Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by POVbrigand (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 23 January 2012 (→Amazing amount of nonsense: r AndyTheGrump). 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.

Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy#United_Kingdom

Think I've got this in line with reality - it contained several counterfactual statements, like implying that the Faculty of Homeopaths was a branch of the NHS (!!!) and stating that the government rejected the Evidence check on homeopathy, when in fact it put the decision to the Primary Care Trusts, many of which do not fund homeopathy anymore. It also tried to use figures from 2006 to paint a rosy picture of funding in the UK, when the latest reports show a very, very significant decline.

Examples of appalling material removed:

No, it does NOT operate the Faculty of Homeopathy.

You may not think that's particularly bad - until you realise the article's about present day regulation and prevalence, and no other country - not even Germany, which created it - has Homeopathy's glorious past triumphs described.

The article also lied by ommission:

Not mentioned: West Kent PCT closed Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital two years later, which tends to change figures. Also, the article, until today, failed to mention any figures from after 2006. Given the last three years have seen major campaigns against homeopathy, it tends to change things.

Remaining problems

I find the other sections of this article dubious, given how the U.K. section attempted to misrepresent the situation. In particular, it has a tendency to a rather pro-homeopathic tone:

That's right: The article presents the loss of nosodes - fake vaccines, which Britain's NHS has had to do an entire campaign warning people not to take - as a bad thing, and much of the article's language is in this "Isn't it horrible when Homeopathy is restrained, but isn't it great when it isn't?" sort of tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.223.49 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011

evolution

I am trying to include a quote from Al-Jahiz's book in the history of evolution section of this article using this source. However, another editor feels that an evolutionary biologist has to mention it or it would be a fringe theory. Sodicadl (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A historian of science would be the best interpreter of this, rather than an evolutionary biologist. Jim Al-Khalili does write about history of science, but this particular source is very much addressed to a popular audience and may be oversimplified. It isn't a fringe claim, but it shouldn't be made too much of and should be attributed to Al-Khalili. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are three problems here: sourcing, weight and fringe. For a topic like the history of evolutionary thought, we require top-notch scholarly sources from academic publications written by recognized experts in the history of evolutionary thought. The source you mention is essentially an aplogetic opinion piece in a non-specialist publication for a non-scholarly, popular audience. Sorry, but it's well below our standards. Now, whether or not the view should be given any weight depends on how much it is mentioned in the scholarly literature on the topic. Again, we would require top-notch scholarly sources to determine that. Absent such sources, any discussion about whether it is fringe or not is premature and futile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the quote? Where in the article would it go? BTW, I'm a bit confused by both comments above about "popular audience" and "non-scholarly, popular audience". That's our audience, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but information should be sourced to academically respectable literature, which we then mediate for a mainstream audience. There is a History of evolutionary thought article, which would probably be a better place to start than the main article itself. It's presumably intended for the history section anyway. We would need to know how accurate the translation is, what Al-Jahiz is thought to have meant by it, etc. That needs context, and specifically scholarship by a historian of science. What Arabic word is being translated as "species", for example. Also is this just an isolated sentence, or does he actually develop a theory? Paul B (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, from the guidelines; "Misplaced Pages strives to be a serious reference resource, and highly technical subject matter still belongs in some Misplaced Pages articles". While it should be made accessible "but this should be done without reducing the value to readers with more technical background." Misplaced Pages:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Technical_content. Just because wikipedia targets a popular audience does not mean we should resort to poorer non-scholarly sources for the information when better sources are available. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie: The OP didn't indicate what the quote was, so I have no idea whether it's highly technical or not. In fact, I think you may be conflating highly technical content with sourcing. Your second sentence seems to have nothing to do with your first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The quote in the article the OP links to is as follows:

"Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."

I have a problem with the translation. The unnamed translator (probably Al-Khalili himself) apparently tried to express whatever Al-Jahiz may have written in terms of modern biological concepts, using modern scientific vocabulary. This would make it seem more relevant to the stream of thought that led to modern evolutionary thought than it may actually be. Without solid academic sources, giving Al-Jahiz's statement a place in the the history of the developement of evolutionary thought would verge on OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"The unnamed translator (probably Al-Khalili himself) apparently tried to express whatever Al-Jahiz may have written in terms of modern biological concepts, using modern scientific vocabulary." OK, sounds reasonable. @Sodicadl: I suggest you try to find other sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Khalili wrote Pathfinders: the Golden Age of Arabic Science. This is a published book dealing with the history of science. I don’t exactly have the book right now, but if this material is in the book rather than the Telegraph, would it then count? Sodicadl (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I would think it would be an acceptable source, but that still doesn't mean that the quote should be in the article. Any number of things that can be sourced could be put in the article. We also have to consider due weight, flow, scholarly consensus. As I suggested earlier, you'd probably be better off starting with the more detailed history article rather than trying to squeeze it into the main evolution article. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@Sodicadl: Another posibility is if the book itself is notable, you can write an article about the book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:Evolution#Al-Jahiz where I said "The problem is that a theoretical physicist probably has no particular knowledge of the history of science, or of developments within biology (such a person of course may be an expert on these matters, but they have no known credentials in the field)". Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting test case for WP:HISTRS. Let's say that the claim belongs to history of science. What qualifications do we expect for someone writing history of science? The best known scholars tend to have unusual backgrounds, including both history and science. Al-Khalili a good enough science background to understand today's scientific method, except he is not a philosopher. He is an Arabic speaker, important skill for someone specialising in the Arabic scientific tradition. He doesn't seem to have any formal training in history, but he has a chair in public communication of science in a reputable UK university. So, it is a bit borderline. I would endorse the idea of adding the info in the first instance to History of evolutionary thought rather than to Evolution - no indication that it is notable enough for the latter article. And it is better to use the book rather than the Daily Telegraph report. And it needs accrediting to Al-Khalili, so readers can look him up and see what his background is.

Personally, I am not worried about the translation of "species" or what the original Arabic word was. We know for a fact that Al-Jahiz was not working with the same 19th century concept of species as Darwin and Wallace. He wasn't standing on the shoulders of Linnaeus, John Ray, Gilbert White, Lamarck et al. His idea of evolution was a remarkable insight, but also a perfectly feasible insight for someone open-minded and interested in explanation.

Handled with a modicum of care, this is a harmless factoid that might spark readers' interest in science history. If it started to spin out into a "which nation discovered evolution first" race, that would be a problem. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A question that I like to ask myself when deciding content issues like this is, if the BBC were to do a documentary on evolution, is it likely that they would mention something like this? Perhaps for the topic of evolution, a better question might be, does the average college textbook on biology include this? If the answer is no, then we probably shouldn't. If it's yes, we probably should. Just something to think about... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC cannot be our threshold for reliability of sources on science. BBC has news agencies that are certainly world-class and I would use them as a reliable source on news i.e. current events. Beyond that ... well, like any TV network their principal goal is to entertain, at least as much if not more than to educate (yes, I learned this from a BBC documentary on the history of their own science shows).

Al-Khalili is one of a bunch of scientists in Britain who are telegenic and good teachers and are completely shaking up older stereotypes about scientists (Britisn versions of Mr. Wizard). I do not think one has to be a rocket scientist to see how appealing to the BBC is a pitch for a three-part (as I recall) series on science during the golden age of Islam, at a time when UK forces are slogging it out in Afghanistan and Islam is the second-largest religion in Britain. How many of us here would not be interested in watching this show? So, as is often the case, Al-Khalili put out a book based on the TV show. My point is that this book was led by the production of a TV show, not by academic research.

Also, Al-Khalili is not a historian of science, nor a historian of the Islamic world. We have no idea of wht kind of research he did for the show, and there is nothing to suggest that has training in the history of science or in the history of the Islamic world, and we do not know to what extent he relied on the expertise of others. Is his opinion of Al-Jahiz his own opinion? Well, I simply reject that out of hand for an article on evolution. Is he summarizing research by leading historians of science, or historians of the Islamic world? All we need is to ask whoever wishes to mention Al-Jahiz in this article to look at Al-Khalili's book and see what citations he provides as sources for this view. If this leads to a recent scholarly book widely respected by historians of science and historians of Islam, then this is the book we should use as a source. If Al-Khalili does not provide references to any studies by historians of science, I really have to question its reliability.

We are putting together an encyclopedia, and that something is published may be the minimum to verify it, but so far all we have done is verified that a physicist and TV presenter has a particular opinion about a historial figure and biological science. Well, okay, but frankly this tells us much more about Al-Khalili than about Al-Jahiz or about evolutionary science. So far no one has provided any evidence that Al-Khalili's claim is taken seriously by the actual experts, historians of science and historians of the Islamic world. It is pretty obvious to me that evolutionary scientists (from biology or anthropology), intellectual historians and historians of science, and sociologists of science may all be appropriate sources for an article on evolution. Before anyone adds someone from another category I would want to see evidence that this person did the appropriate research, and that this person's research is accepted by other experts on this material. Normally, we take publication in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal or publication of a book by a university press that is authored by someone with the appropriate degree as sufficient evidence. Maybe we should accept other evidence. But the fact that the TV show appealed to the suits at BBC and Penguin Books (which frequently publishes books to accompany BBC shows) is simply not in my view sufficient evidence to justify inclusion in the world's leading on-line encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask (although I think I know the answer)... are you saying that there is not sufficient evidence to justify any inclusion of Al-Khalili or his theories period (ie anywhere in Misplaced Pages)?... or are you saying there is not sufficient evidence to justify inclusion of him and his theories in a specific article (such as the overview article on Evolution)? The former would be governed by WP:FRINGE (which, in this case, I read as being in favor of inclusion), while the latter would be governed by WP:Undue weight (in which case I would generally agree with your assessment, although it depends on the specific article we are talking about). Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

He is a notable enough person that I think we should have an article on him, and such an article should describe3 the range of his work - as a research scientist, TV presenter and author. But given that his training and credentials are in physics, the only theories of his that belong in articles on academic topics ought to be his theories about physics, assuming that ithin physics his work has achieved the appropriate level of notability. I think you and I agree that citing his views on the history of evolutionary research in the articles on evolution would be giving his views undue weight. Analogy: I think Walter Cronkite's opinions about outer space have a place in WP - in the article on Walter Cronkite, but not in our article on astronomy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the Kronkite analogy, but so far we have no evidence that this quotation appears in any of Al-Khalili's books. I've done searches on Amazon sites for his two books on the topic, and can finds no reference to the quotation. All we have is a report in a newspaper article. Personally, I am very suspicious about the quotation, in part because of my experience of similar cases of 'creative' translations/epitomes of Arabic sources, and in part because I can find no evidence that any other scholars have identified this remarkable passage in a fairly well known book. I think we really do need more sources for a major article. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The extraordinary claim that Darwin's predecessors were influenced in a "major" way by the writings of Al-Jahiz is not matched by extraordinary sources. Do Muslims have a proud heritage? Yes. Can we trace specific influences of Al-Jahiz on Linnaeus and company? No. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a trained historian could find such a specific influence ... and maybe not. My point is, historians are trained to weight the appropriate evidence to establish such influences, and Al-Khalili is not, thus making him the wrong source for such claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any suggestion that Al-Jahiz directly influenced Darwin, just that he anticipated aspects of Darwin's thought. It would not be too surprising if we were to find biologists who said something about animals competing for resources, and even passing on characteristics. It's been well known for rather a long time that characteristics can be bred into animals by selection. The question is whether these disparate observations were really connected together in an original quasi-Darwinian form by Al-Jahiz. Maybe they were. Al-Khalili is not just a presenter/journalist like Cronkite. He does have a reputation for writings on this topic, but he's a generalist and the claim raises redflags. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Céline Hervieux-Payette

This article has a fairly large section called "Model Parliament for North America – Regionalism" that seems to mostly consist of conspiracy theories about a North American Union. There are lots of sources, but they may perhaps not be among the most reputable. I notice that the article in the French Misplaced Pages lacks this stuff, even though the article is about a francophone Quebec politician. --213.236.196.39 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't comment on the conspiracy theory but have removed it from Céline Hervieux-Payette as completely WP:UNDUE and per WP:BLP: the only reference linking her to this material is dead. Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ica Stones redux

Although the above is at RSN, I'm having another problem with an editor removing the descriptions of the stones (because they are fake - again an editor suggesting that 'Ica Stones' refers to something other than a collection of stones considered to be hoaxes by mainstream sources). And another RS issue which I may also take to RSN. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

cold fusion

People need to look out. The article on cold fusion contains a significant amount of undue weight including claims referenced to primary sources, cold fusion conference proceedings, and other violations of sourcing guidelines on Misplaced Pages.

Look what I did to the lede: . This needs to be done for the entire article. Look for special pleading, promotional writing, etc., and balance or get rid of it!.

Hudn12 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. Please see WP:BRD. Your user page seems a little problematic: like your account, it was only created a few minutes ago. Mathsci (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to understand what you found objectionable about the material you removed, because it was discussed in detail on the article's talk page well beforehand. Are you aware that two of the statements you removed were from peer reviewed secondary sources? The other material includes a list of the organizations which are currently working on LENR. Do you think it would help readers more to learn about such things? If you believe they are false, you should try to find similarly authoritative sources which agree with you and include them alongside the material to which you object so our readers can get both sides of the story. That is what our WP:NPOV policy is all about. Selery (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the lede was overloaded and does not conform to the Manual of Style. I agreed with the pruning and reverted Mathsci's revert per WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Which particular part of WP:LEDE do you think supports the deletion? A new user just split a paragraph, but you left five paragraphs anyway. And removing the only peer reviewed secondary sources which indicate positive results and the work ongoing at e.g. the US Navy and NASA, along with the only available explanation of why the controversy occurred (Hubler 2007) completely biases the article. It's already under sanctions, don't you think it would be a good idea to discuss changes on the talk page first? I'm copying this discussion there. Selery (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As this has generated three undiscussed reverts on the sanctioned article, I've replaced the {{POV}} tag. Please continue discussion at Talk:Cold fusion#POV tag to keep it all in one place and prevent FTN clutter with this perennial controversy. Selery (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This "perennial controversy" died in the early 1990s. RIP. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The removed sources clearly indicate that the US Navy, NASA, and all the several most recent peer reviewed secondary sources say otherwise. Selery (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Low quality in universe source are not accorded much weight, if any. Besides they are all primary regardless of the number of tims you claim them to be secondary.ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I invite people to judge that for themselves. Selery (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(copying my post from Talk:Cod fusion) Since wikipedia is based on sources, I'll point out again User:Enric_Naval/pathological_science#sources_added_later. Scholar sources overwhelmingly consider cold fusion unproven. A handful of sources written by long-time supporters don't make a new consensus. Cramming low-quality sources in the lead only serves to give the false impression that the field is proven and accepted. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Cod fusion like cod Latin, or is it a fishy form of fusion cuisine? Paul B (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We have established at Talk:Cold fusion#POV tag that those sources are not peer reviewed, and the peer reviewed secondary sources opposed to them have been cited in mainstream journals. Discussion is continuing on that talk page. Selery (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Enric already addressed this issue. "Hummm, it doesn't say such a thing, peer-reviewed articles are one of the available types of sources. Please re-read WP:SCHOLARSHIP (it's part of the Reliable Sources guideline). It's also in the verifiability policy "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources (...)" (P.S.: it's the short form of "academic publications and peer-reviewed publications")". Original research articles are also generally not suited for a lede, we should be relying instead on reviews etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Amazing amount of nonsense

Please read more about what I did here. Apparently, the new game is trying to convince the world that NASA is going to fund cold fusion by scouring the web for evidence that certain individuals connected to NASA are sympathetic to the cold fusion community. This now constitutes "ongoing" research.

Hudn12 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, I invite others to judge for themselves: NASA's first tech report on the topic, NASA LENR video, , Zawodny's slides, Bushnell's slides, Nelson's slides on the eCat, patent application, NASA's gas phase tech report, news from Russia, news from Sweden. Selery (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also NASA's "early experiment" is also mentioned in a peer reviewed paper in 2006

Apparently, the new game is trying to convince the Noticeboards that NASA cannot be mentioned in the article.

It is pretty damn obvious that work on LENR is ongoing at NASA !

Raise your hands, who is happy with withholding information from the WP-readership because it is not in line with your personal POV ?

This is not about LENR "endorsement" by NASA, this is about what RS say about LENR research at NASA. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You are cherry picking and re-interpreting your links to present a picture other than indended. Enric's comment sums it up best:

According to Forbes, Zawodny has clarified in his blog that he was still skeptical, that there was still no extraordinary evidence to back the extraordinary claims, and that no public demonstration had reunited all necessary guaranties.. Forbes also says that this was blown out of proportion. Zawodny's own blog says, among other things "Nothing I say should ever be construed as anything other than my personal opinion. (...) There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works.". So, Bushnell has declined to comment on NASA's official position regarding CF, and Zawodny says that he doesn't represent NASA. Soooo, NASA still doesn't seem to have any official position regarding cold fusion

IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, cherry picking is what YOU are doing by searching for an ever so tiny hook to support the complete deletion of mentioning NASA's work on LENR. Stop arguing your strawman "NASA's official position". I'll repeat my comment "This is not about LENR "endorsement" by NASA, this is about what RS say about LENR research at NASA.", maybe you understand it if I repeat it as often as you repeat your strawman. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, provide some mainstream secondary sources that report on NASA doing research into LENR. So far, all you've got is Ny Teknik (again), who seem to have got it wrong according to Zawodny, and a Russian website that says nothing specific whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this is your special rule right ? As per WP:SPS "researchers at NASA langley research center are working on another way of producing energy efficient nuclear power" - what part of "NASA is doing research into LENR" is it that you feel isn't supported by that video ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nano-thermite

This article (which probably ought to be merged into the main thermite article anyway) is being beset by persistent attempts to refer to a somewhat notorious paper to defend the thesis that nano-thermite was found in the dust resulting from the World Trade Center collapse. It's a particularly challenging source issue because they authors appear to have made a good faith effort at analysis, and because it gives the appearance of proper peer review. The science of the paper has been criticized by many people, though, and frankly it seems to me that someone with a decent middle-school-level experimental procedure education can see some of the holes in their analysis. It is suspected that the material they identify as thermitic is actually rustproofing paint, and said paint is surely a contaminant of the dust they analyzed; by my reading (and I'm hardly alone) the arguments made against this suspicion are weak, and the obvious step of subjecting a sample of similar paint to the same analysis was not performed, nor did they perform an elemental analysis of real nano-thermite.

The other side of the coin is that the supposed peer review is tainted. Apparently the article was snuck into publication without the knowledge of the editor-in-chief, who resigned in protest when she discovered that it had been published. There is a great deal of backing-and-forthing about the qualifications of the various people involved.

The NIST reports dismiss the thermite/controlled-demolition theory in a FAQ response. Thermite simply isn't a material which is used for this kind of application (real controlled demolitions people use linear shaped charges to cut steel beams), and nano-thermite seems to be invoked as a magical (and semi-mythical: I get the impression that it is the subject of research and isn't the sort of thing you can buy off-the-shelf, as you can with ordinary thermite) super material to get past the limitations of the stuff used to weld rails en situ or in incendiary weapons.

, being dubious of the custody of stuff which was literally scraped off Manhattan sidewalks, if that's where it came from. The controlled demolition was taken down, so to speak, by probably the man most qualified to assess it, the guy the real CD people call in to document their work.

This particular issue is likely headed to WP:RSN RSN, but I'd like some other people to go and have a look at the argument before I take that route. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoting Mangoe:

"The science of the paper has been criticized by many people"

Criticized by whom? And what is their criticism?

"someone with a decent middle-school-level experimental procedure education can see some of the holes in their analysis"

What holes? Describe.

"It is suspected that the material they identify as thermitic is actually rustproofing paint"

Suspected as rustproofing paint by whom? Have those who "suspect" rustproofing paint actually conducted any tests of their alleged paint to determine if it possesses the characteristics that they claim? Such characteristics (low ignition temperature, rapid energy release, and hot enough to melt iron) would be very undesirable in a paint; especially a rustproofing or primer paint.

"The NIST reports dismiss the thermite/controlled-demolition theory in a FAQ response."

NIST didn't test for incendiaries or explosives, so as is the case with much of their investigation, their dismissive approach is unscientific and evades the issue.

"Thermite simply isn't a material which is used for this kind of application"

Materials used by military or black operations are not necessarily going to be well documented in the public domain. I doubt that you have a reliable basis for making a statement regarding what materials might or might not be used in this instance.

I get the impression that it is the subject of research and isn't the sort of thing you can buy off-the-shelf"

Correct.

"NIST also declined to perform the sort of analysis done in this paper"

Correct. This can be viewed as unscientific and a severe failing on the part of NIST to perform a thorough and proper investigation. NIST instead chose to play ostrich and stick its figurative head in the sand, even though it could very easily perform the appropriate analysis, and lay the matter to rest.

"being dubious of the custody of stuff which was literally scraped off Manhattan sidewalks"

The tested samples came from a variety of locations; none of which were sidewalks. The closest to a "sidewalk" was one sample which was taken from a pedestrian handrail on the Brooklyn Bridge. All of the samples contained chips with the same thermitic characteristics. The government has (or has access to) samples collected by entities it regards as reliable (such as the material examined by USGS), so unavailability of appropriate samples is not a valid reason to avoid analysis for thermitic material in the dust.

"The controlled demolition was taken down, so to speak, by probably the man most qualified to assess it, the guy the real CD people call in to document their work."

Who? Perhaps Tom Sullivan, former explosive-charge placement technician for Controlled Demolition, Incorporated; who also worked as a photographer documenting demolitions? You won't find him agreeing with the government's account regarding the destruction of the WTC buildings.

As the "notorious paper" (as you call it) is the document which has likely brought the topic of nano-thermite into public view more than any other, it would not be unreasonable to allow mention of it in the nano-thermite article. Wildbear (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be excluded per WP:UNDUE. The root causes of the WTC1,2,7 failures are well understood at this point and thermite (nano, super, or otherwise) did not play a part. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to go through the motions of spelling out all the argument here when it can be seen all over the place, particularly in the long-winded exchange on the article's talk page. If/when I go to RSN I'll have to go through the details exhaustively there anyway, so between the two locations, I figure people here are bright enough that I don't have to repeat it all here.

I will address two points directly. Supposition about rustproofing paint is not a substitute for dealing with the real thing. The fact is that iron oxide is a common-to-the-point-of-ubiquitous ingredient in such paint, as it is in fact in many paints in the red-orange-brown hue range. I don't know that it was used in the WTC formulation, but perhaps that could be found out. One would expect to find the residue of such paint in dust from the collapse, so it needs to be accounted for in any case. And whatever one wants to claim about the desirable properties of such paint, the fact is that paint dust of almost any kind is volatile to the point of posing risk of explosion in confined spaces. You can find demonstrations of this on YouTube, but you'll also see the work safety guys concerned about this too.

Second, the person I have in mind is not Sullivan, whose remarks, frankly, smack of a lay assessment from a video rather than from analysis, but Brent Blanchard, whose report addresses the incident as a contractor hired by the CD firms to assess their work. He was in NYC that day, and his monitoring equipment was deployed and did detect the collapses. It is hard to imagine someone who is more expert than he is. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Blanchard's document is dated August 8, 2006. In this document, Mr. Blanchard writes: " Please…if anyone knows of specific physical evidence relating to explosives being used in any manner on the Ground Zero site, bring it to our attention."

The "Active Thermitic Material" paper was released in early 2009. Mr. Blanchard's document and request predates this, and so does not address the evidence for thermitic material in the dust, which is the topic of this discussion. Mr. Blanchard also writes: "We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here."

It's disappointing that Mr. Blanchard does not express the intellectual curiosity to want to find the precise cause of the destruction of WTC 7, given that he is in an industry where such knowledge would be very important to have. And especially, to have an answer which is without question scientifically verifiable and reliable; rather than a dubious hypothesis of fire-induced collapse.

As for the explosiveness of paint dust versus the ignition behavior of the red/gray chips: that's very easy to test. Place both (independently) in an oxygen-free environment, and raise the temperature until the material ignites. Thermitic material provides its own oxygen, (together with metallic aluminum ready to react with that oxygen) and so the presence or absence of oxygen should make little difference to its ignition behavior. The same probably wouldn't be true for paint chips. If they do ignite, the absence of available oxygen would likely make the ignition slower and much less energetic. Scientific testing is the proper approach, rather than trying to argue the evidence away with theories. Misplaced Pages shouldn't present conclusions as definitive prior to proper testing being conducted and reported upon. Wildbear (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

" a dubious hypothesis of fire-induced collapse". This is the fringe theories noticeboard, not the noticeboard for the propagation of fringe theories. It is fucking obvious why WTC 7 collapsed - it was on fire, after being damaged by the collapse of the WTC north tower. That conspiracy-theory-peddling loons chose to argue otherwise is of no concern to Misplaced Pages. Please take your soapbox and tinfoil hat elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy; welcome to the discussion. Hopefully, Misplaced Pages tries to steer things toward a more scientific point of view when possible; and presumably, this section is here to help in this regard. Misplaced Pages's Earth article is an excellent example of an article which largely avoids the well-documented (but dubious) beliefs of a large portion of the population, and instead focuses on the scientific knowledge of the topic. Ideally, Misplaced Pages's documentation on topics like WTC 7 should give a similar emphasis to science over belief. And herein lies the problem. Popular belief is that the building collapsed due to fire. This belief might be true, but it needs to have a scientific basis. The complete collapse of a steel-frame high-rise like WTC 7 due to office fires is without precedent, and has not been validated by any real-world reproduction of such an event. Misplaced Pages's Scientific method article has a lot to say about what constitutes proper scientific evaluation. I would hope that the participants on this page, and those editing science-related articles, would be familiar with the scientific concepts and readily able to see where sound science is present, and where claims are dubious. Just because a government makes a claim, and a large portion of the population believes it, doesn't mean that sound science has been applied. In keeping with the spirit of the Earth article, sometimes Misplaced Pages should discount popular beliefs and uphold scientific principles. In my humble opinion. Wildbear (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. And then troll elsewhere. One doesn't need advanced scientific knowledge to figure out why a building collapses after having sustained significant damage when another one falls on it, and a subsequent major fire. The Earth article is based on science, whereas the ludicrous ramblings of conspiracy theorists are based on nothing but the ludicrous ramblings of conspiracy theorists. I'm not the slightest bit interested in engaging in a debate with you. You're not worth the bother... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is based on reliable independent sources. A variety of explanations have been hypothesised, here is but a few . We should not be relying on a particular article of dubius quality where there are significant issues over it's reliability, even if it was published it seems undue to me since it was widely criticized by other mainstream sources. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. As a side note, the scientific method and the historical method are not used with respect to wikipedia articles. see the links provided at WP:CCPOL IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi IRWolfie-. Thank you for your response and your references. You say, "it seems undue to me since it was widely criticized by other mainstream sources". Can you provide references for some mainstream sources which criticized the article under discussion? I'm not saying this to be argumentative - if genuine, well thought out criticism of the article exists, I would like to see it. Sometimes useful things can be learned from criticism. Especially if it's written with an intent to be constructive, and discusses the science, not the publisher. You also say, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". I absolutely agree with this, and I would be very solidly against inclusion of any document presenting extraordinary claims for which sound research and evidence is not provided. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the Active Thermitic Material paper should be mentioned in the nano-thermite article; either way is fine with me. It seems sufficiently reliable and notable that a mention would not be improper. But if criticisms are leveled against it, please provide sources for those criticisms. Thank you. Wildbear (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Solomon's shamir‎

Thanks to Velikovsky this accumulates woo-woo speculation as to what it "really" was. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fringe speculations don't belong in an article on a mainstream topic, I've removed the undue section (it was also primary sourced it seems). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is that the article appears to be written as fact when it seems more like a myth/legend. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

This article desperately needs some more attention. New editors (though, honestly, some of the activity suggests strong similarities to accounts blocked for using sock puppets to push POV onto the article in the past) who simultaneous are trying to claim that experts as published in reliable sources who believe the disorder (commonly known as multiple personality disorder) has been over diagnosed should not be mentioned at all (because allegedly "there is no controversy" and to mention it at all is supposedly undue weight). The talk page is full of disturbing comments about trying to run anyone who oppose them off Misplaced Pages, calling their opponents sociopaths, etc. The major driving force is someone claiming to be a mental health professional who claimed to professionally diagnosis DID and therefore only his opinions matter, and when he didn't get his way he canvassed around looking for any editors who were involved with disputes on other articles with the people supporting the consensus version of the article. Another newly active account has made many comments on the talk page attacking the idea of false memories and the False Memory Foundation, and it should be noted that alleged recovered memories of abuse and multiple personalities both feature heavily in satanic ritual abuse accusations. DreamGuy (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

British Edda

I've already redirected Eden Triad to this article, but I'm wondering why we have an article about this book when it isn't discussed in the author's article - Laurence Waddell. I've also raised an ANI complaint about the article's creatoer, Paul Bedson (talk · contribs), after his recent sock puppetry, trolling & creation of Tempomania. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a notable book and "Eden triad" does not appear to be a notable concept. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, nominated for deletion. joe•roe 20:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Leary, B, Lorentzon M & Bosanquet, A, 1998, It Wont Do Any Harm: Practice & People At The London Homeopathic Hospital, 1889–1923, in Juette, Risse & Woodward, 1998 Juette, R, G Risse & J Woodward , 1998, Culture, Knowledge And Healing: Historical Perspectives On Homeopathy In Europe And North America, Sheffield Univ. Press, UK, p.253
2. Leary, et al., 1998, 254
3. Sharma, Ursula, 1992, Complementary Medicine Today, Practitioners And Patients, Routledge, UK, p.185
4. "PHOTOTHÈQUE HOMÉOPATHIQUE". Retrieved 2007-07-24.
5. "Homeopathy Commissioning Review: Conclusions & Recommendation – September 2007". West Kent Primary Care Trust. Retrieved 2011-08-27.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution