachings. There's some discussion of the possibility that the gospel writers based some parts of the gospel stories on OT stories (it's mainstream that Matthew seems to have gone out of his way to paint Jesus as a second Moses and to have ransacked Isaiah in particular for "prophesies" proving that Jesus was the Messiah). At that end of the spectrum, you're moving out of "Jesus as myth" and into solid scholarship. Perhaps the article needs to be clearer about what it considers "myth". PiCo (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli

Please see Talk:Ruggero Santilli#Page seems to be giving credibility... The page is giving credibility to the man and to several of his theories, that are clearly fringe theories and fringe science, without giving due warning, or showing credible sources of refutation, thus giving it undue weight. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the BLP makes it clear that none of his theories have been accepted. Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

March Against Monsanto Deletion discussion

I've put the article March Against Monsanto up for deletion. It is of interest to this board because the reason for deletion is that the article inherently fails WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE because it appears that the scientific consensus can not be stated without WP:OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution