This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrBill3 (talk | contribs) at 09:15, 15 November 2013 (→Pseudoscience: cmt, be bold, discuss on talk page of article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:15, 15 November 2013 by MrBill3 (talk | contribs) (→Pseudoscience: cmt, be bold, discuss on talk page of article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Archives |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Theories of Muhammad in the Bible
User:Paul Barlow doesn't let me categorise this as pseudoarchaeology when it clearly is. He says it is Muslim theology, but clearly just a fringe. Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article says nothing whatsoever about archaeology, pseudo or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I cannot see where the article mentions archaeology. On the face of it, it is describing an aspect of mainstream (or, at least, traditional) Muslim theology. Do we have any evidence that this is a fringe concept at all ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's definitely a fringe theory. The relevant field, biblical studies is well-developed with many academic journals dedicated to it and for which academic presses regularly put out monographs and other volumes. I can't find a single reliable source in the field which holds that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, however. Which of course makes sense: Even the newest Biblical texts were written 450–500 years before Muhammad's birth, which strongly suggests it would be impossible, barring time travel or clairvoyance. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably the Islamic tradition has a deterministic universe and I think the idea is that it's meant to be religious prophecy. Most religions seem to try to shoe-horn some prophecies into the picture for any of their messiahs etc. If it is viewed as a fringe theory, it is in exactly the same way that Matthew's claims about prophecies are fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the idea that the Book of Isaiah was referring to Jesus (as the Gospel of Matthew claims) is absolutely a fringe theory: I don't think there is a single reliable source for the topic which holds that view. I don't think it is really a question of "if" it is viewed as fringe—these theories that old books refer to people born hundreds of years later I believe are all rejected by completely or nearly completely all reliable sources. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Atethnekos - following your logic, since knowledge of future events is "impossible, barring time travel or clairvoyance", it would seem that any article on any religious prophecy must be fringe, no matter how mainstream the prophecy is within the relevant theological context. Is that your position ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm? I never meant to say that. For example I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but I don't have time travel or clairvoyance, I just have decent enough models of the solar system. I never meant to say any article was fringe, either. I said the topic of the article, that is, the theory that Muhammad was mentioned in the Bible, is fringe, and I said why: No reliable sources (or virtually none, at least) hold that view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think a viewpoint like this can be characterised as fringe if either 1. it is a minority position within a specific tradition or some academic discourse 2. it directly impinges on what is under the purview of science with falsifiable claims. If the claim is that the bible anticipated Mohamed without directly mentioning him then that is probably largely unfalsifiable (namely because one can try and shoe-horn a fit). I am not convinced either of these are true. Now clearly we don't say it's true in the wikipedia tone, but WP:FRINGE guidelines probably aren't so relevant here, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's not the topic of the article. The topic of the article is the Muhammad's future advent is predicted in the Bible. There are plenty of reliable sources which discuss that view. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is what I meant by "mentioned" in the Bible, a prediction being a type of mention. Again, I would say the view that Muhammad was predicted in the Bible is not held by any reliable sources, or very few at any rate. I agree that reliable sources discuss the view. The fact that reliable sources discuss a view is not sufficient for rendering a view non-fringe, there also has to be a significant number of reliable sources which actually support the view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- What you meant by "mentioned" is irrelevant except in so far as it indicates your failure to understand the issue, as we are supposed to be discussing the topic of the article, which you labelled fringe. The article never says that the historical Muhammad was "mentioned" in the Bible, so your judgement about an article besed on what's not in the article is about as useful as the assertion that the article on the moon is fringe because it shouldn't say it's made of cheese. What you say about reliable sources is also false. We do not need reliable sources that "support" the view that 'Jesus is the Messiah' in order to have an article explaining and describing the Christian position that Jesus is the Messiah. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I never said the article says that. I think what I say about reliable sources is absolutely true and the standard position among Wikipedians: In order for a theory to be non-fringe, that theory needs reliable sources which hold that viewpoint. Of course we don 't need reliable sources that support the view that Jesus is the Messiah in order to have an article about theories that Jesus is the Messiah. That's a question of whether the theory is notable, not whether the theory is fringe. I never said we cannot have an article on theories of Muhammad in the Bible. I said that the theories of Muhammad in the Bible are fringe theories. And the theories of Muhammad in the Bible are the topic of the article. If it's wrong to say that the theories say that Muhammad is "mentioned" in the Bible, then so be it: Whatever wording you want to use is fine by me— predicted, prophesied, foretold, referred to, etc. —my point is that the theories that Muhammad is as such in the Bible, are fringe theories. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Take the article Intelligent design. The topic of this article is, intelligent design. There are many reliable sources which discuss this topic (that's why it's notable enough to have an article on it). However, intelligent design is still a fringe theory. This is because, of those same reliable sources which discuss it, none, or very few, of them actually support the view. Intelligent design really is the archetype of the sort of viewpoints to which WP:Fringe theories is supposed apply. Theories of Muhammad in the Bible fits the form of that model well: There are reliable sources which discuss the view (making it notable), but none of them actually support the view that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible (making it fringe). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, no no. There is simply no analogy with the article on Intelligent Design, because that is an article about scientific claims. Intelligent Design is a theory that claims to be scientific (or at minimum a theoretical commentary on the limits of science). It is assessed as fringe insofar as it is a theory about science. The claim that the Bible contains predictions concerning future prophets is a standard one within both the Christian and Islamic religions. We simply do not label the Christian view that "Jesus is the predicted Messiah" a Fringe Theory in Misplaced Pages's sense, because we cannot apply historical method to such claims. The view that Muhammad was predicted as the Paraclete is exactly the same. It is no more of a fringe theory than the view that the 'Virgin Mary was impregnated by God', or that she was 'Conceived Immaculate'. Applying the concept of Fringe Theories to such theological views leads into absurdities, as we would be constrained to "point out" the "mainstream" view that Original Sin cannot be transferred in the act of conception. That's not a 'Mainstream View' at all, because science cannot determine whether or not an abstract concept such as Original Sin can be transferred in the act of conception, or what it would even mean to say so. Likewise, it cannot determine whether or not Muhammad is the Paraclete, which is unfalsifiable (and frankly, no more or less plausible than the Christian claim that it is something called the 'Holy Ghost'). It is also a mainstream Islamic view. So it is no more "fringe" than the view that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can't weigh in on whether everything is fringe or not (so you could be right about most of those statements, I'm not sure): I wouldn't say that the mainstream view is that original sin cannot be transferred in the act of conception. I would guess that the mainstream view is that original sin is not a term that is defined with a decent level of intellectual rigour. Those experts in biblical studies really do try to reach conclusions about to what the biblical writers were referring. Just because biblical criticism is a soft science (as compared to the hard sciences of biology is the case of intelligent design), does not mean that it is not a well-established and intellectually responsible field which accepts and rejects theories. In the case of theories of Muhammad in the bible, I do say that biblical studies does not in any significant way accept these theories.
- I would indeed say that most theological theories are fringe, and I don't think it is absurd to do so (maybe a bit cold to some adherents, but it is an honest disagreement with them, and not meant to be an insult). I would say that theology is the study of the divine. I think the mainstream view now in this field (ever since, say Kant, or at least since logical positivism) is that very little can be said about the divine. I indeed would say that the theories that Jesus was divine is a fringe view, because very few reliable sources for theology affirm that view.
- Depending on a Popperian falsification criterion to distinguish the non-scientific from the scientific (the demarcation problem) is I think a common and largely reasonable view, however it is not the only view, and falsificationism as such is indeed largely rejected by philosophers of science. The fact that I disagree shouldn't be taken as strange or myopic, it really is just a different (and common) philosophy of science. I say this, because I think that is the root of our disagreement: You take a narrower view as to what scientific study can apply, whereas as I take a wider view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, no no. There is simply no analogy with the article on Intelligent Design, because that is an article about scientific claims. Intelligent Design is a theory that claims to be scientific (or at minimum a theoretical commentary on the limits of science). It is assessed as fringe insofar as it is a theory about science. The claim that the Bible contains predictions concerning future prophets is a standard one within both the Christian and Islamic religions. We simply do not label the Christian view that "Jesus is the predicted Messiah" a Fringe Theory in Misplaced Pages's sense, because we cannot apply historical method to such claims. The view that Muhammad was predicted as the Paraclete is exactly the same. It is no more of a fringe theory than the view that the 'Virgin Mary was impregnated by God', or that she was 'Conceived Immaculate'. Applying the concept of Fringe Theories to such theological views leads into absurdities, as we would be constrained to "point out" the "mainstream" view that Original Sin cannot be transferred in the act of conception. That's not a 'Mainstream View' at all, because science cannot determine whether or not an abstract concept such as Original Sin can be transferred in the act of conception, or what it would even mean to say so. Likewise, it cannot determine whether or not Muhammad is the Paraclete, which is unfalsifiable (and frankly, no more or less plausible than the Christian claim that it is something called the 'Holy Ghost'). It is also a mainstream Islamic view. So it is no more "fringe" than the view that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- What you meant by "mentioned" is irrelevant except in so far as it indicates your failure to understand the issue, as we are supposed to be discussing the topic of the article, which you labelled fringe. The article never says that the historical Muhammad was "mentioned" in the Bible, so your judgement about an article besed on what's not in the article is about as useful as the assertion that the article on the moon is fringe because it shouldn't say it's made of cheese. What you say about reliable sources is also false. We do not need reliable sources that "support" the view that 'Jesus is the Messiah' in order to have an article explaining and describing the Christian position that Jesus is the Messiah. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is what I meant by "mentioned" in the Bible, a prediction being a type of mention. Again, I would say the view that Muhammad was predicted in the Bible is not held by any reliable sources, or very few at any rate. I agree that reliable sources discuss the view. The fact that reliable sources discuss a view is not sufficient for rendering a view non-fringe, there also has to be a significant number of reliable sources which actually support the view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm? I never meant to say that. For example I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but I don't have time travel or clairvoyance, I just have decent enough models of the solar system. I never meant to say any article was fringe, either. I said the topic of the article, that is, the theory that Muhammad was mentioned in the Bible, is fringe, and I said why: No reliable sources (or virtually none, at least) hold that view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably the Islamic tradition has a deterministic universe and I think the idea is that it's meant to be religious prophecy. Most religions seem to try to shoe-horn some prophecies into the picture for any of their messiahs etc. If it is viewed as a fringe theory, it is in exactly the same way that Matthew's claims about prophecies are fringe. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's definitely a fringe theory. The relevant field, biblical studies is well-developed with many academic journals dedicated to it and for which academic presses regularly put out monographs and other volumes. I can't find a single reliable source in the field which holds that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, however. Which of course makes sense: Even the newest Biblical texts were written 450–500 years before Muhammad's birth, which strongly suggests it would be impossible, barring time travel or clairvoyance. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, no archaeology there. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I cannot see where the article mentions archaeology. On the face of it, it is describing an aspect of mainstream (or, at least, traditional) Muslim theology. Do we have any evidence that this is a fringe concept at all ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Atethnekos's comments are impressively myopic. No-one is suggesting that any part of the Bible was written after Muhammad's lifetime (unless we are discussing Gospel of Barnabus, which, of course, is not in the Bible). What Muslims believe is that God included prophesies of the coming of Muhammad in the text of the Bible. It's exactly the same as the Christian belief that God included prophesies of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah in the "Old Testament". It's not fringe, it's mainstream Islamic theology. Paul B (talk)
- But can show up in fringe forms, as old versions of the article show? Alexbrn 09:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Myopic? Jeez. I never meant to say that anyone is suggesting that. As I said above, the theory that the Book of Isaiah (and other such views) ever refers to Jesus is absolutely a fringe theory. And I say the same thing about the theory that the Bible ever refers to Muhammad. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- First: I said "jeez", because I'm embarrassed to be called impressively myopic. Anyway, I do doubt that it is mainstream Islamic theology, but even if it is, that does not make the theories non-fringe. Biblical studies is the field for the study of the contents of the Bible. There really are experts in this field; and they are respected by experts in other related fields, like classical studies, ancient history generally, etc. If one wants to know about the contents of the Bible, then these are the people who are worth consulting; that is, they are the reliable sources for claims concerning the contents of the Bible. I claim: None—or very few at any rate—of these sources claim that the Bible predicts Muhammad or in any way supports the distinctive claims of those who hold to "theories of Muhammad in the Bible", such as that the "Paraclete" in John 14:16 refers to Muhammad.
- WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." The mainstream view in this particular field is that "Paraclete" in John 14:16 does not refer to Muhammad, and similarly for all of the distinctive aspects of the theories of Muhammad in the Bible. Since all of the distinctive aspects of the theories of Muhammad are rejected by everyone in the mainstream, these theories are fringe.
- Maybe people are thinking something like: "Yes, obviously no reliable sources actually seek to establish the truth of prophecies. That is so basic that we don't even have to address it." I would encourage anyone thinking this to go through the history pages of the relevant articles and talk pages and you will see that many editors have indeed tried promote such views in this encyclopedia. Such issues are in part what WP:FRINGE is supposed to address. This is particularly true for the view that the Book of Isaiah refers to Jesus. Many editors have tried to write in the authorial voice of this encyclopedia that the Book of Isaiah refers to Jesus. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think there is a good argument to be made, but not one that needs to be addressed at this time. I think its fine to have disagreements of this sort, but I think in this specific case the overarching issue has been resolved since the poster has been indeffed. Further discussion is not going to be productive since it's not centred on any specific article content. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that OP, Indiasummer95, has been indeffed following various personal attacks and a general WP:NOTHERE attitude. — Richard BB 10:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do not think it is helpful to include religious belief systems as "fringe theories". That would mean that every article about religion would be included. The other issue is that they may not be "theories" at all. They are based on faith rather than evidence and reasoning. It is only when religious people start to assemble evidence to attempt to prove for example that humans co-existed with dinosaurs that it becomes a fringe theory. TFD (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. 'Theories of Muhammad in the Bible' are no more a topic for this noticeboard than 'Theories of God in the Bible' are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK... let's separate the wheat from the chaff here.
- Question one: Does the Bible directly mention Muhammad by name? No.
- Question two: Do some people interpret certain passages of the Bible as referring to Muhammad? Yes.
- Question three (the question that is directly related to this noticeboard): WHO makes these interpretations, and are their interpretations accepted by mainstream theologians (of any religion) or not? Or to put this another way... if we accept that these are religious beliefs, are they fringe religious beliefs or not? The answer to this will tell us how much weight to give the idea... whether it deserves its own article... and whether it deserves to be discussed within other related articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the term "fringe" can be used for both, but it has different meanings. Only a small minority of Christians believe that Jesus was not the Son of God. That does not make such a belief a fringe theory in the terms of this board (indeed it would be a mainstream one for non-Christians). There is no way to determine whether it is or is not more reasonable within a religious context to believe that Jesus was or was not the Son of God, nor to refer to the consensus of theologians (in the same way we would refer to the consensus of scientists) since a theologian from one religion or sect does not form part of a common community with others in the way that scientists and historians do. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:WEIGHT clearly applies - but that has nothing to do with the remit of this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure it does... the remit of this noticeboard is to discuss articles that mention potentially fringe concepts (including potentially fringe religious views). That includes discussion of whether the concept is notable enough to merit its own article, and how much weight to give the concept in other articles. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE walk hand in hand. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree fully with this statement. Some people are of the opinion that religiously inspired fringe theories and theological fringe theories are outside the remit of this board. It is not the case, WP:FRINGE applies to all fringe views in all discourses where they may be given undue weight, IRWolfie- (talk)
- Just asserting that "it is not the case" does not make it true, since the word fringe is being used in a completely different sense (as though it meant the same as "small minority"). Also, "undue weight" is a separate concept from "fringe". There are only a tiny number of Samaritans, for example, so they represent a marginal position within what are called Abrahamic religions. In an article on Judaism, Samaritans may get a brief mention, since they can be construed as sort-of Jewish, but that does not mean that we treat Samaritan views as though they are "fringe theories" in the articles about them. It's completely different from Intelligent Design, in which we must point out the mainstream scientific view, making it clear that it has much more support than ID among specialists who are competent to assess it. We would not, and should not do the same thing in an article on Samaritanism, by "pointing out" that "mainstream" religious scholars in Judaism (not mention Christianity and Islam) reject it. That's for the very reason I mentioned above - there is no mainstream community of theological scholarship that exists outside the position of a religion. The fact that Samaritans are tiny in number and Muslims (for example) are not, does not mean that the article on Samaritans should give most of its space to Muslim criticisms of Samaritanism. That's to totally misapply the concept of a fringe theory. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The statement that there is no mainstream community of theological scholarship outside the position of a religion is clearly false. If that's your reason for not accepting this as fringe, then you need a new reason. When Plato taught theology at the academy, he was not writing within the position of a religion. When Hume wrote "Of Miracles", he was not writing within the position of a religion. When Kant wrote the "Critique of all theology from principles of reason", he was not writing within the position of a religion (the main points in this are still largely accepted by experts in these matters of theology). When Graham Oppy wrote the most comprehensive current book on ontological arguments, we was not writing within the position of a religion. Oppy is an expert on that aspect of theology; Oppy's work is perfectly mainstream. There are hundreds of experts like Oppy that cover the various aspects of theology. Among this body of experts, there are theories that are entirely accepted, theories that are partially accepted, and theories that are entirely rejected. If some theories which are espoused by non-experts among religious groups are entirely rejected by these experts, that is their problem. We should not make it our problem by trying to treat those theories as having equal validity to the theories which are accepted by experts. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is impossible ot discuss wth you because your ability to miss the point is so utterly epic that it boggles the mind. Try re-reading what I wrote. I was talking about the claim that we can describe certain theological views as "fringe" in relation to other theological views. What you are talking about are philosophers who are debating the grounds for such theological positions that can be addressed by philosophy. It's a completely different question altogether. There is no community of scholars that can adjudicate on whether the Lutheran or the Catholic view of transubstantiation is more "mainstream". Paul B (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree fully with this statement. Some people are of the opinion that religiously inspired fringe theories and theological fringe theories are outside the remit of this board. It is not the case, WP:FRINGE applies to all fringe views in all discourses where they may be given undue weight, IRWolfie- (talk)
- Sure it does... the remit of this noticeboard is to discuss articles that mention potentially fringe concepts (including potentially fringe religious views). That includes discussion of whether the concept is notable enough to merit its own article, and how much weight to give the concept in other articles. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE walk hand in hand. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK... let's separate the wheat from the chaff here.
- I could give a theory that "King Hamlet" in Shakespeare's Hamlet actually refers to Muhammad. Why is this theory of Muhammad in Hamlet a fringe theory? It's not because few people of the general public believe it. It's not because it's a claim about science which is falsified or something like that. It's because Hamlet is a text written by a person who had intentions and used words with meanings, these intentions and meanings are studied, there are experts in this study (English literature scholars), and among these experts the theory has no acceptance. Replace Shakespeare's Hamlet with the Book of John, and replace "King Hamlet" with "Paraclete". The author of the Book of John had intentions and used words with meanings, these intentions and meanings are studied, there are experts in this study (Biblical studies scholars), and among these experts the theory has no acceptance. To undermine the conclusion that this latter theory is fringe while accepting that the former theory is fringe, is to allow those people who puff themselves up with religious airs to be accepted as experts for no other reason than that they appear important. (P.S., if this discussion is heated, I want to say that I enjoy these discussions and I never mean for anything to be personal, and I only ever honestly disagree, either due my stupidity or some insight that I accidentally stumbled upon) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, this is completely the wrong way to approach this issue. If a major religion believed that Hamlet was a sacred text written by God containing prophesies that will be fulfilled in the future we would have to present that viewpoint, properly laying out the belief, its history and the arguments that have been put forward to sustain it. Obviously we would also point to "secular" interpretations if they could be sourced. Your problem, as it seems to me, is that the notion that Muhammad is somehow "in the Bible" seems to you, on the face of it, to be absurd. But that's because it is not culturally normative for you. It's not more or less absurd than any other claim that a sacred text contains coded prophesies. While I guess you don't believe Jesus was the Messiah either, that probably seems less "absurd" because as a Westerner you are simply used to it. We do not include as Fringe theories the view that Jesus is the Messiah, that Isaiah predicted him, or Muhammad was spoken to by God, or travelled to heaven on a magic horse. We do not do this because, frankly, it would be silly and pointless - like arguing in the article on Europa that Zeus probably did not have sex with Europa in the form of a bull, as this is a "fringe theory". That's not a fringe theory, it's a myth or it's theology. What troubles me most here is the potential for double standards. Muslim theories of Biblical meaning are labelled "fringe" but Christian ones are not. And by the way, even secular scholars really have no clear idea what was meant by the "Paraclete" that would be sent. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Blueboar's question three is very well put, so what is the answer anyway? (Obviously, one person's theology will always be someone else's "fringe") Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- On the face of it, it does not seem absurd at all to me. If I knew nothing about the scholarship of the Bible and someone told me that Muhammad is in the Bible, I would think that that is an interesting factoid. The statements about what I think are absurd because of my cultural biases are at best irrelevant, at worst an ad hominem fallacy.
- If someone tried to present the theory that, in the real world, there was in the past an entity called Zeus and that it changed into a bull and had sex with an entity called Europa, I would of course call that theory a fringe theory, because no experts in history, archaeology, or palaeontology hold that view. If the theory is just that in the myth the character Zeus does such, well that's a different claim.
- You have created a nominal division in the sources of views, between religious views and secular views. I think this has no place in this encyclopedia in determining what is fringe and what is not. The only such division that matters is the division between expert views and non-expert views. The fact that a misapplication of this method can lead to a double standard is unfortunate, but not peculiar to it. A double standard can occur whenever editors misapply a method. The problem with your method is that not only will it not solve the problem of misapplication but will also fail to properly categorize theories as fringe when it is applied properly.
- For example, a closely related theory to the theory that "Paraclete" refers to Muhammad is the theory that this material in the Gospel of John was not authored by an early Christian. I feel confident in saying that all of the scholars who study this material, all of the reliable sources for the authorship of the Johannine literature agree that the author of this material was an early Christian. If we can't label the theory that it was non-Christian who wrote it as fringe, there will be no way to counter the undermining of the scholarly consensus by the promotion of the fringe view, because we will not be able to label the competing theory as fringe such that WP:FRINGE applies; the worst we will be able to say about it, is that it's a significant minority view.
- And these sorts of issue are not theoretical. Our sections on authorship of the New Testament books greatly suffer from such promotion. For example, Epistle to the Ephesians, even right now suffers from promotion of the theory that the epistle was actually written by Paul of Tarsus. Promoters of fringe theories try to undermine the consensus among experts that Paul was not the author, and make the theory that he was out to be a real alternative that is accepted by a significant group of experts. But because this theory is a religious view (and a common one), under your method we will not be able to categorize this theory of authorship as fringe (even if every scholar on the issue rejected it!) and therefore counter its promotion.
- The books of the New Testament actually had authors whose identities are studied by experts. If a theory is soundly rejected by these experts, it is a fringe theory. The fact that the theory is promoted by a religious group does nothing to change this, no more than the fringe conspiracy theory that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was actually authored by elders of Zion would become non-fringe if a religious group started promoting it (which actually is the case if the Grand Mufti of Egypt is representative of a religious group: , Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy). Under your method we would have to change the first claim in the Protocols article ("The Protocols...is an antisemitic hoax"), because this neglects the (supposedly) non-fringe, religious point of view of Imam Tantawi and his followers. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Whether a theory is promorted by a "religious group" is quite separate from whether it is a part of a religion. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy is no different from many antisemitic Christians who have believed the Protocols to be true, but belief in the truth of the Protocols is not a religious belief. Your example from Paul does not contradict me at all. I said we do not treat theological positions as fringe theories (as it happens, there is no theological requirement to believe that Paul wrote Ephesians). I also said very clearly that if Hamlet were a sacred text (in the religion of "bardolatry" perhaps), we would have to explain their views in the relevant article, but also include secular interpretations. BTW, the fact that John was "an early Christian" is not disputed by anyone, least of all Muslims. You are merely revealing that you don't actually understand what the debate is. Muslims say that early Christians held views consistent with their own. Paul B (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- What I said is that some people say that the material about the Paraclete is not derived from an early Christian, for example: Keldani who is cited in the Muhammad in the Bible article right now (). His theory is that the material about the Paraclete in John represents authentic sayings of Jesus originally in Aramaic with an Aramic word "Mḥamda" or "Hamīda" representing an Arabic "Muḥammad", translated to a Greek "periklytos" and then corrupted to "paraclete". The consensus view among experts is that there is no good reason for believing this material to be authentic (completely fails the criterion of multiple attestation, and they certainly reject the view that Greek "paracleitos" was the exemplar and that Aramaic "Mḥamda" or "Hamīda" were the originals; Keldani's conjecture does not even occur within the critical apparatus of NA27, there really is no debate on the point). Even if we're supposed to count Jesus among the "early Christians" (really?), it doesn't matter, because Keldani doesn't ). That's not me misunderstanding the debate, that's right there for anyone to see. If the consensus is we should give text-critical theories like Keldani's which are rejected by all experts in textual criticism equal validity to the theories which are accepted by a significant minority of these experts, then I would accept this consensus, but I think it would be a mistake. That material really was composed by someone at some point in some language, whether it was originally in Greek or Aramaic, and how the words were corrupted over time, is a question of history, textual criticism in particular; and just anyone with a theory shouldn't (just because they believe their theories religiously) be given equal standing to the experts. That, and mutatis mutandis for other such claims is all I'm saying. I'm sorry if I'm repeating; I guess I'll stop since I'm becoming annoying; thanks for reading anyway. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Whether a theory is promorted by a "religious group" is quite separate from whether it is a part of a religion. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy is no different from many antisemitic Christians who have believed the Protocols to be true, but belief in the truth of the Protocols is not a religious belief. Your example from Paul does not contradict me at all. I said we do not treat theological positions as fringe theories (as it happens, there is no theological requirement to believe that Paul wrote Ephesians). I also said very clearly that if Hamlet were a sacred text (in the religion of "bardolatry" perhaps), we would have to explain their views in the relevant article, but also include secular interpretations. BTW, the fact that John was "an early Christian" is not disputed by anyone, least of all Muslims. You are merely revealing that you don't actually understand what the debate is. Muslims say that early Christians held views consistent with their own. Paul B (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, this is completely the wrong way to approach this issue. If a major religion believed that Hamlet was a sacred text written by God containing prophesies that will be fulfilled in the future we would have to present that viewpoint, properly laying out the belief, its history and the arguments that have been put forward to sustain it. Obviously we would also point to "secular" interpretations if they could be sourced. Your problem, as it seems to me, is that the notion that Muhammad is somehow "in the Bible" seems to you, on the face of it, to be absurd. But that's because it is not culturally normative for you. It's not more or less absurd than any other claim that a sacred text contains coded prophesies. While I guess you don't believe Jesus was the Messiah either, that probably seems less "absurd" because as a Westerner you are simply used to it. We do not include as Fringe theories the view that Jesus is the Messiah, that Isaiah predicted him, or Muhammad was spoken to by God, or travelled to heaven on a magic horse. We do not do this because, frankly, it would be silly and pointless - like arguing in the article on Europa that Zeus probably did not have sex with Europa in the form of a bull, as this is a "fringe theory". That's not a fringe theory, it's a myth or it's theology. What troubles me most here is the potential for double standards. Muslim theories of Biblical meaning are labelled "fringe" but Christian ones are not. And by the way, even secular scholars really have no clear idea what was meant by the "Paraclete" that would be sent. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I could give a theory that "King Hamlet" in Shakespeare's Hamlet actually refers to Muhammad. Why is this theory of Muhammad in Hamlet a fringe theory? It's not because few people of the general public believe it. It's not because it's a claim about science which is falsified or something like that. It's because Hamlet is a text written by a person who had intentions and used words with meanings, these intentions and meanings are studied, there are experts in this study (English literature scholars), and among these experts the theory has no acceptance. Replace Shakespeare's Hamlet with the Book of John, and replace "King Hamlet" with "Paraclete". The author of the Book of John had intentions and used words with meanings, these intentions and meanings are studied, there are experts in this study (Biblical studies scholars), and among these experts the theory has no acceptance. To undermine the conclusion that this latter theory is fringe while accepting that the former theory is fringe, is to allow those people who puff themselves up with religious airs to be accepted as experts for no other reason than that they appear important. (P.S., if this discussion is heated, I want to say that I enjoy these discussions and I never mean for anything to be personal, and I only ever honestly disagree, either due my stupidity or some insight that I accidentally stumbled upon) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Coming late to this but I'm with Paul B. This article relates to Muslim theology and needs to be treated as such. It may be mainstream theology or may be off-the-wall but we can't judge. It needs an expert to comment, one who can evaluate the sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call this a fringe theory myself, but rather a religious belief, and on that basis I have to think that it is probably more appropriately categorized as Muslim theology than pseudoarchaeology. How prominent the belief is within the Muslim community, which I guess is how we would determine its "fringieness" in that topic, would probably best be determined by consultation with the better reference sources on Islam and its various traditions. By saying this, I am not saying that some other articles might not also suffer similar problems, as Atethnekos indicates above. Actually, I would probably agree with him on most of his points. The big difficulty here is that at least IMHO that we have never really written out any sort of guidelines for how to deal with such content here, and I think we would really benefit from development of such. But none of those concerns are particularly relevant to this topic. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- It still comes down to answering the question: "Who exactly says this, and does anyone accept what they say?" Let's stop debating the nature of angels and the meaning of the word "pin"... and actually examine that basic question. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what "this" is to which you refer. Muslims are required to believe that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible because the Quran says he is: in both the Torah and the Gospels. So there have to be at least two such passages. Various Muslims have cited different verses and made arguments that this or that verse is the prediction. The article cites the most common ones and refers also to some of the less common arguments. I don't think it is really possible to call the less common arguments "fringe" in this case, since all the arguments start from the same premiss (they don't contradict "mainstream" views within a theological context), which is that such predictions are present. This discussion is not about debating angels on pins, but determining the scope and logic of WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure who the above comment is directed at, of course. I suppose it might, maybe, be possible to argue that FRINGE applies to, for instance, Muslim groups which have become inactive in recent years, or disappeared, or been absorbed into other groups. Actually, I'm guessing, maybe, that the Baha'i and any other offshoots of Islam might more or less hold similar beliefs, although I don't know, and inclusion of material on them, if it is sufficiently different, might be worth consideration for inclusion as well. For my own opinion, and that is, at this point, all it is, if there is sufficient difference between the opinions on individual verses or choice of verses between groups of a broaldy "Muslim" nature for there to reasonable cause for the inclusion of separate material on that group's opinions, if that group is notable enough to have a separate article here, it should probably be included to some degree. The question as to whether religious beliefs meet FRINGE, and how they meet it if they do, is actually probably beyond the ability of a noticeboard discussion like this one to determine. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- If the "above comment" is my comment, it's a reply to Blueboar's question "Who exactly says this, and does anyone accept what they say?" Paul B (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure who the above comment is directed at, of course. I suppose it might, maybe, be possible to argue that FRINGE applies to, for instance, Muslim groups which have become inactive in recent years, or disappeared, or been absorbed into other groups. Actually, I'm guessing, maybe, that the Baha'i and any other offshoots of Islam might more or less hold similar beliefs, although I don't know, and inclusion of material on them, if it is sufficiently different, might be worth consideration for inclusion as well. For my own opinion, and that is, at this point, all it is, if there is sufficient difference between the opinions on individual verses or choice of verses between groups of a broaldy "Muslim" nature for there to reasonable cause for the inclusion of separate material on that group's opinions, if that group is notable enough to have a separate article here, it should probably be included to some degree. The question as to whether religious beliefs meet FRINGE, and how they meet it if they do, is actually probably beyond the ability of a noticeboard discussion like this one to determine. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what "this" is to which you refer. Muslims are required to believe that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible because the Quran says he is: in both the Torah and the Gospels. So there have to be at least two such passages. Various Muslims have cited different verses and made arguments that this or that verse is the prediction. The article cites the most common ones and refers also to some of the less common arguments. I don't think it is really possible to call the less common arguments "fringe" in this case, since all the arguments start from the same premiss (they don't contradict "mainstream" views within a theological context), which is that such predictions are present. This discussion is not about debating angels on pins, but determining the scope and logic of WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely a fringe theory.--Tritomex (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely a pointless comment. So it's presumably a fringe theory that Jesus is the Messiah too then? Paul B (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- It still comes down to answering the question: "Who exactly says this, and does anyone accept what they say?" Let's stop debating the nature of angels and the meaning of the word "pin"... and actually examine that basic question. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any attempt to expand the scope of this noticeboard to include religious beliefs would require wider community input - and I for one would utterly oppose it. It seems self-evident to me that policies and guidelines regarding the 'fringe' were never intended to cover such topics, and that attempts to expand their scope are unjustified. It would be a ridiculous exercise anyway. What would constitute the 'mainstream', to which the 'fringe' could be compared? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Really good point. It more or less is beyond the range of expertise of this page to determine whether religious beliefs unique to the American World Patriarchs, for instance, fall within the range of "Fringe", or how, or on which articles. That would be more a matter of WP:WEIGHT, which is a closely related, but still distinct, matter. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Then the religious view that the world is 7000 years old is not a fringe theory, just because it is a religious view. The religious view that life was created with intelligent design is not a fringe view, just because it is a religious view. My view: The mainstream would be the experts for the topic. For the age of the earth, we have experts in geology departments etc. For the origin of life, we have experts in biology departments etc. And for the meaning of the words in the Gospel of John, we have experts in religious studies departments etc. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I tend to agree with you here in what I believe you are saying, that the best sources for matters relating to religious material, or philosophical material, or any material which relates to any area where there does not exist the "proof" we find in hard science will be from those works written by individuals who are counted as experts in their field. This would include those works by single experts which have received significant support in the academic community, academic textbooks relating to the topic, and material in reference books, with maybe individual entries in encyclopedic type content being the most useful, because they are the most clear equivalents to our own articles. There can still, unfortunately, be problems regarding "my expert says..." type arguments, and they can be really problematic, because it is possible for, for instance, the billion-member Catholic Church to hold some really goofy theories about something which even other religions laugh at, but are still held as points of belief within that huge group, which might potentially make it among the most commonly known view of that topic in the world today, even if it is also one which has little if any independent academic support. The best way to resolve this, so far as I can see, would be to consult the most recent highly regarded reference sources, including college-level and higher academic textbooks, and see what they have to say. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- We all accept that the most highly regarded text books should be used. But such books do not generally argue for the the truth or falsity of theological claims on scientific grounds. Unless it's written by a believer, a scholarly discussion of transubstantiation, for example, will not argue whether or not the substance of Jesus' body is actually present in the bread of the Host. Nor will it say "it can't be true because bread isn't flesh". Likewise, it will not judge the question of whether or not Muhammad really is the Paraclete. That's not what historians of religion do. Paul B (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, given my own admittedly limited research into Islam related reference books (encyclopedia, etc.) specifically, most of the encyclopedias actually do have substantial content directly relating to the beliefs of groups, their reasons for believing, etc. Unfortunately, I don't know of as many reference books on Islam which cover it to the same depth as some reference works on Judaism and Christianity, but I would think that if this is an important subject in that field, which it probably is, it should be covered to a reasonable extent in at least some of them. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- We all accept that the most highly regarded text books should be used. But such books do not generally argue for the the truth or falsity of theological claims on scientific grounds. Unless it's written by a believer, a scholarly discussion of transubstantiation, for example, will not argue whether or not the substance of Jesus' body is actually present in the bread of the Host. Nor will it say "it can't be true because bread isn't flesh". Likewise, it will not judge the question of whether or not Muhammad really is the Paraclete. That's not what historians of religion do. Paul B (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Atethnekos, you keep repeating the same mantra, which has already beeen replied to over and over. No-one is saying that views from within a religion that make truth-claims regarding matters of history and science should be uncontradicted in relevant articles about the age of the earth, or whatever the topic is. However, it's pointless and silly to contradict assertions that are made as part of the description of a belief-system when the context is not about truth-claims of that sort. The claim that the world is 7000 years old is a claim that directly contradicts scientific views. The claim that Muhammad is the Paraclete is a completely different sort of claim, since it is a reading of a text based on the premiss / assumption that such a prediction exists. And it is unfalsifiable. The claim that, say, Jesus was born of a Virgin, is about a miracle that by definition is supposed to have suspended normal scientific laws, so to say that it is not possible according to those laws would be irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I tend to agree with you here in what I believe you are saying, that the best sources for matters relating to religious material, or philosophical material, or any material which relates to any area where there does not exist the "proof" we find in hard science will be from those works written by individuals who are counted as experts in their field. This would include those works by single experts which have received significant support in the academic community, academic textbooks relating to the topic, and material in reference books, with maybe individual entries in encyclopedic type content being the most useful, because they are the most clear equivalents to our own articles. There can still, unfortunately, be problems regarding "my expert says..." type arguments, and they can be really problematic, because it is possible for, for instance, the billion-member Catholic Church to hold some really goofy theories about something which even other religions laugh at, but are still held as points of belief within that huge group, which might potentially make it among the most commonly known view of that topic in the world today, even if it is also one which has little if any independent academic support. The best way to resolve this, so far as I can see, would be to consult the most recent highly regarded reference sources, including college-level and higher academic textbooks, and see what they have to say. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any attempt to expand the scope of this noticeboard to include religious beliefs would require wider community input - and I for one would utterly oppose it. It seems self-evident to me that policies and guidelines regarding the 'fringe' were never intended to cover such topics, and that attempts to expand their scope are unjustified. It would be a ridiculous exercise anyway. What would constitute the 'mainstream', to which the 'fringe' could be compared? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
break
I'm not seeing why this is so complicated. It seems there are some reasonably mainstream religious interpretations that Muhammad was prefigured in the Bible: in the article - e.g. - we mention one relating to the Song of Songs, and the belief promulgated around the time of the Crusades that Muhammad was the antichrist as foretold in Revelation. Since those are sourced and apparently non-contentious we can mention them. They're not fringe beliefs but within the universe of religion they're just how the stories were interpreted at some point. The problem the article has had is some editors attempting to shoehorn poorly-sourced masses of text into it, arguing all sorts of edge-case ways in which various bits of text prefigure Muhammad. Since, in the universe of religious discourse, these appear to be completely outside the mainstream, they get the fringe treatment. What we should avoid doing is applying rational skeptical notions of fringe here: that would be as inappropriate as applying fringe guidance to the Interpretations sections of the Little Red Riding Hood article, on the basis that wolves don't really talk. Alexbrn 17:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- What is the actual question anyway - whether or not this belongs in Category:Pseudoarchaeology? The consensus seems to be that this category is uncalled for. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article in question cannot possibly belong in any category referring to archaeology, pseudo or otherwise. It makes no mention of archaeology whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- That where we started, and yes - the article has nothing to do with archaeology, pseudo- or otherwise. Alexbrn 18:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly, and no one but the OP seemed to think otherwise on that point. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (...Who I just now noticed was indefblocked 2 days ago, apparently for their behavior on some other page.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- That where we started, and yes - the article has nothing to do with archaeology, pseudo- or otherwise. Alexbrn 18:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article in question cannot possibly belong in any category referring to archaeology, pseudo or otherwise. It makes no mention of archaeology whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Above, Paul states: "Muslims are required to believe that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible because the Quran says he is: in both the Torah and the Gospels."... Thank you... now we are getting somewhere... this is what I was asking!
- Who says that certain Biblical passages should be interpreted as referring to Muhammad? The Quran does.
- Who agrees with it? Every Muslim.
- Assuming Paul's answer is accurate (and I don't know enough about the Quran to say it isn't) then we can say that the idea that certain Biblical passages refer to Muhammad is NOT fringe (there are millions who believe it). We can also say that it is not UNDUE for Misplaced Pages to have an article about this wide spread belief... or to mention it in other articles.
- The next step is to discuss specific passages... by asking whether specific "Bibilical passage X" is seen by the Muslim mainstream as being one of those predictions that the Quran talks about? Again... I don't know enough to answer this question... I just know that it is the question that needs to be asked. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. The information is extremely useful. If they all tend to agree about certain individual quotes from the Bible, those would be among the most important available. If there are some quotations which, for instance, Shiites think refer to Muhammad, but which Sunnis don't, that material might be relevant for a subsection of "Specifically Shiite views" (God, I hope I got both "i"'s in there), and similar sections for other groups of Muslims. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly right... but there does come a point when we shouldn't mention a specific interpretation ... if some obscure Imam has written that "specific Bible passage X" refers to Mohamed, but no other Islamic scholars agree, then that specific interpretation can (and should) be disregarded as being Fringe. To mention it would give UNDUE weight to an extreme minority (ie fringe) view. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. The information is extremely useful. If they all tend to agree about certain individual quotes from the Bible, those would be among the most important available. If there are some quotations which, for instance, Shiites think refer to Muhammad, but which Sunnis don't, that material might be relevant for a subsection of "Specifically Shiite views" (God, I hope I got both "i"'s in there), and similar sections for other groups of Muslims. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this discussion is actually occurring. Is there any actual issue? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, there isn't. This thread was started by an Islamophobic member of the neo-Nazi EDL, who wanted to argue than an article on Muhammad in the Bible was "pseudoarchaeology", even though there was no mention of archaeology in it. That was always a non-starter, but for some reason this topic seems to have "hit a nerve" with some editors. The fact that the Quran says that Muhammad's prophetic mission is predicted in the Bible is undisputed. Any editor only has to read the LEAD of the linked article to learn that, so there is no debate of the kind that Blueboar refers to. The debate has actually been about something quite different, Atethnekos' claim that the belief is necessarily fringe because it's just rubbish to say that a book written hundreds of years before he was born predicted Muhammad. If we took the view that that's fringe, we'sd have to take the view that any number of religious views are fringe. Added to that is another, quite different, question that's got mixed up with this: whether we can claim that arguments made by only one or two writers are "fringe". I think that's missing the point of WP:FRINGE altogether. Lots of articles contain opinions expressed by one or two writers (Frank Harris argues that Mary Fitton was the Dark Lady of Shakespeare's sonnets). I would say that the fact that only a few writers have expressed a particular view does not make them fringe, unless they are fundamentally inconsistent with a consensus position. Of course we should not give Undue Weight to views that are not widely expressed, but that's a quite different issue. Finally, there is the question of whether we can apply WP:FRINGE at all to differing theological views, Some editors seem to think that a a small minorioty view = "fringe". I don't think that's the case when it comes to religion. The fact that Roman Catholics are a far greater in numeber that Seventh Day Adventists dos not mean that their theology somehow counts as more "mainstream", at least not in the same sense as scientific mainstream views. The fact that there are overwhelmingly more Catholics does not mean, IMO, that we can call SDA views fringe. That's becase there is no community of "theologians" independent of the belief-system of which they are a part. The problem(s) being debated is (are) the interaction of these different usages of "fringe". Paul B (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I know I suggested I wouldn't continue, but you are now saying that my claim is that the belief is necessarily fringe because it's just rubbish. I did not say that, and that is not my claim. I say it's fringe for the same reason that I think any theory is fringe: because all or virtually all of the reliable sources for the topic reject the view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please try to read more carefully. I didn't say that you just announced "it's just rubbish" (which wouldn't even be an argument). I wrote you said "it's just rubbish to say that a book written hundreds of years before he was born predicted Muhammad." In other words what's "rubbish", according to you, is the idea that the authors of the Bible could see into the future. Your words were "Even the newest Biblical texts were written 450–500 years before Muhammad's birth, which strongly suggests it would be impossible, barring time travel or clairvoyance". So unless you are saying you believe they actually did use 'time travel' or 'clairvoyance', you are saying just what I said you said. So once again you fail to read what's being written and fail to accurately describe your own words. Paul B (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Paul, even that extended description is not my reason for saying it is fringe. That is the reason that it would be impossible, on my view. That's not my reason for saying it is fringe. I don't say it's fringe because it's impossible. I say it is fringe because all or virtually all of the reliable source for the topic reject the view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the article is based on religious texts and religiously motivated authors without proper scientific secondary sources about each question raised. This is not how an article regarding this question should look like--Tritomex (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Tritomex, it's exactly how almost all articles on such subjects look. You don't find "scientific sources" in the articles Transubstantiation, Holy Trinity, Incarnation (Christianity), Antichrist etc, (though I see that Virgin birth of Jesus has one sentence from Dawkins someone has stuck rather absurdly in the middle of it, saying that virgin birth is impossible). The articles are not about science. They are about interpretations of texts from a theological perspective, ones which take as given the view that the Bible contains prophecies. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't a science topic. People who look to science for answers on this topic are fools who will believe anything, because science has no answers on this topic, nor will it ever. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Amusing. Fools who believes anything, and the topic of religion. Eh? :) I would have thought textual analysis would be covered under the soft sciences, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Conduct an experiment and analyse the results before you go trying to convince people it's the scientific method. Oh, there is no experiment that can shed any light on whose interpretation of this is correct? This science sounds just like Soviet science and Nazi science if it has an agenda to push, it calls itself "science" only to convince people of their BS but in reality there is no actual scientific method or experiment behind it, it's all a lot of empty crowing about "science" on a distinctly non-science topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here would be an example of an experiment: Search all of the oldest manuscripts of John 14:16, and see if any have the variant "perikluton" as per Keldani's theory. Another experiment: Survey examples of texts that use similar scripts to the probable exemplars or relevant archetype for the "parakleton" manuscripts and see if "perikluton" looks similar enough to "parakleton" such that copyists would reliably mistake one for the other. Or, see if other texts on the same topic from around the same time use "perikluton" in the same way as Keldani's supposes it is used in John, and similarly for "parakleton". These are the sorts of experiments that textual critics and paleographers do; it's a type of historical method. If what you say is right: That textual criticism is some farce, then what you are saying is that randomly selecting variants is as reliable a method for reconstruction as the method that the experts use. I could intentionally make a terrible copy of Hamlet where he lives at the end, tell you I copied it from a manuscript I found in a library which was afterwards destroyed, and you would say that that has equal validity, because you accept no method which can decide between my variants and others'. You can't even reject my testimony on the basis of my being an obvious forger, because that is a method (one used by the experts). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Textual criticism of some form has been around so long, it's not always thought of as science, though I suppose one could technically include it in an extended definition of "soft science". If those are 'experiments' I don't see how any of them can get you past the hypothesis stage, though. If you find a positive sometimes it can get something past the hypothesis stage, not so much with failure to find a negative. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- So then on your view it is just as likely that the earliest reconstructable text of Exodus had the vorlage for "Thou shalt commit adultery" rather than for "Thou shalt not commit adultery", because that is a variant: Wicked Bible. I think almost everyone calls this a printing mistake, and maybe you do too, but either you think it is not a mistake or you think mistakes are just another valid way of being authentic to the text, or not? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are not making any sense at all. It's very common for mistakes to occur in the transmission of texts, through mishearing, misreading and other accidents. Look at any edition of Hamlet, to refer to your favourite example, for the multiple readings of his "too, too solid (or sullied, or sallied) flesh." Trying to reconstruct the original version is common too. Whether one finds Keldani's theory plausible or not is quite separate from the undeniable fact that such slippages occur all the time, as your own example demonstrates. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just asking Til what he thinks, because he seems to think that textual criticism cannot rule out such variants. I know all of what you just said. I think the ordering of the comments became jumbled?--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are not making any sense at all. It's very common for mistakes to occur in the transmission of texts, through mishearing, misreading and other accidents. Look at any edition of Hamlet, to refer to your favourite example, for the multiple readings of his "too, too solid (or sullied, or sallied) flesh." Trying to reconstruct the original version is common too. Whether one finds Keldani's theory plausible or not is quite separate from the undeniable fact that such slippages occur all the time, as your own example demonstrates. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- So then on your view it is just as likely that the earliest reconstructable text of Exodus had the vorlage for "Thou shalt commit adultery" rather than for "Thou shalt not commit adultery", because that is a variant: Wicked Bible. I think almost everyone calls this a printing mistake, and maybe you do too, but either you think it is not a mistake or you think mistakes are just another valid way of being authentic to the text, or not? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article simply presents Keldani's argument. It does not endorse it. Yes, it's a wildly contorted example of 'reasoning' which presupposes that a Semitic text preceded the Greek one, which is not a very widespread view to say the least. But as it happens, it's quite mainstream to take the view that Gospel originated from a record of orally transmitted stories and memories, which would presumably have originally been in Aramaic (Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Modern_criticism), so the suggestion that a concept could have become garbled in transition to Greek is not far-fetched. But of course it's pure speculation. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Morphic resonance. That's the cause of all this. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 18:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keldani's theory is that Greek "parakleton" was corrupted from Greek "periklyton", that's his whole basis for saying that Muhammad is mentioned in John 14:16. There's no manuscript which has this variant (I don't think?), and I haven't seen any text critic actually present this conjecture. I'm waiting to hear back from Bart Ehrman (he may not respond) as to whether any reliable source has ever presented this theory. I don't think the article endorses the theory, but I do think Keldani's theory that John 14:16 originally had "periklyton" is a fringe theory; if it wasn't a fringe theory I would think that at least one textual critic would...well, I'm repeating my mantra.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keldani's theory is that the original word was Ahmad (ie Muhammad). Presumably John was divinely informed that Prophet "Ahmad" would come, and told his followers. They recorded his Divinely Inspired Utterance, transcribed the name into Greek and then at some later copying stage, mistranscribed the transcription to end up with Paraclete. I'm 99% certain that no non-Muslim scholar has ever taken such an argument seriously. It would certainly be a fringe theory in the article on Johannine literature. Indeed Keldani would not even count as a reliable source, but in the article on Muhammad in the Bible it is simply a well-known example of Muslim apologetics on this issue. Paul B (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, well then I think we have a serious agreement then: Sometimes these theories (or Keldani's at least) are fringe theories. I've always taken the fringe classification to apply regardless of what article in which the theory is included, but I could be mistaken. Do you think intelligent design could be a non-fringe theory when included in certain articles? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keldani's theory is that the original word was Ahmad (ie Muhammad). Presumably John was divinely informed that Prophet "Ahmad" would come, and told his followers. They recorded his Divinely Inspired Utterance, transcribed the name into Greek and then at some later copying stage, mistranscribed the transcription to end up with Paraclete. I'm 99% certain that no non-Muslim scholar has ever taken such an argument seriously. It would certainly be a fringe theory in the article on Johannine literature. Indeed Keldani would not even count as a reliable source, but in the article on Muhammad in the Bible it is simply a well-known example of Muslim apologetics on this issue. Paul B (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Textual criticism of some form has been around so long, it's not always thought of as science, though I suppose one could technically include it in an extended definition of "soft science". If those are 'experiments' I don't see how any of them can get you past the hypothesis stage, though. If you find a positive sometimes it can get something past the hypothesis stage, not so much with failure to find a negative. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here would be an example of an experiment: Search all of the oldest manuscripts of John 14:16, and see if any have the variant "perikluton" as per Keldani's theory. Another experiment: Survey examples of texts that use similar scripts to the probable exemplars or relevant archetype for the "parakleton" manuscripts and see if "perikluton" looks similar enough to "parakleton" such that copyists would reliably mistake one for the other. Or, see if other texts on the same topic from around the same time use "perikluton" in the same way as Keldani's supposes it is used in John, and similarly for "parakleton". These are the sorts of experiments that textual critics and paleographers do; it's a type of historical method. If what you say is right: That textual criticism is some farce, then what you are saying is that randomly selecting variants is as reliable a method for reconstruction as the method that the experts use. I could intentionally make a terrible copy of Hamlet where he lives at the end, tell you I copied it from a manuscript I found in a library which was afterwards destroyed, and you would say that that has equal validity, because you accept no method which can decide between my variants and others'. You can't even reject my testimony on the basis of my being an obvious forger, because that is a method (one used by the experts). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Conduct an experiment and analyse the results before you go trying to convince people it's the scientific method. Oh, there is no experiment that can shed any light on whose interpretation of this is correct? This science sounds just like Soviet science and Nazi science if it has an agenda to push, it calls itself "science" only to convince people of their BS but in reality there is no actual scientific method or experiment behind it, it's all a lot of empty crowing about "science" on a distinctly non-science topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Amusing. Fools who believes anything, and the topic of religion. Eh? :) I would have thought textual analysis would be covered under the soft sciences, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please try to read more carefully. I didn't say that you just announced "it's just rubbish" (which wouldn't even be an argument). I wrote you said "it's just rubbish to say that a book written hundreds of years before he was born predicted Muhammad." In other words what's "rubbish", according to you, is the idea that the authors of the Bible could see into the future. Your words were "Even the newest Biblical texts were written 450–500 years before Muhammad's birth, which strongly suggests it would be impossible, barring time travel or clairvoyance". So unless you are saying you believe they actually did use 'time travel' or 'clairvoyance', you are saying just what I said you said. So once again you fail to read what's being written and fail to accurately describe your own words. Paul B (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Directed-energy weapon
We have several articles that have repeatedly been subject to paranoid editing -- directed-energy weapon is one of them, and it is currently in the midst of an episode. Additional input would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- In this instance it seems if someone's edits are against wiki policy and other editors explain that and even link to a description of that policy, that someone can just say you didn't provide a reason why once you've tired of explaining it to them.
- I think your explanation that it was "weakly sourced paranoia" was more than sufficient for anyone not suffering from delusions. (not that I'm saying anyone involved is)Batvette (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Follow the normal protocol When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help.
To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.78.205 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- The 'normal protocol' when material is improperly added - by citing invalid sources, or engaging in synthesis - is to remove it. I have just had to remove a citation to a document uploaded to scribd.com from the article, as it cannot possibly be used as a source, for two reasons. Firstly, there is no way whatsoever to verify the authenticity of an uploaded document, and secondly, if it is authentic, it has apparently been uploaded in breach of Crown copyright. Misplaced Pages does not cite copyright violating material. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- To "unsigned", there were discussions opened from the beginning, providing specific examples of how the material did not meet wiki standards, links were provided to wiki policy pages describing the way policy prohibited this type of editing, even text of that policy CP'd to walk the editor through it. It would be disingenuous to believe this editor has not been provided "reasoning" why his conspiracy theory pushing edits are being reverted- and from looking at the OR content he's introduced from the beginning (as I CP'd an example of on the talk page) that's what's going on there. His repeated claims we aren't giving details or reasons are just obscuring the issue and shifting the "problem editor" issue on others instead of himself. At this point it's useless to give a detailed description of reverts as this reaches a point of edit warring which I loathe, but also won't waste energy attempting to reason with the unreasonable. Batvette (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War
During the FA try on this article it was suggested that Sarmila Bose be used as a source, I discounted her as a source as she is, in my opinion fringe. So I was then asked to post here. Bose is a known revisionist historian with regards to the Bangladesh Liberation War. In one paper she claimed the Pakistani army had committed no rapes, in another she says, a few thousand at most. She got the number of men in theater wrong, she said the Pakistani army only had 30,00 men on the ground, it was 90,000. The generally accepted figure for rapes in this conflict is 200,000, with a high estimate of 400,00. There is an academic consensus the war was a genocide, Bose say it was not one. Is this author fringe? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that she is a minority academic view. I see that the book has attracted some blistering criticism. It should be used with great care if at all. It may be appropriate at some point to mention her view but it must on no account be presented as the only view. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I'm the FA reviewer who encouraged this be sent here ... there's never been any question that she holds a minority viewpoint that has attracted a great deal of academic criticism (and, to be fair here, occasional support). The big question is whether she's "just" a minority viewpoint, such that an article on the topic should mention her as a dissenting viewpoint, or whether she is a fringe source that should be excluded per policy. For reference, the sources under consideration include her book Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War (Amazon, with some preview) and potentially her 2007 paper in Economic and Political Weekly (JSTOR), for use in the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it meets WP:HISTRS as an academic source, thus can be included, but then the question is how much weight to give it. It may be very bad history but it isn't pseudohistory. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- If what you said above is correct I would disagree. A source that has received substantial criticism for factual areas is not reliable. If what Darkness Shines says is correct, it is a fringe viewpoint. i.e it has no acceptance amongst academics. Further, if someone is well known as having done a bad job in a work, then the work is not reliable and should not be used in any circumstance unless attributed. Weight should only then be assigned to Bose if secondary sources assign Bose's views weight so as to address the poor quality of the work; otherwise it would be undue and violate NPOV. Any neutral coverage would mention the poor reception of the work. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that if it is mentioned at all it should be as the minority view that it is. It's not exactly fringe as in the main purpose of this board, but, now I have seen some more reviews, it seems that it is such poor history that it shouldn't be regarded as a reliable source. It's not really encyclopaedic to mention sources only to discredit them. If they add nothing to knowledge, ignore them. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- If what you said above is correct I would disagree. A source that has received substantial criticism for factual areas is not reliable. If what Darkness Shines says is correct, it is a fringe viewpoint. i.e it has no acceptance amongst academics. Further, if someone is well known as having done a bad job in a work, then the work is not reliable and should not be used in any circumstance unless attributed. Weight should only then be assigned to Bose if secondary sources assign Bose's views weight so as to address the poor quality of the work; otherwise it would be undue and violate NPOV. Any neutral coverage would mention the poor reception of the work. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Squeamish, I searched her book, it does not even mention the rapes that I could find. We have two papers from her that I know of, one say no rapes by Pakistani army and only 34k men on the ground (both wrong obviously). The other says the rapes were only a few thousand at most, and their was no genocide (off the top of my head on this, not at home) We have a commonly cited figure of 200,00 as being most likely, and of course their is an academic consensus that this was a genocide, Bose flies in the face of this. She is fringe. I have in fact yet to see another researcher or author make the claims she does. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes the book has received some "blistering criticism", but many of those critics are hardly unbiassed themselves. There has been quite a range of responses. The fact remains that she is scholar in a major institution, published by a serious press. Perhaps Darkness Shines can tell us where Bose said there were no rapes (which would be a truly extraordinary claim to make about such a war, or indeed almost any war). She says "possibly several thousand true rape victims" in the 2007 Economic and Political Weekly article. As for genocide, she argues that the killings by the West Pakistanis did not fit the definition. Frankly, I think the bandying about of the term "genocide" in this way, by both Bose and her opponents to be unseemly: as if technicalities of defining what it means to target an 'ethnic' group allow one to wave the word around like a banner of pure victimhood. Paul B (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fringe discussion aside, I'd just like to note that, yes, Dead Reckoning does include some discussion of rape in the context of the 1971 conflict, although mostly not in pages available in the online preview. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it meets WP:HISTRS as an academic source, thus can be included, but then the question is how much weight to give it. It may be very bad history but it isn't pseudohistory. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I'm the FA reviewer who encouraged this be sent here ... there's never been any question that she holds a minority viewpoint that has attracted a great deal of academic criticism (and, to be fair here, occasional support). The big question is whether she's "just" a minority viewpoint, such that an article on the topic should mention her as a dissenting viewpoint, or whether she is a fringe source that should be excluded per policy. For reference, the sources under consideration include her book Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War (Amazon, with some preview) and potentially her 2007 paper in Economic and Political Weekly (JSTOR), for use in the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
In answer to my own question, in her 2005 article, Bose does not say there were no rapes. She is reporting on a series of specific case studies. She says no rapes by Pakistani soldiers were reported by eyewitnesses interviewed in these studies. These are the actual words:
No rape of women by Pakistan army found in the specific case studies: In all of the incidents involving the Pakistan army in the case studies, the armed forces were found not to have raped women. While this cannot be extrapolated beyond the few specific incidents in this study, it is significant, as in the popular narrative the allegation of rape is often clubbed together with allegation of killing. Rape allegations were made in prior verbal discussions in some cases and in a published work on one of the incidents. However, Bengali eyewitnesses, participants and survivors of the incidents testified to the violence and killings, but also testified that no rape had taken place in these cases. While rape is known to occur in all situations of war, charges and counter-charges on rape form a particularly contentious issue in this conflict. The absence of this particular form of violence in these instances underlines the care that needs to be taken to distinguish between circumstances in which rape may have taken place from those in which it did not.
In other words she clearly says that rape "always" occurs in such wars, implicitly accepting that it did happen, but is saying that the mantra, as it were, that has become established in this instance - of rampaging rapes and murders combined - is not supported by the evidence of these specific case studies. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Supplement to this: DS argues that Bose is fringe because "She got the number of men in theater wrong, she said the Pakistani army only had 30,00 men on the ground, it was 90,000." I don't know where DS gets this statistic, though the same claim appears on this blog . However, Bose is quoted as saying that the West Pakistani deployment comprised "34,000" combat troops plus "another 11,000 men" in support roles (making 45,000). The 90,000 figure is arrived at by combining "54,000 army and 22,000 paramilitary forces". It's clear that "paramilitary" forces are not included in Bose's figures, so in reality we have a discrepancy between 54,000 and 45,000, which could be explained in any number of ways, and is, in any case, largely irrelevant to the issue, since even if she did make a mistake errors can be found in almost any work if you look hard enough. Paul B (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- 90,000 POWs prove you wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- "The other was the fate of some 90,000 Pakistani soldiers held by Indian forces in Bangladesh after their surrender" Human Rights in the Twentieth Century p273 Cambridge University Press Darkness Shines (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is so feeble, it's hardly worth responding to. A passing phrase in a generalist book using the word "soldiers" does not mean that all 90.000 were members of the regular armed forces. If you were less dogmatic and hyperbolic in your claims without regard to fairness or relevance, you might get a more sympathetic hearing. This is part of the problem. You are just looking for any source to support what you want to say. You are not interested in the detail that gets to the truth of the matter. Bullying is not a helpful tactic. Paul B (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- You saying 90,000 men would not be able to rape 200,000 women in a nine month period? That is what Bose says. I am not bullying anyone, such accusations are not a helpful tactic. If you want to say there were not 90,000 men on the ground rampaging through the country take it up with the sources, not me. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is so feeble, it's hardly worth responding to. A passing phrase in a generalist book using the word "soldiers" does not mean that all 90.000 were members of the regular armed forces. If you were less dogmatic and hyperbolic in your claims without regard to fairness or relevance, you might get a more sympathetic hearing. This is part of the problem. You are just looking for any source to support what you want to say. You are not interested in the detail that gets to the truth of the matter. Bullying is not a helpful tactic. Paul B (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Bose may be in the minority, but I fail to see how she could be construed as fringe. On a related note, I believe Pakistani atrocities during the Bangladesh war have been greatly exaggerated. As I recall, the official Bangladeshi figure of 300,000 civilians killed was mistranslated into English as 3 million, and this lie made its way around the world while the truth was still getting its shoes tied. However, upon looking for the best recent scholarship, I find the 300,000 figure close to the truth, if not on the high side. "Fifty years of violent war deaths from Vietnam to Bosnia: analysis of data from the world health survey programme", for example, estimates 269,000 civilians were killed; the authors note that this is far higher than a previous estimate of 58,000 from Uppsala University and the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (note that the latter figure is roughly double the Pakistani estimate of 26,000). Now, the study has received strong criticism from academic journals for significantly inflating war death tolls, but none for underestimation that I could find. Nevertheless, the relevant Misplaced Pages articles all seem to insist that the death toll was in seven digits, citing dubious sources like R.J. Rummel and emotional pleas from Bangladeshi sources. With this in mind, I would hardly be surprised if Bose was right about the rapes--and based on past interaction with the editor, I would hardly be surprised to learn Darkness Shines is a major reason why some of these Misplaced Pages articles are so ridiculously biased.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- If it's a minority of 1, then that is a fringe viewpoint, being only shared by the one scholar. For example, to draw a parallel with physics, Conformal cyclic cosmology is a fringe position because it has only one notable proponent; Penrose himself, with no real acceptance even as a minority position. Now that doesn't mean there is an issue with CCC advocates pushing material on wikipedia (there isn't), but it is still a fringe position since it has no real acceptance. We have an article on CCC, but it's not something that necessarily has weight to be mentioned elsewhere, and it's short comings should be mentioned in other articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that argument stands up in cases such as this. You are talking about a scientific theory that is rejected by other scientists. In this case we are discussing a recent book, based on specific research undertaken by the author. This is not a case in which other scholars "have failed to replicate" an experiment, or have found methological flaws that invalidate the model. Historical research is not like that. Often in the humanities a single book will be the only source putting forward a particular point of view and it will be based on research unique to that work. Responses may take many years to filter through, so that it is really impossible to establish what the consensus of opinion in an area really is. When you add to the mix political and ideological motivations, it becomes even more difficult to assess the matter. These exist in all fields to some extent, but are far less of an issue in the kind of science you give as an example. The radical feminist Susan Brownmiller accepted the highest figures for rapes in Bangladesh because it suited her ideological agenda, and for example in this book Bose's argument is criticised, not because the author has any evidence that it is inaccurate, but because "the silencing of gender violence" "does harm". In other words the objection is ideological, not evidence-based (and of course Bose has not "silenced" anyone at all). Paul B (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are wrong on Brownmiller, she uses the generally accepted figure of 200,000 and says so in her book. The hig end figure is 400,000. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are being less than transparent again. She wrote "200,000, 300,000, or possibly 400,000 (three sets of statistics have been quoted) women were raped". 200,000 is the minimum figure she gives. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Bollocks am I, Brownmiller gives the generally accepted figure of 200,000. Yes she also gives the other estimates but she says 200,000 is the generally accepted one, so how exactly am I being less that transparent? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, the sentence I quote is the only one in the book in which she gives figures. The whole passage is as I've given it, with no suggestion that one figure is more accepted than another. So there is no reference to 200,000 being the "generally accepted" figure. You appear to have made that up. Of course Brownmiller is not any kind of expert, so her figure is really irrelevant. I only mentioned it to make the point that ideology is implicated in the discussion. You only latched onto it, because, seemingly, it's the only thing you felt able to "reply" to in your dismissive sneering way. And you don't even get that right. of course I'm perfectly willing to accept that Brownmiller may have changed the text in different editions, or written about it in other contexts, but again, you care less about the details than in ramming your dogma down editors' throats. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, had not seen this response. I did not mean Brownmiller said it was the generally accepted figure, I meant she had cited that as well as the other estimates. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, the sentence I quote is the only one in the book in which she gives figures. The whole passage is as I've given it, with no suggestion that one figure is more accepted than another. So there is no reference to 200,000 being the "generally accepted" figure. You appear to have made that up. Of course Brownmiller is not any kind of expert, so her figure is really irrelevant. I only mentioned it to make the point that ideology is implicated in the discussion. You only latched onto it, because, seemingly, it's the only thing you felt able to "reply" to in your dismissive sneering way. And you don't even get that right. of course I'm perfectly willing to accept that Brownmiller may have changed the text in different editions, or written about it in other contexts, but again, you care less about the details than in ramming your dogma down editors' throats. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Bollocks am I, Brownmiller gives the generally accepted figure of 200,000. Yes she also gives the other estimates but she says 200,000 is the generally accepted one, so how exactly am I being less that transparent? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are being less than transparent again. She wrote "200,000, 300,000, or possibly 400,000 (three sets of statistics have been quoted) women were raped". 200,000 is the minimum figure she gives. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are wrong on Brownmiller, she uses the generally accepted figure of 200,000 and says so in her book. The hig end figure is 400,000. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that argument stands up in cases such as this. You are talking about a scientific theory that is rejected by other scientists. In this case we are discussing a recent book, based on specific research undertaken by the author. This is not a case in which other scholars "have failed to replicate" an experiment, or have found methological flaws that invalidate the model. Historical research is not like that. Often in the humanities a single book will be the only source putting forward a particular point of view and it will be based on research unique to that work. Responses may take many years to filter through, so that it is really impossible to establish what the consensus of opinion in an area really is. When you add to the mix political and ideological motivations, it becomes even more difficult to assess the matter. These exist in all fields to some extent, but are far less of an issue in the kind of science you give as an example. The radical feminist Susan Brownmiller accepted the highest figures for rapes in Bangladesh because it suited her ideological agenda, and for example in this book Bose's argument is criticised, not because the author has any evidence that it is inaccurate, but because "the silencing of gender violence" "does harm". In other words the objection is ideological, not evidence-based (and of course Bose has not "silenced" anyone at all). Paul B (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- What Bangladeshi sources? Look at the article in question, you will not find one. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- If it's a minority of 1, then that is a fringe viewpoint, being only shared by the one scholar. For example, to draw a parallel with physics, Conformal cyclic cosmology is a fringe position because it has only one notable proponent; Penrose himself, with no real acceptance even as a minority position. Now that doesn't mean there is an issue with CCC advocates pushing material on wikipedia (there isn't), but it is still a fringe position since it has no real acceptance. We have an article on CCC, but it's not something that necessarily has weight to be mentioned elsewhere, and it's short comings should be mentioned in other articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Genocides in history (which Darkness Shines and I have disagreed on because of his proclivity to delete academic sources as "fringe" without taking them here) even cites the Guinness Book of World Records as a source about Pakistani atrocities during the war! (One of their "Top 5 Genocides"....)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have never cited the Guinness book of records? And I remove fringe genocide deniers from an article for good reason. Bose is the only author who says the rapes were in the thousands, and that it was not a genocide. Hence she is fringe. And also wrong obviously. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still hesitant about this one. It is not pseudohistory like the 1421 hypothesis, but comes from within the academy. This isn't the webpage of a pseudohistorian. Therefore we should judge it by how it has been received in academia. I find just two reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Gill, John H. Journal of Military History 76:3 pp927-929 Jul 2012; and Singh, Priyanka. Nations and Nationalism 18:3. I haven't accessed the Gill, have read the Singh. Singh is polite but it is a very negative review, rejecting the main argument of the book, the methodology, the approach to calculating casualties, and the way that rape is described. Among non-academic serious press reviews, Martin Woollacott is quite favourable in the Guardian, whereas this review in Economic and Political Weekly is a complete debunking. I must say that I find the debunking persuasive. It isn't really a question for this board. It's a sourcing and balance question. I wish that WP:HISTRS (which remains simply an essay) could be usable in cases like this, but I don't think it is. The onus is on those who want to see material included to demonstrate that it is worth including. So there are two options. Either leave Bose out entirely, on the basis that those conclusions of hers that are well-founded will at some point be echoed by other research. Or cover both sides of the controversy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have never cited the Guinness book of records? And I remove fringe genocide deniers from an article for good reason. Bose is the only author who says the rapes were in the thousands, and that it was not a genocide. Hence she is fringe. And also wrong obviously. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
So where do we stand on this? As stated 200,000 is the generally accepted figure for the mass rapes, see Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia D'Costa Routledge pp120-121 "Although the exact number of rapes is still heavily disputed, the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months". With Bose we have one paper saying none (in a few case studies, so not really usefull?). And I do not know what figure she gives in her book, has anyone looked? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Ademar José Gevaerd
Ademar José Gevaerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Enjoy.
jps (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Can someone with a working knowledge of Portuguese and familiarity with Brazilian culture look over the news sources in this article? They seem like tabloids - unusually credulous. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Spiral Dynamics
Spiral Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Been tagged since the beginning of this year. What shall we do?
jps (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I was going to say merge with the author of the eponymous book … Question: Why are there two articles about him? Are occupational forks, for want of a better term, acceptable?—Odysseus1479 04:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- We shouldn't have two articles on the same person. Since Don Beck (management consultant) is clumsily-titled and starts with Don Beck, co-author of Spiral Dynamics theory, has a more complete and significantly well-referenced page at Don Edward Beck", I'm redirecting it. More work is needed on the target article... bobrayner (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- More work is needed on the target article -- surely an understatement. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous articles I've read in a long time. jps (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've done a bit of work on Don Edward Beck. Quite a lot of the sources didn't actually support the content, or didn't mention Beck, &c. Rather than purely WP:FRINGE, I think we also have more general problems of WP:NPOV and maybe a whiff of WP:COI. It's probably a good idea to check related articles like MEMEnomics too. bobrayner (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- More work is needed on the target article -- surely an understatement. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous articles I've read in a long time. jps (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- We shouldn't have two articles on the same person. Since Don Beck (management consultant) is clumsily-titled and starts with Don Beck, co-author of Spiral Dynamics theory, has a more complete and significantly well-referenced page at Don Edward Beck", I'm redirecting it. More work is needed on the target article... bobrayner (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Integral Garden
Integral ecology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
So far down the rabbit hole. Did you know that this is an emerging field of study?
jps (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
In case you're keeping track, I did some weeding of a garden. Will there be backlash?
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Transdisciplinarity
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Integral psychology
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Integral leadership
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Integral art
- Yes. Yes, there will be a backlash.
- jps (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is a lot of rubbish in the articles, and spamming of ideas which are at the edges of the social sciences. Transdisciplinarity, though, is a respectable concept. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Don't get "transdisciplinarity" confused with cross disciplinarity or interdisciplinarity, now :P jps (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is a lot of rubbish in the articles, and spamming of ideas which are at the edges of the social sciences. Transdisciplinarity, though, is a respectable concept. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- jps (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
TM-Sidhi_program
Could use some additional eyes at Talk:TM-Sidhi_program#Studies_in_peer-reviewed_journals to see if I am misrepresenting things. I feel like I am getting some wikilawyer-stonewalling about if WP:PRIMARY studies by proponents of TM meet reliable sourcing guidelines, with the other editor claiming that since these are "social sciences" things like WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS don't apply. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I cannot for the life of me figure out how Transcendental Meditation research is not a gross violation of WP:SYNTH. Can anyone explain that to me? jps (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Haven't read the entire article but the claim that "More research is needed..." in the lead is definite WP:SYNTH and seems a bit of wishful thinking, given that sources only say that sample sizes are too small to be conclusive. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Jose G. Dorea
Appears to be a prolific academic publishing material on the dangers of vaccines. Much of his works seems sufficiently new there is little or no mainstream reaction to it. Not sure how/if fringe guidelines apply ... ?
- Slightly stubby right now. Certainly the thiomersal business has been thoroughly debunked by a number of reliable sources including the CDC, the the FDA, and Quackwatch, but you don't want to synthesize here. The question is, have any of his publications been noticed by people other than Joseph Mercola accolytes? If not, then removing mention of that work from his article is appropriate. jps (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
James H. Fetzer
James H. Fetzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There seems to be an issue with having the lead of this article about a well-known conspiracy theory proponent actually say he is a conspiracy theory proponent. Discussion has not been fruitful. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to include differentials, but for now I am busy with other activities. I want merely to respond so that I do not seem to be ignoring this. Anyway, LuckyLouie's claim is not only an utter but an absurd falsity. As to the "James H. Fetzer" article, I never once opposed the lead saying that Fetzer is a conspiracy theory proponent. I opposed LuckyLouie and someone else's insistence to say that he was a proponent of government conspiracies—an inane statement. Fetzer is the very opposite—an opponent of government conspiracies—since he is a proponent of conspiracy theories. Wikieditors cannot recognize their stark category mistake, conflating conspiracy theories (type of explanation) with alleged government conspiracies (types of crimes).
- When someone instead said that he was a "proponent of conspiracy theories", I endorsed that—and criticized other unexplained changes for violations of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Yet someone came along, irrationally thinking the problem was the word proponent, and wordily and unclearly said he was a "proponent of his beliefs in conspiracy theories", although for the life of me, I cannot see how that would address the problem if it were the word proponent. At that uselessness, I simply changed it to "a leading conspiracy theorist". This was all yesterday, and since then, everyone's edits—even LuckyLouie's—have kept my phrase "a leading conspiracy theorist".
- The actual conflicts are two. One is whether it should be deleted from the lead that Fetzer investigated or researched alleged government conspiracies—which reliable sources clearly stated is how Fetzer become a leading conspiracy theorist—since, according to Lucky's Theorem, citing no reliable source, Fetzer is only either a proponent of or an investigator of the unicategory conspiracytheoriesgovernmetnconspiracies. The other is whether it is insignificant, and thus should be deleted from the lead, that Fetzer, before becoming a leading conspiracy theorist, was a leading philosopher. In some, subspecialties he was—and remains—the preeminent one. In the 1990s, he was author of perhaps the most authoritative undergraduate textbook on philosophy of cognitive science, and—exceptionally for a philosopher—was advising and debating alongside some of the most eminent computer scientists on controversies in theoretical computer science. I cited ultimately authoritative sources—in the disciplines themselves—to show this. I cited Springer website saying in 2013 for a 2010 volume, co-edited by Fetzer and contributed to by Fetzer, including republication of a 1998 paper on scientific explanation, that Fetzer is among "renowned philosophers".
- The Wikieditors simply ignore this and wage their opinions—while unable to even read straight, let alone cite scholarly sources. When I found that article, it had only two—one with a broken link . I have seen no editors add a single one. All of them there in the article, I added. They had been asserting that we should delete nearly all of the information about his eduction and career, however, and leave it nearly only conspiracy stuff, since allegedly Fetzer was "neither known nor important" in philosophy or cognitive science or was "at best a minor academic" aggrandizing himself via "ridiculous conspiracy theories". Ignoring those two actual disagreements but curiously continuing editing to push LuckyLouie's agenda on those two, LuckyLouie now drags me here to the "Fringe theories" inquisition while pulling out the woodwork the inanity that the problem is that I opposed the lead saying he is a conspiracy theory proponent?!
- I am the one who actually made the strongest statement—that he is a leading conspiracy theorist. Merely, I assert that the lead ought to make clear what else he is prominent for: leading movements to investigate alleged government conspiracies, and, like it or not, being a leading philosopher indisputably, a reality that Wikieditors with agendas as to conspiracy theories seek to suppress in order to depict Fetzer as only a leading conspiracy theorist, someone merely jabbering paranoia, period. In fact, that was LuckyLouie's argument—Lucky's Theorem, via binary hypothesis—to contradict reliable sources and claim proof that Fetzer has not investigated, for, according to LuckyLouie, Fetzer is a proponent of conspiracy theories. — Occurring (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It's getting very soupy on the Talk page. Maybe someone else can make sense of odd accusatory rants like these. I'm at a loss. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- And yet if you look at it, you see that actually, in response to LuckyLouie's accusations, I did not make an odd accusatory rant—I cited the dictionary, cited my paragraph in question, and asked LuckyLouie to explain LuckyLouie's categorial but unexplained accusation. LuckyLouie never did. Rather, someone made an odd accusatory rant about my edits, and I responded mostly not with accusation but mostly defensively and explanatorily. My accusation was fully explained via principles of philosophy of science, perhaps "odd" for individuals insistent to flout principles of reasoning and wage mob rule by folk rhetoric via fixation on conspiracy theories. — Occurring (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- To note the obvious, we have a WP:SPA here with a serious case of WP:OWN. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Will you clarify your evidence base for the putatively obvious—and at whom your accusations are directed? Possibly obvious are observations, not an explanation of them, for any set of observations can host multiple possible explanations. To reason otherwise is the logical fallacy affirming the consequent, an extremely common and tempting reasoning error. For succinct clarification, see article "Inductivism"—which is such development of explanation as your post suggests—section "Scientific method", subsections "Affirming" and "Denying". As the type of explanation that you seem to have concluded, that is, one deterministic and thereby obvious, see article "Deductive-nomological model". For the actual type of explanation that you struck—one defensible as perhaps "probable" but quite fallible, thus ceteris paribus—see article "Fundamental science", subsection "Versus special science". You are posing putatively deterministic, realistic, and true explanation of social phenomena, and asserting this at not even merely the population level but at the individual level—a thoroughly dubious and controversial stance to take—but specify no observations as evidence, let alone explain your inferences, or even deign to clearly direct your categorical and absolute accusations. Please, I ask not repetition of but refrain from such severely and ironically fringe methodology — Occurring (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I will not edit my post to notably delete any of its content, and in itself it is quite relevant generally, applying likewise to LuckyLouie and the editors at the Fetzer article. Still, I genuinely do not know at whom the accusations are directed. Actually, I myself believe that other Wikieditors at article are the ones bypassing the Talkpage and surreptitiously slipped controversial changes into the article via edit notes neglecting those changes but ostensibly targeting mere "wording" and such. I find that they have violated guidelines on biographies of living persons and made it a stealth soapbox to narrowly depict Fetzer as only a prominent conspiracy theorist, thus violating neutral point of view, undue weight, reliable sources, and tendentious editing.
- Will you clarify your evidence base for the putatively obvious—and at whom your accusations are directed? Possibly obvious are observations, not an explanation of them, for any set of observations can host multiple possible explanations. To reason otherwise is the logical fallacy affirming the consequent, an extremely common and tempting reasoning error. For succinct clarification, see article "Inductivism"—which is such development of explanation as your post suggests—section "Scientific method", subsections "Affirming" and "Denying". As the type of explanation that you seem to have concluded, that is, one deterministic and thereby obvious, see article "Deductive-nomological model". For the actual type of explanation that you struck—one defensible as perhaps "probable" but quite fallible, thus ceteris paribus—see article "Fundamental science", subsection "Versus special science". You are posing putatively deterministic, realistic, and true explanation of social phenomena, and asserting this at not even merely the population level but at the individual level—a thoroughly dubious and controversial stance to take—but specify no observations as evidence, let alone explain your inferences, or even deign to clearly direct your categorical and absolute accusations. Please, I ask not repetition of but refrain from such severely and ironically fringe methodology — Occurring (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Although the general public is unfamiliar with academia, once someone is prominent in academia—as Fetzer indisputably was before becoming a prominent conspiracy theorist, while Fetzer remains a "renowned philosopher" according to an authoritative reliable source—that is a major point of view itself. An encyclopedia is to educate the public—including about major viewpoints in academia—not only to reflect pop knowledge of someone. Thus, all told, I actually cannot tell if you are alleging that someone else—perhaps someone that I was responding to on the Talkpage or even the individual who dragged me here to this tribunal via absurdly false accusation—is the serious case of presumed ownership of the article, even with a singlepurpose account. Thus, if the accusation was not about me, I apologize for the biting tone of my above response, which, however, is legitimate in itself as a general call for fewer accusations and presumptions of obvious truth, but rather more evidence and explanation, please. — Occurring (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Matriarchy
Is the article taking a fringe pro-matriarchy position? Or even a fringe anti-matriarchy position? Is everything in there relevant? Specifically for now, what about the use of Scalingi, P. L. (1978). The scepter or the distaff: The question of female sovereignty, 1516-1607. The Historian, 41(1), 59. This is a perfectly acceptable academic article, but... Scalingi uses "gynecocracy", and sometimes "government by women" to talk about the debate in the C16 about whether queens could rule (at all). Does this have anything to do with matriarchy? (Given that the debate assumed monarchical government, and even the maintenance of male-preference primogeniture, so that, as in contemporary UK, a country would have a queen for a while, followed by a king.) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the article is doing a disservice by conflating an instance of rule by a woman due to a quirk in royal succession (and not the first - see Urraca of Leon and Castile) to a gynecocracy or matriarchy. There was nothing matriarchal about Elizabeth's England - the kingdom and society were still entirely patriarchal, even if it happened temporarily to have a monarch with different equipment. Agricolae (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Rupert Sheldrake (again)
Need to bring this to attention here. Problems are:
- The "neutrality is disputed" by a small but very determined band of editors who want to whitewash criticism from Sheldrake's page in violation of WP:FRINGE. Fans of Sheldrake seem to be incapable of rationally judging the state of his career progression and incapable of comprehending the clear WP:FRINGE state of this article. This is despite many clear criticisms. It is very difficult to have a reasonable discussion on the talk page.
- The "neutrality dispute" is entirely frivolous - no objection has been made with a clear and full understanding of policy. The notice however has been edit-warred onto the top of the article.
- I think that WP:ARB/PS needs to be applied.
Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- In my experience, having a NPOV tag is an important indicator when a dispute is ongoing (as this one is). It should be used whenever there is a coordinated editing effort to alter the content of an article in light of a claimed "bias". So the dispute exists and I think that resolving it is going to require simply more editors who insist that the article not fall into credulity traps when the mainstream understanding of the claims of Sheldrake are so clear. One option is to start removing the discussion of his ideas which haven't received outside notice. jps (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the idea of Sheldrake's fans is that the article should be whitewashed as much as possible. Such an article would not be in line with policy. Unfortunately, I cannot see there is any way of resolving it, when some people have basic WP:COMPETENCE issues caused by having a mental block on understanding basic policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Whitewashing is not okay. Paring down might be fine, however. Maybe the easiest way to resolve this is with a well-sharpened cleaver. jps (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs), previously banned for edit warring on this article, has submitted an entirely frivolous complaint to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's what's really happening. The neutrality of the Sheldrake article was overturned by a small but very determined band of editors who want to whitewash the Sheldrake page in violation of NPOV. Opponents of Sheldrake seem incapable of rationally judging what constitutes balanced presentation of his work. Though it's already been repeatedly explained to Barney, WP:FRINGE clearly has no applicability. Sheldrake's article is about his life and his views. The task of editors is to present those views and responses to them fairly. Given his fringe status, to discuss his views on a page devoted to, say, ontogeny would indeed be inappropriate. To prevent a balanced discussion of his views on his own page is scandalous. It is indeed difficult to carry on a reasonable discussion on the talk page, but the real difficulty is translating problems raised on that page into changes in the article, and this is because Barney and friends revert every edit that would restore balance.
The credulity trap is precisely the problem. Sheldrake draws hostility from materialist ideologues because he's skeptical of the idea that causation is limited to contact mechanics. Once we recognize the possibility of action at a distance, already well established in physics, we no longer need to rely on genes to carry a blueprint from parent to progeny. Organisms might be able to connect both across generations and across space without material intermediary. What Barney represents is a fear of science, a fear that scientific investigation will reveal that his pre-scientific prejudices will be proven wrong.
I was banned for three days because I was seeking to restore a description of an experiment conducted by neuroscientist Steven Rose that was intended to falsify Sheldrake's hypothesis of long-range causation among organisms but instead seemed to verify it. Given their fear of science, it was inevitable that the anti-Sheldrake editors would revert the edit. I was blamed for the edit war only because I was acting alone in the face of a tag-team determined to keep any mention of real science out of the Sheldrake article.
As I demonstrate on the NPOV noticeboard, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article, Barney's previous complaint against me for edit warring was not only frivolous but based on an obvious falsehood, one that Barney himself should have seen. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- We now have more of this nonsense on the
whitewashing noticeboardWP:BLP/N. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- Alfonzo Green, you have my sympathies. There is no reason not to discuss the man's views in his article. Some people want to put in only the criticism without bothering to even explain what the views are, which is absurd. CM-DC talk 21:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
To discuss the man's views in his article we need good sources. Is there any specific proposal to improve the article using good sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are almost 100 references in the article. The Guardian and Observer sources are online. The only major archive source I don't have access to is New Scientist from the 1980s. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Dean Radin
I have recently attempted to improve this article. I may need some help on this as I am not sure about some of the sources an IP has raised (some seem reliable, some do not). Please see the talk page for the Dean Radin article. Any input please appreciated. Dan skeptic (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
"Our thoughts are the steering wheel of our destiny"
So we learn from our article on Sotai, a kind of posture therapy. The article is long on words but short on good sources; and there doesn't seem to be much out there. Alexbrn 11:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am impressed.
According to Dr. Masunaga (founder of Zen Shiatsu), who has assigned psychological functions to the Functional Circles, the meridian of the gallbladder stands on behalf for the function of short-time decisions: "Do I go to the right or to the left?"
- bobrayner (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Psychotechnology
I see a couple of us have edited this article, me and User:LuckyLouie. Having reverted the addition of art and writing as psychotechnologies by an IP twice I realised that the paragraph the IP was adding to was copyvio, so reverted to an earlier version. A big problem is that even as a stub the article is about two different subjects, "any application of technology for psychological purposes" and "any way of using psychological processes for a desired outcome". We can't have an article about two such separate concepts, and I'm not at all sure that the latter isn't fringe, although I see books mentioning the phrase. Any suggestions? Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- As I recall, this article was discussed at FTN because it once became a target for conspiracy-related mind control fringe cruft. But the "application of technology for psychological purposes" definition does seem to have a less sensational profile in the mainstream world. As for the alternate definition of "any way of using psychological processes for a desired outcome", as I understand it, this is an archaic term for Applied psychology. Maybe it can be renamed Psychotechnology (psychology) and get redirected to Applied psychology until someone wants to write an article about it. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic source
The acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and qi#scientific investigation articles are obvious targets.
jps (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, no, not a fantastic source. Doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. Shoddy history of ideas. Perhaps if the author has something in a peer-reviewed journal we could consider it. At least it would be referenced. Mao invented this, that - not a single reference to Mao. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Did you actually read the work? The title is sensationalized, but the content is excellent. I mean, you got something against Alan Levinovitz? He's not writing an empirical paper here that requires peer review, he's pointing out some facts that are rather plain: namely that the conceptualization of "traditional Chinese medicine" in the West can be traced directly to Great Leap Forward-type propaganda push for improving medicine in China by Mao. jps (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- And his sources for that? I don't deny that traditions were revived, rediscovered, reinvented, even invented from scratch during the 20th century. A historical account of that process in relation to TCM would have to make reference to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- While your concern for Levinovitz's scholarship is admirable, the implication that we should sort of daisy chain sources like this is, I think, somewhat misguided. This is certainly not the only thing he has written on the subject, and if you want to critique his corpus, that's a separate exercise from what is normally done here. The fact is that this is an appropriately scaled source for our purposes. While we could always use more sources, as you indicate with your reference to Chinese culture outside of the PRC, deprecating a decent source by a subject matter expert like you did in your first comment, I think, is not the right approach. It would be much like someone disputing an article about astronomy by Phil Plait in Slate because of the lack of peer review. jps (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm looking at the references in TCM, and I see one reference is to Sivin, Nathan (1987). Traditional Medicine in Contemporary China. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan. ISBN 978-0-89264-074-4., which I can readily see is basically supportive of what the Slate article says. I also see that far and away the most common reference in the text is to Wiseman and Ellis's translation of a modern Chinese text, which is problematic under the circumstances. There's a considerable contradiction here with the statement that "Starting in the 1950s, these precepts were modernized in the People's Republic of China so as to integrate many anatomical and pathological notions with modern scientific medicine." I'm not so inclined to dismiss the thesis simply because it appears in a medium which isn't all that conducive to extensive footnoting. Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- That sentence you quote from the TCM is very problematic to my reading, nearly putting the cart before the horse, I would argue. I changed it and began to re-wade into the acupuncture morass as well. jps (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- And his sources for that? I don't deny that traditions were revived, rediscovered, reinvented, even invented from scratch during the 20th century. A historical account of that process in relation to TCM would have to make reference to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Did you actually read the work? The title is sensationalized, but the content is excellent. I mean, you got something against Alan Levinovitz? He's not writing an empirical paper here that requires peer review, he's pointing out some facts that are rather plain: namely that the conceptualization of "traditional Chinese medicine" in the West can be traced directly to Great Leap Forward-type propaganda push for improving medicine in China by Mao. jps (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Anthroposophical medicine
Some sourcing issues and their effect on neutrality being discussed here; wise eyes very welcome ... Alexbrn 13:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Update – the article has now undergone a major re-write. A big overhaul of the sourcing has led to a quite different weighting and presentation of the core concepts and has taken it (in my view) much closer to neutral. Maybe even the POV tag can come off? Would appreciate scrutiny from fringe fanciers ... Alexbrn 12:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Quick look response....The article is ok, though goes a little far in labeling and judging the subject, rather than reporting/describing it. So, not quite neutral. Would be good to massage some of the labeling to either relect the opinion/source more clearly or remove altogether. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- If we reflect the sources more clearly I think it's likely we'll end up being more, rather than less judgemental: the RS seem to hold (mild understatement) a pretty poor view of the topic. I couldn't find much independent sourcing of what AM actually *is* - I'll raise this in Talk. Anyone here know? Alexbrn 20:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Quick look response....The article is ok, though goes a little far in labeling and judging the subject, rather than reporting/describing it. So, not quite neutral. Would be good to massage some of the labeling to either relect the opinion/source more clearly or remove altogether. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Genocides in history
There is currently a dispute on the talk page over this article on Oxford Bibliographies by Simon Payaslian. It revolves around the Bosnian genocide, Payaslian figures it began in 91, the guy arguing that Payaslian is fringe says it began in 92, the start of the war. However people have been indicted for crimes of genocide in 91 "Krajisnik... Was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer occurring throughout thirty five municipalities in Bosnia from 1 July 1991 to 31 December 1992" Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic Duke p288. Yearbook of the United Nations 2006 p1489. "Momčilo Krajišnik, a member of the Bosnian Serb leadership during the war, who was charged in 2000 with eight counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 and 1992. He was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer" Given that the genocides had obviously started in 91, else why were people indicted for it? Is it fringe for Payaslian to say the genocide ran from 91-95? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
COI, OWN, and acupuncture
Please weigh in on the appropriateness of an acupuncturist editing acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine here: User talk:Middle 8#Acupuncturist. My opinion is that the user's input on the talk page would be welcome, but their WP:ADVOCACY in the article itself is very, very problematic. jps (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- The most active editors at TCM and acupuncture, including Middle 8, are respectful of sources and careful to not misrepresent the conclusions of MEDRS. If you do not seek the contributions of people who are knowledgable about the subject, you risk errors based on lack of context. In the last three years the only disruptive and misrepresentative editing that has occurred has been by the skeptical editors PPdd, and more recently Dominus Vobisdu and Tippy Goomba, who were found to knowingly misrepresent Ernst in an attempt to push an anti-acupuncture POV. Please spend some time with the edit history and talk page before accusing a good faith editor of COI. To me, it looks like you came out of nowhere slinging mud, whereas those of us who frequent that article regularly have a respectful relationship even if we disagree. btw, posting this at the fringe theory noticeboard could be seen as an attempt at recruiting or vote-stacking. Herbxue (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm trying to shed some light on what is a very dark area of Misplaced Pages I've stumbled upon. It is extremely reminiscent of the issues with homeopathy and chiropractic some years back. This is not acceptable. Our articles right now are parroting terrible sources to claim that there is evidence for efficacy of acupuncture when this is just not the case. See the citation to Orac below. Now, hopefully, some careful people will not be afraid to stare into the abyss because I think we will be successful in ridding ourselves of the pro-alt-med bias that has creeped into those pages. Yikes! jps (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I so totally dominate those articles. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be better to look here: . Don't hide behind your other activities. jps (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- If I were really OWN-y I wouldn't ignore it like I have for so long. I might have been OWN-y 2-3+ years ago but not recently at all. Who cares about old news around here? People change. Well, some do.... --Middle 8 (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. JPS, you miss the main point of COI, which is biased edits, and mine aren't. In fact your accusation is pretty WP:KETTLE given how hard you're having to distort the literature. Short version: sci consensus is determined by the peer-rev literature, not blogs. Could the blogs be right after all, in their bolder stance? Sure. I think there's a solid chance they are, or at least mostly -- e.g. about most of point specificity, other than for trigger points and maybe the odd P6. But are we sure they're right, enough for an encyclopedia to depict the debate that way, and unequivocally? Nope. Please find another topic if you want to depict consensus as all settled (global warming is always good, and important too), and for the sake of WP, find another site if you want to go all WP:BATTLEGROUND ... the last time you did that here, it sucked for all concerned, except the drama addicts. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are essentially behaving as User:DanaUllman did on homeopathy. I am not amused. Stop editing in mainspace, please. jps (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- And I'm afraid you are behaving as User:ScienceApologist (literally -- you're the same guy), one of the most disruptive editors ever, who was tending to turn this place into both a battleground and a kindergarten, as FayssalF memorably said. Your complaints about me and others are sloppy, hyperbolic, and huge, huge WP:KETTLE. You seem to have learned nothing during your latest, long siteban, and are on a trajectory toward more and more drama and disruption, more heat, less light. --Middle 8 (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is not about me, Middle 8. This is about you having the following WP:COI: you get paid to perform acupuncture and then you edit in the mainspace of the acupuncture article to remove criticism of acupuncture, reposition criticism so it's not as harsh, or promote biased sources and writing so that it looks like acupuncture is effective. That you continue to insist there is nothing wrong with this is the problem that this section is about. Contribute on the talk page, fine. I would value your personal experience in how the subject is handled. But that you continue to edit the article is shameful and in direct conflict with the SOP of Misplaced Pages. And you should know better. jps (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're the only one to suggest I had a COI in 3 or 4 years, and I hardly ever get accused of bias because I don't play fast and loose with sources (cough), and you're disrupting all over the place and talking trash about several other editors, so yeah, it kinda is about you. --Middle 8 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is not about me, Middle 8. This is about you having the following WP:COI: you get paid to perform acupuncture and then you edit in the mainspace of the acupuncture article to remove criticism of acupuncture, reposition criticism so it's not as harsh, or promote biased sources and writing so that it looks like acupuncture is effective. That you continue to insist there is nothing wrong with this is the problem that this section is about. Contribute on the talk page, fine. I would value your personal experience in how the subject is handled. But that you continue to edit the article is shameful and in direct conflict with the SOP of Misplaced Pages. And you should know better. jps (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- And I'm afraid you are behaving as User:ScienceApologist (literally -- you're the same guy), one of the most disruptive editors ever, who was tending to turn this place into both a battleground and a kindergarten, as FayssalF memorably said. Your complaints about me and others are sloppy, hyperbolic, and huge, huge WP:KETTLE. You seem to have learned nothing during your latest, long siteban, and are on a trajectory toward more and more drama and disruption, more heat, less light. --Middle 8 (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are essentially behaving as User:DanaUllman did on homeopathy. I am not amused. Stop editing in mainspace, please. jps (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. JPS, you miss the main point of COI, which is biased edits, and mine aren't. In fact your accusation is pretty WP:KETTLE given how hard you're having to distort the literature. Short version: sci consensus is determined by the peer-rev literature, not blogs. Could the blogs be right after all, in their bolder stance? Sure. I think there's a solid chance they are, or at least mostly -- e.g. about most of point specificity, other than for trigger points and maybe the odd P6. But are we sure they're right, enough for an encyclopedia to depict the debate that way, and unequivocally? Nope. Please find another topic if you want to depict consensus as all settled (global warming is always good, and important too), and for the sake of WP, find another site if you want to go all WP:BATTLEGROUND ... the last time you did that here, it sucked for all concerned, except the drama addicts. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- If I were really OWN-y I wouldn't ignore it like I have for so long. I might have been OWN-y 2-3+ years ago but not recently at all. Who cares about old news around here? People change. Well, some do.... --Middle 8 (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Just agree to stop editing in article space and we can close this thread now. The evidence is clear. You have a conflict of interest with respect to acupuncture. Read WP:COI. jps (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, isn't going to happen. Your opinion on the subject carries no weight with me at all. Like I say, your request/accusations are WP:KETTLE, in a big way. --Middle 8 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, there are a lot of watchers of WP:FTN. We'll see what they think about an acupuncturist editing the articlespace of the acupuncture article to include claims that acupuncture is effective. jps (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why don't you focus on sources and stop with this attempt at marginalizing an editor who has been around for years without making problems? You are making problems jps, focus on content or else this is starting to look like harassment. Herbxue (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You should also not be editing in article space, Herbxue, since you are a "teacher of Neijia", you are also inclined to want to promote acupuncture and other qi-related subjects. See WP:COI. jps (talk) 1:10 pm, Today (UTC−4)
- General idea: nobody who JPS disagrees with should edit article space because it's too much trouble to actually collaborate. Because we're all so disruptive and stuff. :-D --Middle 8 (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would prefer it if people who have a financial interest in promoting pseudoscientific practices did not edit articles in Misplaced Pages on those practices. This is not a controversial desire, as far as I can tell, and WP:COI seems pretty clear on the matter. jps (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no problem there! There's no consensus among scientists that acu is pseudoscientific. Or even a majority view, for that matter. I've looked for such sources; I know many of us have. One might think that acupuncture ≠ homeopathy or something.... You know, you might want to try just collaborating with me. I'm very easy get along with when I'm not being bombarded by spurious complaints and attempts at sidelining. Funny how it works that way. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would prefer it if people who have a financial interest in promoting pseudoscientific practices did not edit articles in Misplaced Pages on those practices. This is not a controversial desire, as far as I can tell, and WP:COI seems pretty clear on the matter. jps (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- General idea: nobody who JPS disagrees with should edit article space because it's too much trouble to actually collaborate. Because we're all so disruptive and stuff. :-D --Middle 8 (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You should also not be editing in article space, Herbxue, since you are a "teacher of Neijia", you are also inclined to want to promote acupuncture and other qi-related subjects. See WP:COI. jps (talk) 1:10 pm, Today (UTC−4)
- Why don't you focus on sources and stop with this attempt at marginalizing an editor who has been around for years without making problems? You are making problems jps, focus on content or else this is starting to look like harassment. Herbxue (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, there are a lot of watchers of WP:FTN. We'll see what they think about an acupuncturist editing the articlespace of the acupuncture article to include claims that acupuncture is effective. jps (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Acupuncture
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The purpose of this noticeboard is to seek outside advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. In this case it has become an extension of the article talk page with the same editors making the same arguments. I am closing this thread, and I strongly advise the editors involved to go to WP:DR and follow the advice given there. This issue is being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Acupuncture and TCM. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thanks, jps (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC) The following WP:TAGTEAM is going to be difficult to work with, I can see:
We need some people that can see their way to explaining why a source that has been roundly criticized here, here, here, here, here, and here should probably not be trumpeted as evidence that "ACUPUNCTURE WORKS! OMG!". This is bad. Really bad. Why aren't there people working on these pages? jps (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) I'll repeat what I said to JPS on my user talk page: I actually agree that it's possible that acu will -- despite the blinding issues -- eventually be recognized by sci consensus to be all or nearly all placebo. But your attempts to depict the literature as such are premature. If you were right you wouldn't have to prevaricate about sources (and editors) that disagree. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
My quick review of this conflict does not support jps's interpretation of the situation. While these two subjects (TCM and acupuncture) have a high potential for misbehavior the editors identified don't seem to be doing it. Less heat, more light. focus on sources and clear language, not editors. jps's enthusiasm for finding problematic material is laudable, but finding trouble where only the potential exists isn't a very scientific approach. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
STOP! Paraphrasing of 2006 source from Ernst
(outdent) Hidden. Not meaning to be peremptory, but this issue is minor and in this context distracting. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC) |
Kozyrev mirror
"able to focus different types of radiation alike to magnifying glasses, including the types of radiation coming from biological objects" Alexbrn 11:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nice find. I spent some time looking, absolutely no reliable references on the subject. I would suggest a redirect to Nikolai Kozyrev. Dan skeptic (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Kozyrev went nuts at some point with his ideas about life in other planets of the Solar System. This one does not seem to be notable, should be redirected indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Catherine Kousmine
Advocated an anti-cancer diet which included oil and vitamin pills. Apparently:
her method starts to be well-acknowledged by some mainstream scientists
Although the article has a stab at skepticism, it doesn't quite strike home. Alexbrn 20:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Update - I have rewritten the article, adding some references and largely removing the unsourced/undue content. Alexbrn 09:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Kombucha
"Kombucha tea has been promoted as a cure-all for a wide range of conditions including baldness, insomnia, intestinal disorders, arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and cancer". (says the American Cancer Society). A new account is minimizing the documented dangers associated with Kombucha - more eyes could be helpful. Alexbrn 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Still needs help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Journal of Human Sexuality
Over on Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, a new editor is very keen on including a review of said book by Neil Whitehead in the Journal of Human Sexuality, which is published by NARTH, a so-called "ex-gay" therapy organisation that offers treatment to try and change people's sexual orientation, a process considered to be at best unscientific and at worse abusive by a number of prominent professional mental health organisations including the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Britain.
The Journal of Human Sexuality seems to me to be in the same ball-park when it comes to sexology and study of human sexuality as, say, publications of the Institute for Creation Research—far on the fringe. I am posting here to seek clarification: is the Journal of Human Sexuality a valid source for critiques of Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why given the WP:FRINGE and WP:RS policies? Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- A case could be made for including Whitehead's review, and a case could be made against it. I don't feel strongly about the issue. The Journal of Human Sexuality could be considered fringe, but not necessarily to the same extent as a creationist publication (claiming that sexual orientation is not innate is not scientifically on the same level as claiming that the Earth was created in six literal days circa 4000 BC). Whitehead apparently does have scientific credentials relevant to reviewing LeVay's book, and that should count for something, even given that the Journal of Human Sexuality is arguably fringe. If the Journal of Human Sexuality is fringe, that's more because of the claim made by its publisher NARTH that sexual orientation can be altered through conversion therapy than because of the claim that sexual orientation is not innate. These issues are often confused with each other, but they're in fact quite different. The former of the two claims is by far the more controversial.
- Beauvy's insistence on including the review, despite opposition from several other editors, is part of a pattern of disruption, and that needs to be recognized. The disruption isn't simply the result of inexperience; it seems increasingly to be deliberate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Everything is saying pseudojournal to me. I can't even find a website. Not to be confused with the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality or the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Its website is, as you would expect, part of NARTH's website. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Everything is saying pseudojournal to me. I can't even find a website. Not to be confused with the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality or the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Chopra on skepticism in Misplaced Pages
And he is not amused as you can read here. Note that this may make editing even more difficult.
(C/P: Talk: Rupert Sheldrake#Chopra on skepticism in Misplaced Pages)
jps (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- This has been smouldering away for months and is likely to continue yet. Does Chopra make any points we should reflect on? It is important his article in scrupulously neutral & fair. Alexbrn 18:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's just repeating the guff one of our "psychic" editors said on the Sheldrake talk page. It even links to his blog. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- He's unhappy that we're accurately reporting that his views aren't mainstream. Actually, Chopra's biography is surprisingly kind to him. Sheldrake's is more along the lines of what we're looking at although it still needs some more work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Poor, deluded Deepak Chopra. He wants Misplaced Pages to allow claims that cannot be verified, and he imagines that somehow magically this will allow only the unverified claims he likes, while -- again magically -- excluding the unverified claims of scientologists, holocaust deniers, or partisans on both sides of such issues such as abortion and gun control. Let's hope he never gets what he is asking for, because he definitely won't like it if he does. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Relatedly, perhaps: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra. Alexbrn 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
TM-Sidhi_program
The following AFD is of interest to this project, and could use additional eyes as only two editors have !voted. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/TM-Sidhi_program Gaijin42 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Inedia
Do you need to eat and drink to survive? Apparently not. Do you need to have reliable sources to back claims inserted into Misplaced Pages articles? Apparently not.
Recent edits could benefit from a wider consensus. Alexbrn 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
HIV/AIDS denialism
A series of recently proposed edits seem to indicate an attempt to reduce the appropriate portrayal of HIV/AIDS denialism as fringe. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Whitewashing of LewRockwell.com AIDS denial
I hope I'm not intruding here (will revert if asked to), but an illustration of what OP talks about can be seen in the wiki entry LewRockwell.com. The website has repeatedly published articles promoting the Duesberg hypothesis (and indeed hosted conferences on AIDS where Duesberg presented his views) that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and does not cause AIDS; we have RS documenting LRC's promotion of these views. In 2010, User:MastCell cited RS documenting LRC's publishing of AIDS denial articles n order to characterize the website's science articles (which also featured claims that vaccines cause autism) as "fringe" (1). This consensus lasted three years, but now User:Srich32977 and others keep deleting attempts to clarify the fringe nature of AIDS denial and another science published and promulgated by LRC. (e.g. (2).Steeletrap (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is not clear what edits MrBill3 is referring to. We do not have diffs. Steeletrap is referring to the adding & removal of fringe science and AIDS denial categories to the LewRockwell.com (LRC) article. But these categories do not address the "essential—defining—characteristics" of LRC as required by WP:CAT. LRC publishes a lot a stuff on many different topics from many authors. It would be improper to add article categories related to all or any of those different articles. Publishing stuff about a topic does not give LRC essential, defining characteristics. – S. Rich (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Srich is correct here re: categories. Additionally, regarding intrusion, Steeletrap is pushing a broader issue which was resolved months ago, if not in Steeletrap's favor. The issue was discussed ad nauseam on the LRC talk page in May at which time Steeletrap brought it to this noticeboard and was advised it belonged at NPOV Noticeboard. But here it is back again with no new evidence. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- There were definitely violations of WP:ITA in the section on AIDS denialism. It is not appropriate to make it seem like rejecting AIDS denialism is a minority opinion by using in-text attribution of a common criticism of AIDS denialism to a single author. jps (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not clear if User:jps is replying to the original thread or the "instrusion". Thanks. CM-DC talk 02:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I (MrBill3) was referring to the discussion on the talk page of the article. If someone could take a look and weigh in I would appreciate it. The discussion has become tedious with points being made repeatedly and as I said it seems there is an underlying purpose to give undue weight to HIV/AIDS denialists. In particular by an IP who signs as Peter the Roman. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Summum and Claude Nowell
Found this when looking at recent edits to Mummy about commercial mummification. Looks like fringe rather than just some weird religion as "Nowell founded Summum following an experience he describes as an encounter with highly intelligent beings". Promotional and we probably don't need 2 articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth Klarer
Elizabeth Klarer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please read her biography.
jps (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- This article is terrible. I don't even know where to begin fixing it. Statements made as fact that are preposterous. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Etherians
Etherians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should such an article exist?
jps (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's been redirected to Meade Layne which was nominated for speedy deletion. I've removed that template as Layne seems notable enough for an article. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor deleted relevant text from Pseudoscience#Demographics section.
An editor claimed "I did not realize that the article linked was never actually published in BJP. I do not support its use at all on Misplaced Pages.". See Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Pseudoscience. The source is published in BJP. This proposal lost interest because editors did not feel it is a useful reference for the proposed text. It was the understanding of editors that no final version had been published. However, the source is relevant to the pseudoscience page and all the proposed text is supported by the published reliable reference.
Abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality of so many people that needs to be understood. The proposal we put forward is that these illusions arise from the normal functioning of the cognitive system when trying to associate causes and effects. Thus, we propose to apply basic research and theories on causal learning to reduce the impact of pseudoscience. We review the literature on the illusion of control and the causal learning traditions, and then present an experiment as an illustration of how this approach can provide fruitful ideas to reduce pseudoscientific thinking. The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better. Two different predictions arising from the integration of the causal learning and illusion of control domains are then proven effective in reducing this illusion. One is showing the testimony of people who feel better without having followed the treatment. The other is asking participants to think in causal terms rather than in terms of effectiveness."
Text from the source: "The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."
More text from the source: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."
- Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2011). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. 102 (3): 392–405. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21751996.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Proposals
Proposal 1: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Demographics:
Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscientific examples can be found in practically any country. For example, the 'Keep libel laws out of science' campaign was launched in the UK in June 2009 after the science writer Simon Singh, who alerted the people about the lack of evidence to support chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.
Proposal 2: Restore text to WP:LEAD:
Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious matters that are a threat to public health.
Proposal 3: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Health and education implications:
Restore following sourced text: ==> Superstitions, beliefs that are irrational and usually involve cause-and-effect relationships that are not real, are categorized as pseudoscience and quackery. Quackery is a specific type of pseudoscience that alludes medical treatments. As many governmental and skeptical organizations are actively fighting against pseudoscience and related issues, their efforts to make the public aware of the scientific rigor required to make informed choices are not always as effective as anticipated to reduce the impact of pseudoscience.
The issue here is not a matter of WP:V or WP:RS. That is not the question when the text is obviously sourced. The issue is WP:WEIGHT. WP:NPOV requires that the existing mainstream view is fairly represented. _-Quack Guru-_ 09:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Matute is a good source for the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I checked the article history. This edit deleted text for no good reason. And then even more text from the demographics section was deleted from the article. The text should not have been deleted from the article. If the text was not about demographics then why wasn't it moved to another section of the article? QuackGuru (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason not to be bold and proceed with the proposed edits. This discussion should probably be copied to the talk page of the article though, right? - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Timeline of pre–United States history and Norumbega
Found some old fringe stuff about the Lenape being Vikings at Timeline of pre–United States history and similar stuff added at Norumbega today. It would be useful if people could put these articles on their watchlist as I suspect it will return. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Akashic records
I see we have a number of articles discussing this "compendium of mystical knowledge supposedly encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the astral plane."
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ
Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association
And quite a few more (some are about the musical type of record). Some of these are ok, others need work, eg the first 2 and the PBMA). Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- What specifically do you see as being the problem here? It's a little unclear from your post. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Did you look at them? For a start, what in the world is Akasha meant to be? It looks like a cross between a dab page and an article. Is there a relationship between the various meanings and if so where is the source that says there is? Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Looked at the first. Akasha seems simply to be an article about a word. I'm not sure what you think the problem is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association
The mention of akashic records is probably the least problem in this apparently-written-by-a-follower article on a notorious Philippine cult. There is good info out there but a better starting point is Ruben Ecleo, which though more fact-based is hampered by the confusion between the father and son, both leaders of this cult and both in serious political and legal trouble. I would be tempted to roll this all into the PBMA article in order not to have three articles on the two leaders (Sr., Jr., and disambig) but if someone else would like to take a quick look and offer an opinion I would be grateful for the advice. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Sanat Kumara
It's hard to tell how accurate this is. If I follow this correctly, this is something that was dreamed up by the early theosophists and then glommed onto by a bunch of modern New Agers including Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Benjamin Creme. It may have some actual Indian antecedents. It's rather disorganized and seems to have included a bunch of stuff on other figures in one of these groups whose relevance is unclear. A large chunk of it seems to have been written by someone familiar with the material and I am not (yet) concerned about how factual it is, but it's rather hard to make sense of, and I haven't gone through the sources. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Chitragupta
I'm not seeing a problem here other than the usual problems with Hindu mythological figures. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Psychokinesis
Citations to fringe journals being added with the assertion "The lead should indicate that there is indeed scientific evidence of PK activity". User seems intent on righting this great wrong. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- On my watchlist. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Update: One editor is pushing Foundations of Physics (same rag that published the Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory and Tom Bearden's perpetual motion claims) as a reliable source for the claim that Psychokinesis exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Shusha
Since the relevant discussion has stalled, I'd like to request an assistance on whether pre-1750s claims about Shusha should have the same certainty and weight as the 1750s foundation. Particularly, the article currently asserts that prior to the 1750s Shusha has been not only a settlement, but already an Armenian town with fortress. Meanwhile, the sources that indicate the town and fortress of Shusha were founded by Panah Ali Khan in the 1750s include (largely referred to in the article and/or talkpage):
- at least one epigraphical evidence from the wall of the town's mosque (now lost, but quoted particularly by Vasily Potto);
- at least five primary or otherwise historical accounts (Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, Mirza Yusuf Nersesov and Raffi);
- some 19th-century sources, particularly Russian Nastolʹnyĭ slovarʹ, vol. 3, 1864;
- encyclopedias: Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture, Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Iranica;
- Russian Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, 2000;
- Russian Geographic Names of the World: A Toponymic Dictionary, 2001 and The Dictionary of Modern Geographic Names, 2006
- Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
- some modern authors from the opposing Armenian camp, such as Ohannes Geukjian and Varazdat Harutyunyan; the latter, despite trying to argue to the contrary, acknowledged that "the emergence of Shusha is usually associated with the construction of the unassailable residence-fortress of Panah-khan in 1751".
One of the issues is that nothing indicates that Panah Khan destroyed an earlier fortress to build a new one, but some apparently fringe sources say that the earlier fortress was ceded to him. The article cites Mirza Jamal Javanshir and Raffi who specifically say that Shusha was founded on an empty and uninhabited place. Also, as it was already noted at talk, there is a separate, small settlement nearby called Shushikent or Shosh, with which some fringe sources possibly confuse Shusha. Brandmeister 12:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- First off, this is a wrong forum for handling the dispute on Shusha. WP:FRINGE does not apply in this case. The disagreement is not about mutually negating viewpoints arising from conflicting approaches in science and faith (e.g. pseudo-science or conspiracies) but about adjusting timeline of a series of historical events. Those visiting this section should also realize that User:Brandmeister has been under sanctions for edit warring on the Shusha article. Just recently, Brandmeister was topic-banned on all articles related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, for two-years . Hablabar (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ramtha's School of Enlightenment
An editor is proposing a substantially different version of this article example diff which, from what I can see, presents significant fringiness issues concerning one of the most prominent channellers. I gather from the discussion thus far that this may be resolved satisfactorily but it bears watching. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- The proposed version omits some key criticisms, and at least in part, treats the fringe concept of channeling as factual. It is interesting to see Jimbo Wales presenting these issues in a common sense way rather than citing a laundry list of policies. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Colon cleansing
The altmed practice of "cleansing" the colon, promoted for its supposed health benefits. The article needs more eyes. Alexbrn 15:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- It seems pretty balanced right now, describing what the fringe theory is, and then the established medical opinion of that theory for every section. Is there something you think in particular is being presented without proper medical/scientific context? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes: the promotional stuff for IACT (sourced to IACT) and the medical information sourced to a quack book called The Purification Plan: Clear Your Body of the Toxins That Contribute to Weight Gain, Fatigue and Chronic Illness are glaring problems (not to mention removal of FDA warnings). Alexbrn 15:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- The other user is a Doctor, and I have verified it, it's not POV, or COI, and she has reasonable sources. Let's keep it neutral for now, and the differences aside. The way it's going looks fine to me as well. Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this book (used a source to "however" the American Cancer Society) is quackery, and the article now also contains health information sourced to commercial and lobby sites selling and promoting quackery. Whether the user is a doctor or not (what kind of "doctor"? a naturopath?) is irrelevant besides the requirement for having neutral content on fringe material in line with WP policies and guidance. It may be we also need input from WT:MED. Alexbrn 16:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- The current wave of edits is certainly pushing the article past balanced and into POV. Negative information being removed or severely watered down - this diff. And anything sourced to Quackwatch is removed as "unreliable". Ravensfire (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's a blatant use of Misplaced Pages for fringe promotion. And ... I see we now have the Daily Mail being used to tell us how colonics have led to Simon Cowell's youthful appearance. It's the kind of episode that leads one to think that maybe Misplaced Pages is a bad thing. Alexbrn 17:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Let's take it easy on this, and I am not going to decide who is right and wrong, quack book/quackwatch is rubbish. All I can suggest is, no more edits on the mainpage, and have it resolved on here, or the talkpage, before editing resolve it, make a draft, then put it, agreed by all parties. Danger^Mouse (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's a blatant use of Misplaced Pages for fringe promotion. And ... I see we now have the Daily Mail being used to tell us how colonics have led to Simon Cowell's youthful appearance. It's the kind of episode that leads one to think that maybe Misplaced Pages is a bad thing. Alexbrn 17:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- The current wave of edits is certainly pushing the article past balanced and into POV. Negative information being removed or severely watered down - this diff. And anything sourced to Quackwatch is removed as "unreliable". Ravensfire (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this book (used a source to "however" the American Cancer Society) is quackery, and the article now also contains health information sourced to commercial and lobby sites selling and promoting quackery. Whether the user is a doctor or not (what kind of "doctor"? a naturopath?) is irrelevant besides the requirement for having neutral content on fringe material in line with WP policies and guidance. It may be we also need input from WT:MED. Alexbrn 16:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- The other user is a Doctor, and I have verified it, it's not POV, or COI, and she has reasonable sources. Let's keep it neutral for now, and the differences aside. The way it's going looks fine to me as well. Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes: the promotional stuff for IACT (sourced to IACT) and the medical information sourced to a quack book called The Purification Plan: Clear Your Body of the Toxins That Contribute to Weight Gain, Fatigue and Chronic Illness are glaring problems (not to mention removal of FDA warnings). Alexbrn 15:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's important here that policy and guidance is observed. The policy that particularly applies to colon cleansing can be found in WP:PSCI. This is a pseudoscientific/quack (and dangerous) practice according to the reliable sources which we are obliged to use prominently (and QuackWatch in this context is very much a high-quality RS). We must not give false balance to fringe claims. I'm frankly astonished to find push-back against this. Alexbrn 17:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, I am not a medical student, going to be neutral about this, and the article is taking a promotional tone, you may revert it. And I suggest both of you to make a draft first, or any other editor, to avoid issues like this. Don't get frustrated this is how it works, stuff like this happen. Danger^Mouse (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Both parties need to sit together, create drafts etc.., if one user thinks quackwatch or any other source I sun reliable, give citations sources etc... Otherwise this issue still remains. Alex you should contact the user if not on the talk page both need to come forward.Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have posted about this incident at AN/I. Alexbrn 08:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Both parties need to sit together, create drafts etc.., if one user thinks quackwatch or any other source I sun reliable, give citations sources etc... Otherwise this issue still remains. Alex you should contact the user if not on the talk page both need to come forward.Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)