Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Binksternet (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 22 June 2011 (→Pseudoscience: not published). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Lloyd Pye

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

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

A Researcher at Tired Light

Note that at Tired light a number of IP addresses which geolocate to Tampa and Clearwater (from where the researcher comes) are spamming in his essentially unnoticed idea about tired light disproving the Big Bang. He has been promoting this idea on Misplaced Pages hoping to get better exposure for a few months now, and this really needs to stop. I've been observing this from afar and have noticed this campaign. Tired light is a well-known historical concept in astrophysics that was falsified early on in the history of cosmology. A few itinerant physicists none of whom are noticed in the community (including the researcher) continue to fight for their opposition to the Big Bang, but Misplaced Pages shouldn't be the place that they do it. Please put this article on your watchlist and explain to the Tampa/Clearwater IPs that they should try to get their ideas noticed by ApJ, MNRAS, or A&A rather than spamming across the internet. Note that this behavior was also reported to WP:COIN.

198.202.202.22 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This issue was brought up over at WP:COIN and we are referring this back over to FTN for further discussion on this matter. There is a concern about WP:Outing and WP:Civil regarding this reporter. However, all the same, he does bring up an issue which will likely need to be addressed by someone more skilled in addressing FT. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Licorne was banned from Misplaced Pages for Holocaust Denial promotion, anti-semeticism, and pseudophysics promotions (which he is still doing). It isn't right that you all are letting him post his ongoing anti-reality propaganda at tired light under all these different IP addresses which all are being used by the same person. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I got fed-up and rewrote the tired light article to try to prevent this nonsense, but this banned user is still pushing pretty hard on the talkpage, promoting the cosmologystatement.org nonsense that has been a standard issue by such pseudophysics promoters. I'm not sure what if anything can be done to deter him in his quest to get his article and those other absurd ideas he's a fan of listed at Misplaced Pages, but now at least the article seems to function as a reasonable object lesson in the history of astrophysics. 140.252.83.241 (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, and since the dispute is still ongoing, I have requested that this page be temporarily protected due to the edit warring taking place amongst editors. Please work to resolve things in the talk page, and reach consensus instead of simply editing the page with disputed material. Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor clamoring for his work to be included doesn't seem to be listening to the arguments. He thinks that Physics Essays is a reliable source when it publishes trash. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This problem is still going on. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the factual and supported version

According to the consensus of astronomers at Columbia University, the preferred version of the article at tired light is this one: . Please support well-cited science scholarship and prevent the self-promotion of certain individuals who are not behaving with scholarly integrity.

128.59.171.194 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you show any evidence that such a consensus exists? Looie496 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than getting my colleagues to sign a statement, I just made the argument as clear as I can for you here: Misplaced Pages:RSN#Sources_for_Tired_Light. Please note that Dean Mamas is actively trying to get his Physics Essay paper included at Misplaced Pages. (He tried earlier at Non-standard cosmologies and failed, now he's trying at tired light.) 128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alchemy#Alchemy_as_a_Protoscience

Is the above section in the Alchemy article appropriate/appropriately sourced? There have been some issues with content in the past. Active Banana ( 05:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly no. I've been arguing for reliability of sources for a while. Same type of thing (fringe theory, bad sources) is being adding all over alchemy related articles, especially also in the intro paragraph. There is now 1 proper academic peer-reviewed source to support 1 statement in that section, but since the page that is referenced is not shown on Google Books, I am unable to check whether the source supports the statement. I feel the spiritual interpretation (which is academically argued against) is receiving too much weight across all alchemy articles.

Is is possible to introduce a special policy on all Alchemy categorized articles so that only academic, peer-reviewed sources, or primary sources with no interpretation of any kind, are allowed? And all statements, no matter how much the editor believes them to be true, must have an academic peer-reviewed source? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality of the sources, I think there is no reasonable doubt among historians of chemistry that it started with alchemy, and that alchemy had protoscientific aspects. What I consider more problematic is that we have separate articles alchemy and history of alchemy. That's always as if alchemy were also a modern practice, but it isn't, or at least to the extent that it is it is very much fringe even in the context of the narrow topic of alchemy. Hans Adler 10:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is certain that chemistry started with alchemy. The original chemists of the scientific revolution were also alchemists and their own writings show and speak directly concerning the transition from alchemy to chemistry (specifically The Skeptical Chymist.) The name change was chosen so as to demonstrate a change in scientific method but the principles were only migrated, except with an exclusion of the unprovable aspects (the existence of the theoretical Philosopher's Stone.) The modern practice is spiritual and according to academic peer-reviewed sources (see History of Alchemy#Alchemy from the nineteenth to twentieth centuries) arose in the 19th century from the occult revival, being totally unrelated to alchemy historically. Numerous alchemical texts were adulterated during this time to make them sound more spiritual.

Currently, the History section of the Alchemy is a copy of a few paragraphs from History of Alchemy. I support merging History of Alchemy into Alchemy. I support minimizing the "spiritual" interpretation, or restricting it to a separate article. Problem is that I get attacked every time I try to minimize it. There is one particular user who frequently edits who is dedicated to getting the spiritual interpretation on equal standing with the historical and academic view. Any attempt of mine to downplay the spiritual aspect, or mark it as only a fringe interpretation instead of fact, is reverted. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I also support the merger. But I must note that Will Timony is himself trying to push an agenda. Of course it is possible to push an agenda purely based on citing academic peer-reviewed sources. This is known as cherry-picking. And it is the only way to push an agenda that is even worthy of comment on Misplaced Pages, all others are just a reason to rollback.

So, one editor pushing the "proto-scientific" angle of alchemy and another pushing its "spiritual" (occult, magical) side, both basing their opinions on WP:RS, would be the ideal scenario for improvement of our coverage. If, for some reason, only one side is able to cite proper references and the other side is either neglected completely, or represented only by sub-standard contributions, the article will end up biased. Of course alchemy is a proto-science, and of course it has "spiritual" or occult aspects. Exactly the same is true of astrology. It is also true that there have been 19th century revivals of alchemy in occultism. Highly dubious, otoh, is the claim that this "modern alchemy" is "totally unrelated to alchemy historically". But this is not only dubious, it is also irrelevant. What should be discussed is not the "spiritual aspects" of "modern alchemy" at all, but rather the occult or mythological aspects of historical alchemy.

Will Timony complains that "any attempt of mine to downplay the spiritual aspect is reverted". That's as it should be. You aren't to "downplay" things, you are to present them in proper topical arrangement. A section on the proto-scientific aspects of alchemy can stand alongside a section on its spiritual qualities, no problem. These aren't two things that need to be balanced against each other, they are basically orthogonal. If you remove a false or unreferenced statement, you are not "downplaying" anything. But if you cherry-pick your references to distract from the central importance of magical thinking or mythology in historical alchemy, you are in fact damaging the article.

It is a well-known trope that Isaac Newton was both the first scientist and the last magician. Of course he was neither. But the truth expressed in this trope is that he was sitting exactly on the fence between Renaissance magic and modern science. Anyone before Newton could not have divided their work in magic vs. science because the distinction between the two wasn't even known, or meaningful. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on insulting me without understanding what I was saying. I was at no point trying to downplay the historically recorded spiritual aspects of alchemy. I neither said that nor have I been editing in that manner. I said the spiritual interpretation. I am arguing against statements that are being made on the alchemy articles that "alchemy is a spiritual discipline" exclusively. My agenda is to improve this article so that it actually has verifiable historical and academically valid information, and is not just another new age web page, as there are plenty of already.

Alchemy is both a protoscience and a mystical philosophy connected to religion and spirituality, especially gnosticism. There are plenty of academic peer-reviewed sources that support this, so I am not therefore cherry-picking. What the academic peer-reviewed sources don't support is that alchemy is primarily a spiritual discipline and the substances and processes are metaphors for spiritual enlightenment... which is what I'm battling against from other editors. I have no problem if academic peer-reviewed sources can be found for the spiritual interpretation.

My point is: can non-academic sources from alternative publishers be used to forward a view (even in the intro paragraphs) which flatly contradicts the research in multiple, peer-reviewed publications by various academic publishers? That is exactly what is happening. I posted 6 quotes from such sources on Talk:Alchemy, which write that the spiritual interpretation postdates the early modern period (it came from the 19th century occult revival.) These sources do not write against the concept that alchemy contains spiritual symbolism, but they write against the concept that alchemy is primarily non-material. It is not bias or cherry-picking to minimize something that has no reliable sources, and the reliable sources that do exist actually speak against. Or am I wrong with this thought? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry this has become an issue for the larger community. The contributions of Will Timony came to my attention when plugs for the recently posted online Book of Aquarius (summary: the philosophers stone is real and you can make it with your own urine - fringe) were being inserted into articles like the Philosopher's Stone. Since this didn't fly, it appears that a new effort is being made to cherry pick deletions and re-write alchemy related articles in ways that suspiciously support this book - and spin doctor a variety of reasons for doing so. For the record, I'm not pushing any agenda apart from an equal representation of the physical and spiritual aspects of this topic as outlined above, pre-existed, and is standard. My edits have largely been to restore recent deletions with more NPV and references, or to offer referenced counterpoints. Admitedly the references on some of the text inserted over time on these articles has been shabby, but this has been too liberally used as an excuse to delete and change tone, disrespecting WP:Preserve. Will Timony is making cases for all sentences to be cited including leads. The embarrassingly long expose of all this can be seen on the talk pages.Car Henkel (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Car, it has become public because you're so aggressive about it. Thank you for again bringing up your unfounded accusations. Your edits are not even in line with what you're saying. I had to revert another statement of yours recently, let me find it, "The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss.". That was in the Philosopher's Stone intro paragraph without any citation whatsoever, and after our long discussion about sources. If I weren't around the whole thing would be about the spiritual interpretation in outright factual statements. I recommend before anyone jumps to conclusions they actually read the entire of Talk:Alchemy#Issues with Article, New Contributor. Am I the only person following policy? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me be very direct. I at no point ever tried to remove or minimize any part of the article which actually had citation. The only statements removed, which Car complains about, were sourced by absolutely non-reliable sources (such as non-existent sources and random web pages) and previously had citation needed marks, since no one bothered to fix it, and I knew of no source, I eventually removed the statements (according to policy.) Car objects, if you read Talk:Alchemy to me changing his comments that state that alchemy is spiritual only to statements that say "proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe". His accusation about Book of Aquarius is only because in my first couple of posts (weeks ago) when I was a new contributor I mentioned this source, not at the time understanding the policy of Misplaced Pages regarding these sources, this was reverted and I did not complain, because I also agree with the policy, so there is no need to try to use this against me. I intend to expand the history of alchemy with many references to philosophical, religious and spiritual aspects. Car is pushing an entirely alternative historical view, which contradicts everything else in the article. I am not against spiritual, I am against exclusively spiritual interpretation and I am only against it because there are no academic peer-reviewed sources I have seen which support it, and I did actually look for them. I am against nothing that has evidence to support it. I have no agenda other than to make this article accurate according to Misplaced Pages policy. I'm even accused of cherry-picking because I would like non-reliable sources to not be used which contradict academic peer-reviewed sources! I am upset that people are hostile to me for following policy. Someone please explain to me why I am wrong. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This agrees with me WP:FRINGE. Please update yourselves by reading this policy before attacking me. It even says "However, if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review", which is exactly what I have been saying. Though it is not what I have been doing, I have been only changing the fringe views to say "proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe". So if anything I was being too easy on it, and letting Car bully me down with his constant pushing that his ideas must be presented equally to peer-reviewed sources. Not to say there are no peer-reviewed sources supporting his view, perhaps there are, and I'm happy to have these as sources, when they are found. But not unreliable sources. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is everyone ignoring this because they agree or because they disagree? Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Will Timony, Ph.D: you should probably make less of an issue about being "insulted", or "attacked", or "being the only one following policy". You should take a breath and then try to see the merit in what others try to tell you, even if they don't attach academic degrees to their wiki usernames. I am glad that you agree that "Alchemy is both a protoscience and a mystical philosophy connected to religion and spirituality". But then you go on to object to perfectly straightforward statements like "The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss". I find this a completely unremarkable description of the concept. Of course it can be tweaked or rephrased, but you do not make clear how you think it is objectionable to begin with. What else, do you suppose, was the philosopher's stone? You also admit to doing things like "I have been only changing the fringe views to say 'proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe'". How does this agree with your statement that you accept that the spiritual interpretation is valid? It is unacceptable to label discussion of spiritual aspects of alchemy as "the fringe view", because it is not a fringe view, and you have failed to show that it is. In fact you have agreed that it is not earlier in your post, right before you went back to calling it "the fringe view". It is one thing to remove poor content or sub-standard references or bad editing due to people over-enthusiastic about discussing these spiritual aspects. It is quite another thing to imply, as you just did, that this discussion per se falls under WP:FRINGE.

For the sake of argument, let's say you accept that I have a good overall grasp of the topic, and have made valid contributions in the past, and also that I am very well aware of policy and willing to defend it. I also commend you for removing "non-existent sources and random web pages". It still isn't clear to me what you try to argue is the core of the problem here. You say the only thing you object to is "that alchemy is primarily a spiritual discipline", while you accept that it has both spiritual and proto-scientific aspects. Consequently, what you need to object to are attempts to present alchemy as a primarily spiritual discipline, while you should be unperturbed by discussion of alchemy as a spiritual discipline just as long as nobody denies it also had proto-scientific aspects. Which aspect people will find more interesting, and consequently worth researching and covering, is an entirely subjective judgement. I can assure you that there are very quotable authors, first and foremost Carl Jung, who were indeed of the opinion that alchemy was primarily spiritual. But I would never claim that this is the only view on the subject, it is just one notable and quotable view. --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have stated again and again that I am merely arguing against the spiritual interpretation being stated as a fact, which is exactly what has been happening. This statement: "The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss" is the type of thing I have been changing to "Proponents of the spiritual interpretation believe..." For this I am being attacked, for changing something according to WP:NPV. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, or put words into my mouth. The core problem is that undue weight and non-neutral point of view is given to the interpretations which have the greater number of editors who support them. Concerning why spiritual interpretation is fringe: Jung is almost 100 years ago and has been spoken against by modern scholars. So in this sense, although his views should certainly be included, they should not be given undue weight. Following are academic, peer-reviewed sources, showing the modern academic opinion (I have yet to see a peer-reviewed source supporting the spiritual interpretation):

Alchemy Tried in the Fire by William R. Newman, Lawrence M Principe, p37

"The key result of its prevalence is that the spiritual interpretation has served - sometimes almost unconsciously - to set "alchemy" radically apart from "chemistry" in the modern sense. Yet as we have elsewhere shown, the foundations of this interpretation of alchemy - whether spiritual or overtly Jungian - are strikingly weak, as they are based ultimately upon Victorian occultist views with very little reference to the historical reality of the subject."

Secrets of Nature, Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe by William R. Newman, Anthony Grafton, p397

"The chief problem with the esoteric view is that even laying aside the more extreme positions, the historical record (as Waite, for whatever reason finally concluded in 1926) simply does not countenance it. Although the works of many alchemical writers contain (often extensive) expressions of the period piety, imprecations of God, exhortations to morality, and even the occasional appearance of an angelic or spiritual messenger, we find no indication that the vast majority of alchemists were working on anything other than material substances towards material goals. The distinctions in tone and attitude towards spirituality that quite admittedly exist between many "alchemical" texts and more modern "chemical" texts can be explicated without recourse to the spiritual interpretation's disjuction between "alchemy" and "chemistry" and its labeling of them as esoteric and exoteric traditions, respectively. First, it must be remembered that transmutatory alchemy fell out of widespread popularity at around the time of the widespread secularization of intellectual culture that occurred in the eighteenth century. Most alchemical texts originated in a culture of greater religious sensibility than our own and thus naturally exhibit more spiritual and religious expressions than do later works of "chemistry." Second, the secrecy and "initiatic style" ubiquitous in works on transmutation led quite naturally to a tone of mystery absent from later, more "open" writings of eighteen-century chemistry. This emphasis on secrecy led originally to the fairly common contemporaneous invocation of morality or divine agency as "gatekeepers" to secret knowledge, but in the nineteenth century to a linkage of the arcana of alchemy to the secrets of "the occult" as whole. These culturally based differences of expression and tone do not countenance the spiritual interpretation, which fails to recognize the cultural context of the alchemical texts."

Newton and Newtonianism by James E. Force, Sarah Hutton, p211

"Atwood's treatise touched off a huge resurgence of interest in alchemy, but almost entirely within the context of Victorian occultism. Hundreds of books, including adulterated "translations" of alchemical classics, appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century, all but a few very embracing this new "spiritual interpretation" of alchemy. According to this interpretation, alchemy had little to do with chemistry, and was aimed instead at the internal purification, spiritual exaltation and perfection of the would-be adept."

On the Edge of the Future by Jeffrey John Kripal, Glenn W. Shuck, p27

"The spiritual interpretation of alchemy that was made famous by Jung in fact reflects religious convictions typical of nineteenth-century occultism and is not supported by the antique and medieval alchemical sources."

Man, Myth & Magic by Richard Cavendish, Brian Innes, p752

"A purely spiritual alchemy would never explain the existence of alchemical laboratories in which physicians honestly and fanatically sought for occult medicines."

New Age Religion and Western Culture by Wouter J. Hanegraaf, p512

"Although the history of spiritual and psychological interpretations of alchemy prior to Jung is in urgent need of further investigation, what is known at present confirms by previous conclusions. Jung's view of spiritual alchemy, like his view of gnosticism, was rooted in 19th-century esoteric/Romantic and occultist worldviews."

If policy is still ignored I'm leaving Misplaced Pages. I don't want to be part of an organization which encourages bullying in order to manipulate information. Very disappointed. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient nails

I think this article needs a little balance, and I do not know where to begin... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend searching on Google Books for related terms, to see if there are any academic opinions or theories on the subhect. Some of the sources used are not very reliable, but perhaps the web sites themselves quote a more reliable source? (Follow the trail to find where the info came from.) Some possible explanations would add some balance to the article. Also try to find an explanation (preferably from an academic source) detailing what is to special about these nails. This statement may not be true: "The mainstream scientific community do not accept the discoveries as genuine." It would be worth finding a source to either support that, or an academic reference to the finding being genuine, or both if possible. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be simpler to rephrase that as ""The mainstream scientific community have not accepted the discoveries as genuine". This puts the onus on anyone disagreeing with the statement to provide evidence of acceptance. The article reads like something from the Fortean Times, and doesn't so much lack balance as focus - for a start, only two of the 'anomalous' objects discussed in any detail are supposedly 'nails'. Essentially, the article is nothing more than a collection of dubiously-sourced trivia - and as such, probably falls under WP:SYNTH. At best, any of the objects discussed should be included in the Out-of-place artifact article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking of nominating it for an AFD on those grounds, but I wanted to get more opinions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I support merge into Out-of-place artifact, at least those parts with reliable source. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How does one nominate something for a merge? I have not done that before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow the steps here: Help:Merging#Proposing a merger. Will Timony, Ph.D (talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

See below. It was virtually all copyvio, so I've dealt with that and turned it into a redirct to Out-of-place artifact, Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Strauss-Howe generational theory

The article Strauss-Howe generational theory seems to be based almost entirely on the writings of its proponents. It looks to me like pseudo-something-or-other. If, as claimed, Al Gore likes it, maybe it is actually 'notable', but this doesn't justify the long-winded waffle IMO. I'm tempted to suggest an AfD, but perhaps others can take a look, with an eye to reducing it to the facts, such as they are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a mess. The bio article needs to be merged with it and then it needs cleaning up. It shouldn't have huge amounts of description based on the books themselves and only a slight amount of criticism. might help. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Metal objects (Out-of-place artifacts) (created by block evader)

This looks like a pov fork from Out-of-place artifact with sentences such as " There is of course no explanation as to what it was or how it got inside the block of coal millions of years ago." It was created by the block evading editor Liveintheforests (talk · contribs) when he was evading his block by using the account IntelligentUniverse (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To add insult to injury it was virtually all copyvio, which I've deleted and turned the article into a redirect to our Out-of-place artifact article. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)

Needs some attention. There's some edit-warring going on there with one editor trying to say that some scientists like this nonsense, and refusing to accept sources from non-mathematicians. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

White Gods

A new Liveintheforests article. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm , yet more dross to wade through... – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Reactionless drive

Extra eyes would be appreciated at Reactionless drive. I removed what appeared to be undue emphasis on a proposed reactionless drive which cited a Facebook photo album. It was a long text starting starting with:

"While the general consensus in dogmatic science insists that inertial propulsion is "impossible", one adherant to the concept (David E. Cowlishaw) operated an open internet forum on the subject from 1996 through 2003, and reported numerous proofs of physical testing, and gathered reports from over 20 others also claiming successful physical experiments in the field...".

A little while later, CowlishawDavid (talk · contribs) added the content back in. Reverts followed; I'm now on the threshold of 3RR so I shall step back from the article. All comments & suggestions welcome... bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

After a rather rambling talk-page discussion, I think that CowlishawDavid (talk · contribs) has got the message about sourcing, though frankly, the article is a mess. It starts off in the lede by saying such things can't exist, and then goes on to discuss how they might work... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks AndyTheGrump! You ignored the now archived material on two European websites, spanning over a decade, detailing the input from over 20 other material researchers contributing to the concept, and went for the still incomplete facebook "retail" efforts of late. I will agree, my messaging IS a mess!

I am not a corporation with unlimited recources. Please do a search on "David E. Cowlishaw" (search term enclosed in quotes), and you will find me all over the map, still longing for reality, rather than "belief". Last update on that dedicated subject (a now defunct server, efforts are now archived in Europe) = http://archive.go-here.nl/open.org/davidc/update34.htm CowlishawDavid (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not up to us to go searching for your stuff on the Web. The article is still poor, with no indication of how notable these notions are. The priority is to find reliable sources, i.e. in mainstream physics. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also a clear conflict of interest regarding Cowlishaw's own work that he has re-added to the article. He has a horse in the race, and is promoting it. Binksternet (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster is a class of machines that has a unique operating theory, that has been duplicated and tested, though NOT via standard publication, due to the irrational prejudice.

The archived (now static) website is a source of information on mechanical descriptions, theory, and history. I have not, and will not seek outside financing due to the history of these types of devices, though I have accepted a small (unsolicited) financial assistance from a former forum contributor when I ran it, who had met me in person during a theme gathering I held at my residence. He will own the first prototype once testing is performed, and I have a duplicate built (my way to repay him, also not solicited by him).

If the facebook link detailing the latest in a long line of variants is deemed offensive, I will be happy to remove it, if it will stop the unrelenting attempts to totally erase 15 years of research and world wide collaboration.

Clearly I have a "dog in the fight" but as the inventor of an entirely new class of machines (that are now public domain), and webmaster for a multi-year public forum and research sharing site, who better to explore and explain it?

CowlishawDavid (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for promoting fringe theories. Explain it elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And further to this, if another editor can sort out the mess at Talk:Reactionless drive (see history) - now also reported at WP:ANI - I'd be most appreciative. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy (again)

The British homeopaths have decided to declare this "homeopathy awareness week" (presumably because they are unworldly so felt left out by "world homeopathy awareness week"). The Misplaced Pages article is being widely cited as a source of balanced information, with predictable results (see Cjwilky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). This is one of our better articles on pseudoscience so please help me watch it and push back against chipping away by agenda accounts. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So far, editor has made only one edit to the article, though is quite tendentious in Talk:Homeopathy. The conversation has moved from the number of "shakes" to make the potion work, to that it works period. And are you serious? There's a Homeopathy Awareness Week? I'll drink a liter of water respectfully then. OrangeMarlin 23:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. I'm doing my bit to spread awareness of homeopathy by posting links to the Misplaced Pages article. After all, we wouldn't want people to make a choice without being fully informed would we? Guy (Help!) 10:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In honour of Homeopathy Awareness Week, may I also recommend viewing "Homeopathy A&E" (2.5 minutes) from That Mitchell and Webb Look. While that link probably doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS, I believe that it concisely and accessibly summarizes one important perspective on these woefully underused alternative therapeutic approaches. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ten. Have a lager on me (as featured). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Aliens

can someone have a look at recent edits and my talk page and that of good faith newbie being called a vandal. dead battery or i would be home instead of in a field on my iPad. wqa i think when i can. no tildes in wikiedit so sinebot do your work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Sinebot doesn't seem to have done its work, so I placed an "unsigned" template. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Dougweller. You already noticed that I went over there and helped in a couple of ways. I think the problem has more eyes on it now, and is in the process of settling down into normal editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience infobox on Maharishi Effect

Back in January 2010, a now-vanished user added a pseudoscience infobox to the Maharishi Effect section of the TM-Sidhi program article. There was no discussion of the infobox at the time, though there have been occasional threads on the talk page touching on pseudoscience and the article is within WP: WikiProject Rational Skepticism. An editor has now objected to the infobox. Talk:TM-Sidhi program#Pseudoscientific Concepts box? Any thoughts? Are these boxes commonly used?   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I recall at one time, infoboxes were being widely employed as a workaround to NPOV by fringe proponents. Supposed "creatures" and "phenomenon" were lent an air of academic credibility through the use of scientific-sounding classifications within the boxes ("primary data", "first sighting", "habitat", "status", "sub-grouping", etc.) I believe that one science-minded editor, now vanished, began adding "pseudoscience infoboxes" to fringe articles as a sort of retaliation. In my opinion, neither kind of infoboxes are useful or appropriate since they skirt requirements for attribution, quality of sources, NPOV, undue weight, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI There's another of these at the top of Remote Viewing. I agree with LuckyLouie...such an eye-catching "all you need to know" format should either play it straight or go. Untaggably burning a payload word like "pseudoscientific" into a high visibility template caption is basically poisoning the well, which isn't ideal practice for an encyclopedia. K2709 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Discovery of Rockall

Early Discovery of Rockall - clearly COI issues here, and it looks to me like an AfD on OR grounds, but perhaps someone more familiar with fringe topics could take a look at this. Ben MacDui 18:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just going to take this here. The user has made a series of articles based on their own theories besides the one linked above (partly self-published sources, and all of the sources authored by the editor who created them):

• Early Discovery of the Faroe Islands
• Early Discovery of Cape Verde Islands
• Early Discovery of Canary Islands
• Early Discovery of the Azores
• Early Discovery of Greenland
• Early Discovery of Madeira

Pre-history is not my field, but I am pretty sure that at least regarding Greenland and the Faroe Islands, there are no mainstream academic support for the theories proposed here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

They all very clearly violate the rule that fringe theories should never be presented as "fact." --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article names are in violation of WP:FRINGE, since they do not make it clear that this is just a theory. So assuming that they do survive an AFD and an improvement process, then they should at the very least be renamed to something like "Theory of early discovery of the Azores" etc. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Given that all these articles appear to have been written by Jonge, on the basis of material written by Jonge & Wakefield, and all published by the same not-heard-of-in-any-other-context publishing company, I would suggest deletion. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 14:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• One of the sources is Ancient American Magazine, very fringe and sometimes racist. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And all of them are pov forks quite clearly, any acceptable material belongs in the appropriate geographical article. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have time for a group AfD nomination? Or just redirect, but that leaves titles which I don't think should exist even as redirects. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A group AfD makes a great deal of sense. I can't see much prospect of any individual article being better than the others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• all nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Early discovery of the Faroe Islands. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

• Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Editors have suggested this source is not usable for the pseudoscience page or is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Any article in the British Journal of Psychology can be used as a top-level reliable source for relevant topics. The article you cite is absolutely relevant to pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." (my emphasis)

I am one of the editors who finds this source inappropriate for the claims that QuackGuru wishes to make in the Pseudoscience article. This paper is about the psychology of pseudoscience and cognitive distortion and would be a very good source for that. However, the authors make general and unsupported claims about the public health risks of pseudoscience that are a) tangential to the research or even to psychology in general and b) apply only to quackery and not the whole field of pseudoscience. No other good sources have been located to support these extremely broad claims. While this source is reliable within it's domain and is welcome for use in the section on the psychology of pseudoscience, it is unsuited as the sole basis for claims about the public health risks of pseudoscience except in the more narrow case of quackery (for which many superior references exist).

You can see the full text on the authors' web site. (This paper was not published in the intended issue (11/2010) of the BJP but exists as a preprint. There is no explanation for its exclusion from the intended issue and there are no published plans to include it in a future issue.) Jojalozzo 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the related discussions on the talk page is simply exhausting. One does get the idea, however, that QuackGuru is exhibiting pretty high levels of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT by not letting this particular issue go over the course of months and after a whole lot of editors have explained to him exactly what Jojalozzo has written above. The journal is eminently reliable in the field of psychology, but not for the claim QG wishes to use it for in this instance. Beyond contextual reliability it isn't clear even, if the source can accurately be said to verify the information in the article that QG wants to source in the first place. The real problem here seems to be of the behavioral variety and not a content issue. I suggest a change of venue if QG persists.Griswaldo (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution