Javier Hernán García

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

Harvey Milk and the Peoples Temple

Resolved

 – After an ANI report the issue went to Medcab and was resolved. -- Banjeboi 22:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I rewrote the Harvey Milk article in a sandbox, using the best available sources. These include Randy Shilts' comprehensive biography The Mayor of Castro Street, the Oscar-winning documentary derived from it titled The Times of Harvey Milk, five encyclopedia entries (that reference Shilts' book), two books about the Dan White trial, and Bay-area newspapers from 1973 to 1978. I had it in mind to do for several months, but Mosedschurte (talk · contribs)'s involvement in the article inspired its completion. Mosedschurte has been inserting information about Milk's involvement with the Peoples Temple in its own subsection starting in May and it had been contested ever since. The full section was trimmed down but remained problematic with Benjiboi (talk · contribs) and Mosedschurte in an edit war with Benjiboi filing an RfC to resolve the issue which disturbingly had some {{SPA}} !votes. Benjiboi then sought other eyes at ANI which resulted in a rather forkish article, Political alliances of Peoples Temple, being created to appease Mosedschurte's concerns. Despite these steps and calls for NPOV and RS the disputed content was continually re-inserted by Mosedschurte. Before I jumped in, I wanted to read as much as I could about Milk to make sure the information is actually not notable in his life. While it is true that Milk was tangentially involved with the Peoples Temple (stipulated in the expanded article under the section titled "Race for state assembly"), it is not true that his involvement is notable in his life, nor is it notable in light of the experiences of San Francisco and state politicians at the time. Most politicians in Northern California were working in some way with Jones and the Temple. None of the sources available for Milk discuss his involvement in the Peoples Temple or with Jim Jones at any length. They mention it only in passing.

Mosedschurte was using a fringe theorist's call for content for a book that was supposed to have been written about gay members of the Peoples Temple (does not appear to have been published after checking with Amazon). This amateur historian, Michael Bellefountaine, according to his obituary, was well-known to support radical causes such as AIDS denialism. This essay provided the context for the closer look at the relationship between Milk and the People Temple, stating "If Milk supported Peoples Temple, now is the pivotal time for us to unveil the truth". The essay, however, is not a reliable source, and asks more questions than it answers—none of which appear to be fact checked. Without Bellefountaine's assertion that Milk was more directly involved in the Temple than he was, there are apparently no historians who claim that Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life. At best, this weights the article, creating an event that really had no importance taking into account what people knew about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple; it also calls into question why a single cause of Milk's is highlighted when Milk attended hundreds of meetings in the city, and wrote hundreds of letters for his constituents. At worst, it suggests that Milk was aware of Jones' criminal activities, condoned them, and used his political office to further Jones' cause. That is unacceptable. The information, however, has again been added to Milk's article and Mosedschurte continues to argue that the Jonestown suicides were notable, making that information the reason it is in Milk's article.

Tired of arguing with Mosedschurte, I offered a compromise to place information in a footnote—far beyond what it deserves. However, Mosedschurte wanted it in the full text of the article in the section on Milk's career as a supervisor, which inherently places it on the same significance as Milk's involvement in the Briggs Initiative—where he appeared on television and public forums across California for months, and his passing ordinances that got him press coverage across the country. Quite simply, that is ridiculous. I also asked SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) and Slp1 (talk · contribs) to chime in on the talk page. Their comments are available there.

I am not convinced Mosedschurte is familiar with Wikipedia policy regarding notability, original research, synthesizing information, and fringe theories despite links provided for him. Neither am I convinced Mosedschurte has access to research beyond what he can type into Google's search engine that connects "Harvey Milk" with "Jim Jones". He has been unable or unwilling to provide passages in books he's been claiming to use, and details of the number of times Milk spoke at rallies at the Peoples Temple, dates - particularly in light of Jones' investigation, and even the nature of the investigation's charges. Mosedschurte is reverting sound edits that reflect the best of the encyclopedia in favor of the promotion of this non-event in Milk's life. I think enough time and energy has been spent on this. --Moni3 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Mosedschurte was using a fringe theorist's call for content for a book that was supposed to have been written about gay members of the Peoples Temple (does not appear to have been published after checking with Amazon). This amateur historian, Michael Bellefountaine, according to his obituary, was well-known to support radical causes such as AIDS denialism. This essay provided the context for the closer look at the relationship between Milk and the People Temple, stating "If Milk supported Peoples Temple, now is the pivotal time for us to unveil the truth". The essay, however, is not a reliable source, and asks more questions than it answers—none of which appear to be fact checked."

There is not a single Bellefountaine source left. The one cite to one article he wrote was deleted long ago.

Bellefountaine was an author who was interviewing former Temple members and examining documents to work on a book about the Peoples Temple and a preliminary article of his was posted parts on the San Diego State Jonestown Institute site. A cite to one such article was included before. He since died before finishing the book.

After one editor accused Bellefountaine of being a questionable source, the source was simply deleted. It is no longer cited at all. Re-raising his name is an attempt to fabricate a "fringe" theory regaring the entirely noncontroversial facts that remain.

Re: " Without Bellefountaine's assertion that Milk was more directly involved in the Temple than he was, there are apparently no historians who claim that Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life."

No one, including even Bellefountaine probably (though I haven't read all of his work, and don't care to), has ever suggested that " Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life."

Rather, what is very briefly stated is only that Milk attended the Temple while it was under investigation and wrote a letter to President Carter praising Jones and attacking the motives of the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown.

That is why there was only one sentence in the entire 77,000 byte Milk article on the subject.

Re: "Neither am I convinced Mosedschurte has access to research beyond what he can type into Google's search engine that connects "Harvey Milk" with "Jim Jones"."

This is again another ridiculous charge, and the sort of sniping I've been attempting to steer clear of during the entire time despite you're continued reliance upon it.

And it's flatly inaccurate. Not that this is relevant at all, but I have purchased several books, hundreds of newspaper articles and, as an aside, also possess many documents, audiotapes and videotapes on the subject.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Tired of arguing with Mosedschurte, I offered a compromise to place information in a footnote—far beyond what it deserves. However, Mosedschurte wanted it in the full text of the article in the section on Milk's career as a supervisor, which inherently places it on the same significance as Milk's involvement in the Briggs Initiative"

It is not even remotely the size of the of the Briggs initiative, which has an entire multiparagraph section.

Rather, the 3 Milk lines being disputed here -- what this entire "Fringe Theory" complaint is about -- consist entirely of the following buried at the bottom of the Supervisor subsection:

---

While serving on the Board of Supervisors, like some other local politicians, Milk spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple while it was being investigated by newspapers and the San Francisco District Attorney's office for alleged criminal wrongdoing. Milk also wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter praising Temple leader Jim Jones and questioning the motives of the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown.

---

Mosedschurte (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte writes:

No one, including even Bellefountaine probably (though I haven't read all of his work, and don't care to), has ever suggested that " Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life."

If it wasn't a significant part of his life, it plainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia bio. This is the essence of WP:UNDUE. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The one sentence belongs not because it was Milk spent a significant portion of his life with the Peoples Temple, but because of the notariety and activities of the group, perpetrating the largest loss of American civilian life in U.S. history until 9-11 (not including natural disasters).

For example, if Rudy Giuliani (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001, this would be notable even if Giuliani had no knowledge of their 9-11 plot. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers.

And to further illustrate the point, the above example would merit a much larger part of a Wikipedia article than a one sentence mention buried deep in a subsection.

Frankly, there is zero reason to scour any mention of this from Milk's article, and there has been a rather odd ongoing effort from a few posters to do so for a while now. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, this topic was the subject of a Request for Comment long ago, when there was a subsection on Milk's involvement (now there is merely a tiny 3 line text in the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection) and others stated that the material should stay.

As it is, it is a tiny 3 line mention of sourced NPOV encyclopedically phrased text in a huge 77,000 byte article on Milk. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a Fringe theories issue. I would have said that the info was relevant to the People's Temple but not relevant to the life of Milk. Of course, those who had contact at the time with Jim Jones did not know how his movement would turn out and it could be seen as weasellish to include information about such contact. On the other hand, you might wish to go with the balance of comments on the RfC. You could try the NPOV noticeboard, or a further RfC or mediation. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I appreciate the thorough cleansing of my arteries about this issue, Steven J. Anderson is right. I am too, by the way. You're making a connection that journalists and historians have not. No reliable source is available that says the relationship between Milk and the Peoples Temple meant anything more than political back-scratching, and you're equating it with Guliani and Muhammed Atta. I don't get to make connections in the articles I write. Neither do you. There's nothing to scour. It is not notable.

That "others noted the material should stay" is dubious. Those were anonymous IP accounts who had no or few other edits than that RfC. --Moni3 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith: I agree generally with that, but I would add that what remains now is already a severely cut down version of the prior material in order to comport with an editor's prior complaints.

In fact, it used to be it's own multipart subsection.

The tiny part that remains is what would be of note to Milk. Much like for Giulliani if, for example, he (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001, this would be notable even if Giuliani had no knowledge of their 9-11 plot. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers. Such meetings and letters are notable.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "You're making a connection that journalists and historians have not." (moni)

Again, this is simply false. Or worse.

I have made absolutely no "connection" other than precisely what is stated by journalists and authors. I have simply cited them.

In fact, only a tiny part of the interaction remains in the article as is. 3 lines.

The only part are the meetings post-investigation and President Carter letter. This is primarily notable because of the notariety and activities of the group. As stated, much like for Giulliani if, for example, he (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers.

Even though they do not take up large parts of his life, such meetings and letters to the President attacking that group's opponents are very clearly notable.

As it is, it has already been cut down to just a 3 line mention in the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Again Mosedschurte is again confusing quantity with quality. WP:Undue concerns not only the lines and percentage of text but the actual weight of it. Despite their insistence at filling up talkpages with voluminous posts that overwhelm other editors' views they don't offer credible sourcing repeatedly and civilly asked for. They either fail to understand or outright refuse by red herring discussions the core issues of reliable sourcing and NPOV. Leaning on fringe specialists for content doesn't bode well for Wikipedia and misrepresenting sources, edit-warring and piles of bad-faith accusations certainly don't contribute to a collaborative atmosphere. Neither do the SPA's that magically appeared, and Mosedschurte has quoted elsewhere, on the RfC. The RfC was also overwhelmed by Mosedschurte, SPA's and the only other support was from Wildhartlivie who also edits the Peoples Temple articles. I don't challenge a user's sourcing habits too quickly but in observing how the rhetoric on these issues has only been modified when called on it concerns me. This content has stuck out like a sore thumb from the rest of the article and every version re-introduced has been only marginally better with first myself and now Moni3 trying to fully vet what, if any connections there were. We each vetted and added NPOV and RS content but Mosedschurte simply had to re-insert an entire section, at this point simply duplicating content already in the article, and adding poorly sourced - and with the Raven book, still unverified - statements in order to scandalize. This is not an isolated incident as the entire Political alliances of Peoples Temple seems a hitlist of more of the same but involving more politicians. Mosedschurte overwhelmed the talk page and seemingly derailed constructive dialog. I hope they will reform but see little evidence of that as of yet. Similar content has been added by them on George Moscone, Donald Freed, Willie Brown (politician) and Angela Davis; other articles may as well. That they are heavily invested in the Peoples Temple in some way is obvious and I welcome those who have specialized knowledge and interests - where the problem arises is the ownership issues especially with POV and OR material which also suffers from misleading and misinterpretation of sources. That they would entrench and edit war doesn't sway it simply increases the disruption and shows they are determined. -- Banjeboi 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is, again, a broad based -- and frankly false in so many parts -- attack on me rather than the subject.

In fact, every time I directly address the vaguely asserted NPOV and UNDUE concerns, you switch the topic to me personally. For whatever reason, the Milk article appears to generate emotional responses from some editors.

Getting back to the topic, the only WP:Undue and WP:NPOV arguments I've heard are:
(1)The post-investigation activity is not in Randy Shilts biography, which is entirely irreleavant; and
(2)That a significant part of Milk's life was not involved with the Peoples Temple, and no one has ever stated that such was the case. Rather, a 3 line mention is made of him speaking at the Temple after investigations and writing President Carter praising Jones and attacking the leader of those trying to extricate relatives from Jonestown. That is all that is stated.

These are short but rather notable events given the notariety and activities of the group. That is all they have purported to be.

These notable events are concisely summarized in an entirely NPOV fashion with proper sources in a tiny 3 line section buried at the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection of a 77,000 byte article.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you would consider following the formatting of comments per the spirit of wp:talk. I'm not attacking you but the content and your behaviour in relation to it as well as your treatment of myself and others who've tried to reason with you. I've always addressed the content concerns and would prefer that you would as well. Again this seems like a red herring to dismiss policy concerns as simply some editors being emotional or personally attacking you, that's a bit insulting. There is nothing vague about presenting fringe content in our NPOV, UNDUE and OR policies - we don't do it unless it's done with reliable sources and presented NPOV. If you won't present direct quotes from the Raven book then we should remove that source. The remaining material you keep re-adding is either already covered in context or undue and unneeded. It's not that it's not covered in just the Shilts book but in any meaningful way as has been painstaking explained, several times and civilly and now in several venues. The events you want to re-add are simply already in the article or not that notable. -- Banjeboi 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "There is nothing vague about presenting fringe content in our NPOV, UNDUE and OR policies - we don't do it unless it's done with reliable sources and presented NPOV."

There aren't any specific NPOV, OR or UNDUE concerns I've heard except for the above.

And, as I have explained going directly through the issues, the tiny summary is presented in a very concise NPOV fashion in the "Supervisor" subsection.

Re: "If you won't present direct quotes from the Raven book then we should remove that source."

I've stated this probably 5 times now on the Milk talk page, but the ONLY thing the Raven cite is left supporting in the small remaining text is that Milk attended a single meeting, the July 31 meeting.

Another source, VanDeCarr, which is cited, states that Milk last spoke at the Temple on October of 1978. This is what is stated:

---

Milk spoke at a service for the last time in October 1978. He had been enthusiastically received at Peoples Temple several times before, and he always sent glowing thank-yon notes to Jones afterward. After one visit, Milk wrote, "Rev. Jim, It may Lake me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something deal" today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours mad energy, placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave." (VanDeCarr)

---

Regarding the one meeting for which Raven is still cited for this particular text, this is precisely what the book states. Here is quote from pages 327-8: "Lavish expresssions of solidarity marked a July 31 rally designed to unify Temple members and their supporters." The book then goes into an extended quote of Jones speaking via telephone over speakers from Guyana, to which he had just fled. It then states "When Jones finished, State Assemblyman Art Agnos, who was visiting for the first time, turned to county supervisor Harvey Milk, 'Harvey, that guy is really wild.' Milk smiled, 'Yeah, he's different all right.'"

Re: "The events you want to re-add are simply already in the article or not that notable."

They are already in the article because I added them back after deletion. They were deleted a few days ago again, and I re-added them, this time NOT in their own section, but in a smaller 3 line piece of text in the "Supervisor" subsection.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the verbosity is obfuscating the issue here: original research, synthesis and undue weight in a biography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed "Undue Weight" at length above. Given the notariety of the group -- largest loss of U.S. civilian life pre-9-11 -- and their activities, the meetings and speeches at their meetings and letter the U.S. President praising them and attacking the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown were themselves notable. No one has really attempted to make an argument to contrary.

In fact, to take just one far less notable example, look at the Dennis Wilson bio article. There is an entire 23 line section devoted to just his picking up hitchhikers that belonged to Manson's family and friendly relations with the group well before any crimes were committed (in fact, Wilson turned away from Manson's group), which obviously pales in comparison in terms of notoriety to the Peoples Temple. There isn't even an instance of Wilson supporting the group to officials or attacking its opponents.

Or, as the other even better hypothetical parallel, if Rudy Giulliani (or a NYC City Councilman), for example, attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers.

And keep in mind that this is a sourced 3-line mention in the 77,000 byte Milk article. And, yes, I know that size alone does not determine Undue Weight, and I am only pointing this out to further demonstrate that the size itself here is not an issue.

The "synthesis" concerns simply don't exist here where no conclusion is at all reached. WP:Synthesis states "an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." The 3 lines of text simply state undisputed events that occurred without conclusion.

There is no "original research" in the Milk article as far as I know.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Giuliani/Atta hypothetical is not a particularly good parallel and I don't see why you keep repeating it, as it is not going to convince anyone. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, kids. I'm gobsmacked by this. Mosedschurte is not interested in the best sources for the subject's life. He hasn't read the best sources and he is not interested in reading them. This is an WP:SPA that edits only on articles involving Jim Jones. Anonymous IPs take his side in the only edits they make in RfCs, and he counts no consensus as victory. He responds by exhausting his opponents with verbal gymnastics and voluminous posts. The best interest of the article is clearly not his priority. What is Wikipedia here for if not integrity of content? Would it honestly be much easier to allow this POV and Synth to remain in the article? Tell me what I need to do! --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I share this assessment. After months of edit-warring to re-insert this content the article was completely rewritten to accurately reflect what reliable sources supported by a trusted editor known for their FA writing - Wikipedia's finest articles. This was disregarded by Mosedschurte who has continued to game the systems. Mosedschurte's entire presence on the article has been solely to scandalize the subject of the article, edit warring and otherwise disrupt progress by arguing voluminously. After months of asking for a source verification they admit that the Raven book also says little about Milk accept that he attended a rally. This coupled with a primary source, continually mischaracterized and hosted by a conspiracy theory website is an unwelcome blight on the article. NPOV and RS connections between Milk and Jones/Peoples Temple are already in the re-written article; in fact they were there before it was rewritten because I added them. Mosedschurte seems only interested in having this content be blighted onto the article and I feel way too much time and energy has been spent trying to reason with them. If they won't desist then likely some administrative action should intervene so those interested in improving the article using policies to guide them can do so without this added drama. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A sources summary:
  • "Another Day of Death." Time Magazine. 11 December 1978.
    • This source only states that Milk attended rallies, it is likely mentioned as it's below an article about the Peoples Temple mass murder/suicide.
  • Reiterman, Tim and John Jacobs. Raven: The Untold Story of Reverend Jim Jones and His People
    • Summary of relevant text from above - Milk was at a July 31 rally
  • VanDeCarr, Paul "Death of dreams: in November 1978, Harvey Milk's murder and the mass suicides at Jonestown nearly broke San Francisco's spirit."
    • Summary of relevant text from above - Milk spoke at a [Peoples Temple] service in October 1978, he had spoken there prior, they liked him.
  • Coleman, Loren, "The Copycat Effect", Simon & Schuster, 2004, page 68
    • "In a letter to President Jimmy Carter, San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk defended Jones as a friend to minority communities."
  • Milk, Harvey Letter Addressed to President Jimmy Carter, Dated February 19, 1978
    • This is a primary source, and a good example of how they are misused. The document, assuming it's real, is hosted by a site specializing in conspiracy theories and scandals as part of their "San Francisco: America's Digital Age Banana Republic". I have detailed the mischaracterizing of this particular source before directly to Mosedschurte on the article's talkpage.
    • The first half of the letter describes how Jones is widely respected and has been honored by the full board of San Francisco supervisors and the California Senate for his church's work. The second half concerns Timothy and Grace Stoen, former Peoples Temple members/employees who apparently supplied Grace so Jones could father a child, John through her, Milk states, and gives references, that the Stoens are discredited by the local media and is concerned about diplomatic relations with Guyana. The source states nothing that the Stoens are "leader of those attempting to extricate relatives " only that they have been widely discredited in the case of custody over one child who the Stoens, according to this same source admit is Jones'. Instead it's been used to imply that Milk was aligned with Jones whereas it seems more like Milk, yet again, writing to the president as part of his job.

• I've detailed all these points out before but nothing has convinced Mosedschurte to desist. Milk as either a politician or a candidate to become one would speak in front of all sorts of groups. Speaking at churches is not noteworthy and is fully in keeping with a politician's work. The only thing remarkable in all this is how little to tie together the two there actually is. The internet is full of site that link famous people to conspiracies and fringe theories including that Milk's death was related to the Peoples Temple in some way. Luckily we have policies in place to keep Wikipedia free of all that. -- Banjeboi 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy: "original research, synthesis and undue weight in a biography". Agree with Itsmejudith that it's not so much a FRINGE issue. Perhaps Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard is our next stop? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The fringe concerns have to do with NPOV and using this content to further a fringe idea that Milk's murder was connected to the Peoples Temple thus the need to connect Milk to them. I think it's clear these sentences should be removed as that's what consensus is clearly supporting. If Mosedschurte persists in again edit warring then they will earn a block for such. This shouldn't be perpetuated simply so they can rehash in yet another forum. -- Banjeboi 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason to come to any noticeboard is so that the regulars can weigh in. Itsmejudith, who is as regular as they come, has said she doesn't believe it's FRINGE, so I thank her for her time. I think this is SYNTH, but I'd really kind of like to find out from the "professionals" if they agree. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: "I've detailed all these points out before but nothing has convinced Mosedschurte to desist."

This is simply false and the sniping really needs to stop.

The sources as discussed above, by the way, say EXACTLY what the text in the article states (note that the new explanatory language, including the "well fuck him" quote was included by moni):

---

While serving on the Board of Supervisors, like some other politicians in Northern California, Milk spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple, including while it was being investigated by newspapers and the San Francisco District Attorney's office for alleged criminal wrongdoing. Although Milk defended Temple leader Jim Jones in a letter to President Jimmy Carter in 1978, he and his aides deeply distrusted Jones. When Milk learned Jones was backing both him and Art Agnos in 1976, he told friend Michael Wong, "Well fuck him. I'll take his workers, but, that's the game Jim Jones plays."

---

Note that:

(1) Moni's new language is included (including the "well fuck him" quote moni added)
(2) Moni's note is included
(3) The source containing the actual image of Milk's letter is goneMosedschurte (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Is this a bad dream of mine? Or a well-known editor who's trying to get me to care about content oversight? Because this is a really awful way to go about it. Milk said fuck. I'm saying fuck a lot now. There's even an article on fuck. It was a direct quote from Milk about Jim Jones, and you removed it. Holy God. Unfreakingbelievable. Wikipedia is not censored. What a waste of effort that link is. Fuck. --Moni3 (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)"

I didn't remove it. In fact, I cut and pasted exactly what you wrote word-for-word in the article now.

Trust me, I have zero problem with you or Milk or me saying "fuck", or including the quote. In fact, I included the same quote in the Political_alliances_of_Peoples_Temple article long ago. I would have added it myself, along with Milk's other quote calling the Temple "dangerous", but there was already yelping of "undue weight" concerns I was fearful to add any additional text at all.

I merely pointed out that you added that quote to the Wikipedia article because it was not clear on this board.

I thought the quote was both helpful (explained Milk's motives--distrusted Jones) and interesting, and I kept it in the article. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, fair enough, I'm concerned that all reasonable dialog will, yet again, be drowned out by Mosedschurte ongoing red herring sidepoints, parroting back what has been written by others and verbosity which fails to address the core issues. That they do so while, again, accusing others of lying and "sniping" seems to suggest they have no interest in following the spirit and intent of policies and prefer arguing. What are the next steps so we can at least clear this mess off the Milk article? -- Banjeboi 20:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed editing an article

Alfred de Grazia was largely written by the subject of the article. I've begun the process of culling a lot of the stuff that is either not strictly verifiable, not neutral, redundant, or simply not sourceable. I need to find some independent sources on the guy and need to figure out exactly how to cover his "quantavolution" self-published fringe theory. Can someone explain what exactly makes him notable other than his professorship?

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I tagged for notability among the multiple issues. The criteria are at WP:PROF. From a cursory look he doesn't meet them. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been two AfDs: [1] and [2]. In the second there was a strong consensus to keep. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Itsmejudith, but many others disagree. Unfortunately, the people disagreeing have not taken an interest in the article so it is up to us to try to garner what level of notability we can for this guy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of sections that are filled with claims that are unsourced. The claims may be true, but I would guess that there are no published reliable sources to support them, and since "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", the article may get reduced to a stubb. Is there any objection to removing those sections that do not cite sources? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So request sources. The subject, or his representative may also be able to help, per WP:Living, and may also act as a source themselves. His notability has already been discussed in the two AFDs, you don't have to assess his notability for a third time. --John294 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Assertion of notability in an article is necessary for proper framing. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there had already been AfDs. And since I took my first cursory look I've noticed that university libraries have good stocks of his books on political science. Malcolm's suggestion to reduce the text sounds helpful. What is the subject notable as? I suppose as a mainstream political scientist who subsequently started to defend fringe theories. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this may be the best way to proceed too. However, I cannot find any acknowledgment that his fringe theory advocacy is noticed by those who comment on his political texts. Is this a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing? In such situations, how should we appropriately weight the aspects of the biography which are not noticed by outside sources? Tricky! ScienceApologist (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we must just take out all the resume fluff, including all the unsourced claims about military heroism and the foundations of various institutions for which there is little evidence, and leave an explanation that there have been these two sides to his career, with a bibliography. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I think that the quantavolution stuff may be less notable than the Kalos utopia and the Naxos unity propoosals which I can at least find cursory off-handed mention in a quick google search for independent sources. Quantavolution seems to be unnoticed by anyone except the Velikovskians who are not independent. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More Iranian historical nationalism

This time on Battle of Opis, an article related to Cyrus cylinder (discussed above). Larno Man (talk · contribs) disagrees with a widely cited translation of a Babylonian text quoted in the article and the interpretations that have arisen from it, and is demanding that it must be discarded (along with said interpretations) in favour of a very new translation. I've pointed out that we can't unilaterally declare a brand new translation to be "the truth", particularly as I've been unable to find any reputable corroborations or citations of the new translation. Although it's being pushed heavily by Iranian nationalists, it comes from a respectable source; I've tried to compromise by including it as a footnote [3]. Unfortunately this hasn't satisfied Larno Man or his colleague Ariobarza (talk · contribs), who has taken to deleting without comment material that he doesn't like, adding his own personal commentary [4] and falsifying quotations from sources [5]. Input would be appreciated... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've chimed in, you are right. Lambert in the footnote is fine, commenting on it or giving it more weight is not. Doug Weller (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

my attitude towards Greek and Iranian nationalists "contributing" to topics of ancient Macedonia and Persia (respectively) - etc. - is increasingly: "not one inch". Nothing good, and certainly nothing sanely encyclopedic, comes of any other approach. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. One of the most depressing aspects of Wikipedia is the Greek and Macedonian nationalist obsession with fighting over Alexander the Great and Macedon, without their realising that modern politics is absolutely irrelevant to ancient history. Feuding over Iranian history is generally confined to more recent times and tends to have an Iranic vs. Turkic flavour. The main generator of conflict here is the current argument between Iranian "Persians" and the country's large Azeri (Turkic) minority. Try editing anything related to the Safavids if you want a headache. I suppose the ancient history brawling is wrapped up with the controversy over 300 (film) and some wider "clash of the civilisations" argie-bargie between Iran and the US (or Iran and the West generally). --Folantin (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The sourced text was removed 4 times. The 4th time User:DragonflySixtyseven decided to protect the page, thereby endorsing the complete removal of a well-sourced version and leaving an illiterate stub. Obviously I'm not going to unprotect the page as I'm involved, but what do we do about Admins who do this sort of thing? ANI? Doug Weller (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

they will just tell you "it is always somebody's wrong version that gets protected, son". Of course without even having looked at the case. The problem with our "new model admins" is that they firmly believe that they do not need to understand the dispute: heavens, if they did, wouldn't that make them "involved"? The article will be fine, the pov-pushers always get tired sooner or later, and swarm to the latest hotspot, and the encyclopedists can then go in and clean up after them. It will take a couple of months. It is just sad to see that "admin intervention" actually delays the process instead of facilitating it. --dab (𒁳) 06:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. The Admin doesn't seem to have looked at all at what was happening or care about editors deleting sourced text. How does he think that protection will solve the problem, when he's left an illiterate stub? Doug Weller (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is going to need an arbitration, unfortunately. Creazy Suit, Larno Man and Ariobarza have made it abundantly clear that they're pushing their own personal POVs for nationalist reasons. The fundamental problem here is a user conduct issue, specifically violations of NPOV, V and NOR, plus we know from Ariobarza that Larno Man has been canvassing off-wiki as well. I'll get a user conduct RfC started on the three of them and post the link here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Creazy Suit wants to bring Lambert to testify to ArbCom! Doug Weller (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Creazy" indeed... The RfC is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man‎ - it needs one more signature to certify it. Feel free to add to it if you are aware of other issues with these editors (Doug, your recent comments on my talk page suggested that you'd run into them before?). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Various anonymous IP addresses are now turning up at Cyrus cylinder and are blanking sections of the article (now reverted). No doubt someone has put the word out to the nationalist grapevine. Any chance someone uninvolved could semi-protect the article? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See here for a couple of more examples of disruptive editing by Larno Man (for collecting them, however, I received a warning from Khoikhoi for stalking). -- Ankimai (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Purushottam Nagesh Oak

You know, the Kaaba-is-a-Hindu-Temple guy. Did you know that new information and analysis have come forth to constitute a compelling argument that the Taj Mahal was actually a former Hindu palace? Presently a bunch of redlink-accounts are dying to inform us of the fact. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The "theorist" quoted on the talk page apparently also believes that the mosques in Spain were built by Phoenicians aided by survivors from Atlantis [6] We learn of the "Piri Reis map" that "It lead Ivar Zapp and George Erikson in Atlantis in America (1998) to assert that an awareness of Antartica was known to an advanced civilization at the end of the Ice Age." And, yes, the published version of this book really does spell the second word of that sentence with an "a". Paul B (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial real estate

• Extraterrestrial real estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just cleaned up Extraterrestrial real estate,[7] an article that has been cleanup tagged for a long time. It was suffering from lots of fringe material, linkspam and apparent self-promotion by those selling such real estate.

I suspect that the people who created the problem with this article will attempt to restore their content. Can noticeboard participants please watch the article and help make sure that it stays clean. If any tendentious editors attempt to damage the article, please find an administrator to dispense clues as needed.

If any aspect of my cleanup removed valid content, editors are welcome to restore material supported by reliable sources. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 10:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put it on my watch list. Doug Weller (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Could this be the true source of the subprime mortgage crisis? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon questioning definition of "fringe science"

Long story short, the anon insists that the source used for the lead in fringe science is itself fringe because it appears that no one cites the article used to reference the definition("Fringe concepts are considered highly speculative or weakly confirmed by mainstream scientists"). The problem is that almost all the works I can find on google scholar take a definition of fringe for granted and do not bother defining it. I have asked the anon to source their claim that this is a fringe definition, but they evade. Anyone got a better idea than ignoring this person? Discussion here. NJGW (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd ignore him, he's basically trolling. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Input appreciated

Can someone please provide additional outsider input in Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China about a possible merger. In my opinion I feel this whole article is a fringe theory, providing no evidence of exclusivity and most sources better used in a neutral article like Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. Current editing base is 2 plus a very disruptive third editor, so discussions become very polarised and lead to nothing at the end, so I seek to expand the editing base so that there's a wider range of editors maintaining the article. --antilived^{T | C | G} 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be an idea to propose merging the article into the Organ harvesting in the PRC article. After all, if it is happening, it is happening in China. Actually, I wonder whether all of this shouldn't be in Organ harvesting, so that we explain the concept first before going on to the location of the reports and controversy. See for example force feeding, which describes all aspects of the practice, even though there has been recent massive public attention paid to one particular set of allegations. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Barry Long

I just came across Barry Long, which claims that he was "was an Australian spiritual teacher and writer", but which does not seem to establish his notability, and which has only primary sources. Does anyone know if he is actually notable? There are a number of books listed, but they seem to be self published. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Although the article has been around since February 2006, I don't see anything that establishes notability. All the references are Long's self-published books, the Barry Long website, and a couple of other fringe websites. There's no coverage in reliable third-party sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this and this should be enough to establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, in this case, I disagree with you. The books seem to have been self-published. The newspaper article establishes little. (My grandfather, who for over forty years repaired shoes, had a very nice article written about him in the most important newspaper of the large city in which he lived; but, wonderful person thought he was, I do not think that would establish notability for Wikipedia.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think an obit alone establishes notability. Anyone want to be the bad guy and start an AfD? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It completely escapes me why people waste so much time on things like this when five minutes of Googling will tell you that an AfD would turn into an easy keep. Did you not look at the Amazon link I provided? Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, That is a self published book. It does not establish notability.

Steven J. Anderson, I left a message on the article talk page[8]; and, since someone there seems serious about solving the problem, it would be fair to wait rather than starting an AfD. If you, or anyone, has suggestions to help the user to establish notability, then please do. It is an IP user who may not understand WP guidelines. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Peoples Temple and Harvey Milk again

I responded to the original enquiry on this noticeboard and have engaged with the issue a bit. I would appreciate a few more people passing by. At first I didn't think it was a fringe issue, but now I think it might be. There are reliable sources that show that the Peoples Temple canvassed links with a number of Democratic Party politicians, but the question is what weight to attach and whether it is our role to expose every single minor connection. A series of inter-related pages need checking out for POV-forking and coatracking. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've come across a bit of information about this issue while doing research for Harvey Milk. It is inevitable that other names of politicians are mentioned, as well as that of Jones. I am, however, not enthusiastic to re-engage Mosedschurte, so I have been concentrating on the Milk article, preparing it for GA and FA. I agree that fringe and conspiracy seem to be coming to the fore with this issue. There is much value in describing how Jones was able to inflate his political persona in San Francisco, manipulate politicians (since they used him as well), and recall favors when he needed help with serious matters. These articles should be constructed based on the best available information about Jones and each politician, and should tell a cohesive story about how Jones rose to power and became more paranoid while masking his paranoia. I think it's a fallacy to write the articles retrospectively, assuming that Temple members and San Franciscans should have known the things Jones was doing all along, and listing each politician's involvement with the Temple without the greater context of the positive press it was getting. It would be completely POV to state outright, or give the impression that politicians were working with Jones, and admired or condoned what he was doing unless that information has been explicitly stated by a reliable historian or journalist. It's my impression that San Franciscans were completely and utterly astonished at how bad things had gotten in Jonestown, and very confused as to how they got that way, regardless of the blips of news coming out that described individuals' experiences. I would be concerned that a fraction of the information is being used instead of more thorough readings about each politician, and what they knew at what stage. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian pyramid construction techniques and Great pyramid of Giza

We've got a POV pusher back trying to insert some nonsense in the construction techniques article about a fringe writer named Noone, whose material virtually only shows up on the web through our article. See my edit on Talk:Egyptian pyramid construction techniques (the guy's called me a liar also, but I don't know if it's worth taking to WP:CIVIL. He's active on both articles. I'm not around much tonight, not sure about tomorrow, so if anyone can keep an eye on them and explain to him why the Noone stuff is too insignificant for Wikipedia, I'd appreciate it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet's DJ Idea

User:Binksternet, has repeatedly abused his rollback privleges on the disk jockey page to enforce a fringe phenomenon and defy editor consensus. Since August, the editors have debated endlessly about the importance and prevalance of topless DJing, and therefore the nessecity of a picture about it on the article. All the editors have agreed that topless female DJs have only been found with accurate citations in ONE mainstream nightclub, which has since shut down. Therefore everyone but Binksternet has agreed the picture should be removed due to irrellavance. But Binksternet has defied this near-consensus and now on some days has been going over the three-revert rule. He claims that the picture "shows how experementation is part of DJing" which is the lamest excuse I have ever heard of. he should be blocked from editing the DJ article for his repeated attempts to give undue weight to an extremly minor phenomenon. --Ipatrol (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

There are two editors who are sometimes active on this noticeboard, Orangemarlin and ScienceApologist, who I believe are edit warring on the New Thought article and trying to make unsourced changes. I would appreciate hearing the views of other editors here, who I am sure will let me know if they think I am I am mistaken. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You and SA need to have a discussion on each other's talk pages about sources for the article. The section on therapeutic ideas isn't properly sourced yet. You should regard the churches' own websites as primary sources. There are two books from academic presses already referenced. Don't either of these have anything on the views about health and healing? If not, then we must question whether it is a notable aspect of this belief system. If you could find something that explained how these views grew up in opposition to mainstream medical thinking, then that would be really interesting, and could quite easily be written up in a completely neutral way. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I discussion re Iranian nationalist editors

The recent problems with Iranian nationalists pushing fringe theories are currently being discussed at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza, User:CreazySuit and User:Larno Man. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Morya

Not long ago I deleted a lot of material from this Theosophical Society related article because of, what seems to me, synthesis and original research, and lack of secondary sources. All that was just reverted, and I would appreciate it if some other editors would take a look. There is no point in arguing if it turns out I am in the wrong. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just at a glance I can see that these are huge problems on the article. There are some books listed under "Further reading" that from their titles and publishers are good secondary sources, yet the article is written up instead entirely from primary sources. I suggest stubbing it and starting it again using the university press books, and keeping it as short as you possibly can. Right at the beginning it is essential that the reader knows whether this is a supernatural being, a real human being (dates of birth and death?), or a kind of supposition that may or may not have been a real person. The lead should be comprehensible by someone who has never heard of Theosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I know I've brought this here before, but I'm starting another drive to improve the articlce. It seems to be going quite well, but it keeps getting hung up on "quackery" appearing in the lead. Personally I'm not bothered either way, but I have a suspicion that removing quackery will lead to calls for pseudoscience to be removed, then for most of the rest of the science and criticism to be removed... Anyway, suggestions for improvement, highlighting of problem areas, and present more reasoned and knowledgeable opinions re quackery etc than I can. Many thanks. Verbal chat 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not had the time to read the entire article, but I did do a few word searches in it, and I am surprised that there is no mention of Rudolf Steiner, his movement called Anthroposophy (an outgrowth of the Theosophical Society), or the healing branch of Anthroposophy called Weleda which is based largly on homeopathy. I can not recall an occasion, when Homeopathy came up in conversation, that there was not some connection to Anthroposophy. Steiner had big ideas, and developed within his movement an approach to virtually any important subject you can think of:

Anthroposophy has spawned a number of closely related organizations and/or concepts. The Waldorf schools and system of education that Steiner created teach children based on three different seven-year long stages that they pass through. Biodynamic farming owes its origin to Steiner and, in the simplest of terms, involves knowing the relationship between plants, animals, and the soil. Eurythmy, a Steiner-created performance movement art known as the "art of visible speech and visible song," is meditative in its process. Anthroposophical medicine, which generally refers to Weleda homeopathic preparations, was also developed by Rudolph Steiner. [9]

At one time I was fascinated by Anthroposophy, but have now come to regard it as a highly problematic cult. It seems to appeal particularly to people with good intelligence and high educational level (which is perhaps the reason I lost interest in it). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that anthroposophy is sufficiently prominent outside Germany to warrant mentioning it in the homeopathy article. I mean this literally: I am not sure. In the UK there are Steiner schools in many cities, but I think they are generally less dogmatic, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that anthroposophic medicine is very marginal here. On the other hand, the EU regulations on medicine mention anthroposophic medicine explicitly and say that the rules for homeopathy apply. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, I was in fact going to bring this up as one other thing that needs resolving or an NPOV tag (although I don't know how to tag a category inclusion). I think we all agree that in the arbcom ruling described at WP:PSCI homeopathy fits somewhere between astrology and psychoanalysis. In my opinion it's obvious that it's much closer to psychoanalysis (which is also often called quackery) than to astrology. E.g. articles by psychoanalysts and homeopaths, but not by astrologers, do get published in mainstream peer reviewed journals, occasionally. Psychoanalysis and homeopathy both are both still much closer to their protoscientific origins and a lot more plausible (I am not saying they are plausible) than astrology. Homeopathy and psychoanalysis are payed by public health systems in some countries; I don't think that's the case for astrology. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there is an article: Anthroposophical medicine. It has an external link (Physician's Association for Anthroposophical Medicine (North America)), and claims 60 North American members [10], which is perhaps not so large a number for a continent. It seems to me that a mention might be justified because of its importance in Europe...particularly in Germany and Austria. But my main point (based only on my personal experience) is that those who practice homeopathy, and those who seek it for treatment of illnesses, almost always seem to have some connection to -- or at least interest in -- Anthroposophy. I have no experience with vendors, or manufacturers, of homeopathic cures, but my guess is that many of those also are connected to Anthroposophical Medicine. I have found this [11], which lists "Therapeutic and Medical" initiatives (not necessarily homeopathic) in America, and a lot of other stuff too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has caused enough problems without expanding the scope to include related movements such as anthroposophy, which, properly, has its own article. We are not going to resolve the pseudoscience category problem. Perhaps we should eliminate the category. DGG (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think 'quackery' is unnecessary and prejudicial, and certainly doesn't even have the limited value of the pseudoscience label. I'd go ahead and remove it - I don't see that it will led to a cascade of criticism removal, and if it does it would certainly be easy enough to combat that kind of silliness. if you prefer, I'll remove it myself, and keep an eye out for anyone who tries to capitalize on it. --Ludwigs2 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, but I recommand that you don't remove the word "quackery". It would probably not get you blocked immediately, but only because nobody has given you the homeopathy article probation warning yet. If you don't believe me, you can find earlier discussions about the word in the homeopathy talk page archive. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG, Anthroposophy seems to be the main group promoting Homeopathy. It seems strange not to even mention them in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a strong link from anthroposophy to homeopathy. It's probably quite a bit weaker the other way round. In all my literature research for the homeopathy the only place where I found anthroposophy mentioned was an EU directive that treats anthroposophic medicine in the same way as homeopathic remedies. Of course this could be because many of my sources were old books (from before Steiner), but still... --Hans Adler (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure they are the "main group". In the US, HeadOn is probably the "main group". ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So is it now official that you identify homeopathy with quacks who sell some of their products exploiting an exception for homeopathy? This kind of attitude would explain the insistence to use the word "quackery" in the homeopathy article. (I mean this literally, not ironically. I also don't remember whether you were among those who insisted.) Apparently the same company has also produced an itch remedy with 1 % hydrocortisone. From a homeopathic POV that's probably one of the worst things you can do. It's common but unfair to judge a country by its president, or an ideology by its most extreme proponents etc. But its even worse to judge a group by their black sheep, e.g. judge Belgium by its most famous pedophile serial killer. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how homeopathy as an idea in the age of atomic theory defies the simplest logical arguments, I fail to be able to see a distinction between some homeopathic "doctor" who shakes and dilutes to ridiculous proportions and some company that applies its shaken and dissolved idiocy directly to the forehead. This is just my opinion, mind you, but it isn't one that is solely mine. Wikipedia is under no obligation to distinguish between "black sheep" companies and those whom you or anyone else think hold the "legitimacy sceptre" of this nonsense we call "homeopathy". What is of the utmost importance is for us to describe, characterize, paraphrase, and mirror what independent sources say are the most prominently notable aspects of any given topic. That's the sense in which Wikipedia deals with topics ranging from the mundane to the sublime. That's how we are entrusted to treat homeopathy. I'm sorry if the fabulous Head-On campaign has commandeered and maligned your your pet pseudoscience, but we aren't here to right great wrongs. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I take this as a "yes". --Hans Adler (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cryptovirus

I'd like to draw a bit of attention to this article, and to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptovirus. Looie496 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Polytheistic reconstructionism

Outside input required here. I used to think this was a bona fide topic under Category:Neopaganism, but recent anon activity has led me to review the case, and I find that this has the typical hallmarks of pure WP:SYN.

• there is no independent third party source indicating this satisfies WP:NOTE
• the "insider" sources we cite to define the topic (essentially [12]) are online essays written by random individuals

I am not sure whether the article can stand as a topic on its own. Perhaps this will need to become a note at the Neopaganism article that "some proponents have advanced 'reconstructionism'" or similar.

These are my concerns. I haven't made up my mind and I am genuinely looking for third opinions. --dab (𒁳) 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not understanding Dbachmann's reasoning initially, and would hate to see the article Polytheistic reconstructionism deleted, but the assertion Polytheistic reconstructionism is not a bona fide topic under Category:Neopaganism is one I agree with. In fact, along the same line of thinking, the Neopaganism article would also need to be completely reworked. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The terms seems to have been invented by Timothy J. Alexander, in his book "A Beginner's Guide to Hellenismos", which is vanity-published by lulu.com. He seems to use it mainly to describe attempts to revive the religion of the ancient Greeks. Note that we have the related article Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. In any case, the lengthy history of this article seems to indicate some level of notability even if it is hard to find good sources. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if these are notable it is in the same sense that the Rainbow Gathering is notable. There are certainly people committed to it, and there are events; but it is impossible to define intellectual content, or even any obvious shared intent. It is a very loosely defined group that has events. That would, perhaps, put it more in the category with such things as American Civil War reenactments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Polytheistic reconstructionism was started more that a year before Timothy J. Alexander's book. There is no way to link him to the original coining. Nova Roma calls what they do Roman Reconstructionism. CR means Celtic Reconstructionism. It is not an issue specific to Hellenic Reconstructionism. The real issue is if these groups fall under Neopaganism. They may conform to the common definition of neopagan, but they all seem to reject being part of the larger Neopagan movement. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The term was coined by Isaac Bonewits long before anyone actually embraced it as a self-description. The question isn't whether the term exists, but whether we need, or can justify, a standalone article about it. --dab (𒁳) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the term Isaac Bonewits coined was Eclectic Neopagan Reconstructionism, and his concept does not conform to the standards of Polytheistic reconstructionism. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

dear anon, the entire point is that there are no "standards", because we don't have any quotable sources to base them on. Where do you, personally, derive your knowledge of "Polytheistic reconstructionism"? The Web? Your own musings? Anything that may help us build an encyclopedic article? If you just stick to your opinion but won't tell us what it is based on, this isn't going anywhere. Bonewits at least is a published author. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reconstructionism has been written about and discussed in works by authors such as Michael Strmiska, Christopher Penczak, Barbara Jane Davy, Michael York, Chas Clifton, Graham Harvey, Deborah Lipp, Shelley Rabinovitch, James Lewis, Douglas E. Cowan, Selene Silverwind, Janet Farrar, Gavin Bone, Lauren Manoy, Dana D. Eilers, Jennifer Hunter, and many others. Besides these, as I understand it, and maybe I'm wrong, but 1st party sources are considered "quotable sources". It is only notability that requires 3rd party sources. If that were not the case, then Catholic sources could not be used to write articles about Catholicism, Jewish sources could not be used for Jewish articles, and Wiccan sources could not be used for Wiccan articles. If that is not the case, I hope you are prepared to expand your campaign. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

well, great, I'll be happy to discuss the topic in terms of the publications of the authors you mention. I am not saying there are no sources, just that the article so far isn't aware of them (this has improved with the Linzie papers, too, so I am confident we are getting somewhere). --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis redux

Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs) has jumped right back in where CreazySuit (talk · contribs) left off on Battle of Opis, making exactly the same ridiculous arguments (latest translation is the most authoritative, the author is "superior" to any other authors, the author of another translation can't have translated it herself because her personal web page doesn't say she reads ancient Akkadian). See my comments at Talk:Battle of Opis#A plea for sanity. Is anyone going to help out on this article or is it going to be abandoned to POV-pushers and original research nonsense? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I know Napaheshar as a reasonable and knowledgeable wikipedian and I do not think it is constructive to dismiss his opinions as "nonsense". It does not mean that he is absolutely correct but we should not dismiss his opinions. I am not an expert on the matter but after reading Talk:Battle_of_Opis#Grayson_and_Lambert it appears to me that Nepaheshgar's idea is to present all four available (or whatever are present) translations of the original ancient text giving the maximal weight to the latest (2007 Lambert's). It sounds reasonable. I have also noticed that Nepaheshgar proposed arranging a contact with some authors of earlier research to ask if they change their position after Lambert's work. I think if it can be done it might be valuable. Only the mainspace texts should follow WP:V. If we can arrange a consultation with an expert it might not go to the mainspace unless published but certainly can influence the weight we give to different translations Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • My expert says Lambert's opinion is "based on context, essentially a reconstruction of the entire historical situation. So let the historians decide whether there was a slaughter or not. Lambert is a leading assyriologist, NABU is a reputable journal, but neither of these factors are relevant and the argument must be decided on its own merits." And he is definitely an expert, but not the only one. But if all you want is an expert opinion, there you have one. I can see no reason in giving maximal weight to the latest, particularly when it hasn't been discussed yet by other academics (except of course for my expert).

• • I'm putting forward this expert opinion seriously as an expert opinion, but I am not at all convinced that this is the way to go. I'm sure another expert could be found who disagrees. And even though I have the email from my expert, and a similar opinion is on a mailing list, is that acceptable as a way of weighting the main article? One thing that would have helped was my request that editors acknowledge, for instance, that peer review does not guarantee that an argument is correct, only that it is worth publishing, but they didn't. So I doubt that using expert opinion (if not to their liking) would sway editors with such a lack of understanding of how scholarship works. Doug Weller (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a WP:FRINGE matter, is it? The question is how we appropriately weight different views published in reputable academic outlets; there might be a question of undue weight, but none of the views being discussed cross the line into crankery. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Magic in the Greco-Roman world

I firmly believe that this article is more occult apologetics than an encyclopedic article. Comments criticizing the article go back to 2006 and include describing the article is merely a dump of a research paper, and that it overstates magic in the everyday life of the Greco-Roman world. There is at least one bastardized quote in the article, a number of citations that are misrepresented (Dodds calls Empedocles a shaman, not a "poet, magus, teacher, and scientist". In fact, the word magus is not used at all in Dodds' book The Greeks and the Irrational.), and there is an extensive Resource list (without in-line citations) used to bolster the article, much of which seems to not be panning out as being used in the article's creation. There is an inordinate amount of time spent attempting to persuade the reader in accepting why practices should be considered magic, and historical figures magicians. Additionally, the article is littered with original research. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why "merely a dump of a research paper" is a criticism, unless there is plagiarism, which nobody seems to be suggesting. That looks like a pretty good article in many respects, so it seems like the best approach is for people who know the topic and care about it to work on editing it. Are attempts to improve it are being resisted? Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer why "merely a dump of a research paper" is a criticism, I would refer you to WP:NOT. If we ignore the manipulation of quotes and misrepresentation of citations, this may be a good essay to be turned in for a twelfth-grade term-paper, and it may be a good essay to be posted on an occult website, but it is not an encyclopedic article. In my opinion, the article is occult apologetics, attempting to support and defend occult beliefs and practices, rather than an encyclopedic narrative with a NPOV. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am at a loss how you could come to such a conclusion. Which passages, do you propose, are "defending occult beliefs and practices"? --dab (𒁳) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article makes its intent known from the very beginning with the statements such as, "an evolving definition associated with the term 'magic'", "these are teachings that support the central tenets of the magician", and "magic as an independent tradition", and by the fact more than a third of the essay is merely an attempt to persuade readers into accepting a theory why religious practices should be considered magic, and historical figures are magicians. It is modern magicians and so forth, evolved out of 16th and 17th century occultists, that promote the idea of philosophical works as the basis of "high magic", and that there was some sort of independent magical tradition. These ideas are conspicuously absent from works not targeted to those who want to believe in such things. Interpreting philosophical mysticism as magic is one POV, but it is not the dominant or popular interpretation. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

the passages you mention are poorly phrased, no doubt, but I see nothing wrong with the "intent". It is hardly "fringe" that magical thinking is an integral part of any and all religion. Furthermore, the 16th to 17th century Renaissance magic you mention was precisely that: a renaissance of the magical traditions of Late Antiquity. To state that magic was extremely important in Late Antiquity is hardly in "defense" of magic, it is simply the statement of a historical fact, you will still be free to believe magic is bogus. Mainstream education vastly downplays the role of magic in antiquity, it's always about the Classics, high literature, high mythology and high philosophy. This is a Classicist prejudice -- just as it is a common prejudice that the Renaissance was primarily about developing the critical method and studying Homer when it was to a great extent about a revived interest in magic (which had fallen out of fashion during the Christian Middle Ages). It is an important part of this article's job to set that score right. And yes, I can produce references to back up my gist here: but this would be for the article talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If mainstream academia "vastly downplays the role of magic in antiquity" (or even what is and is not magic vs. religion) then how is it not a fringe theory? I mean, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, right? This is not the place to debate whether the dominant academic opinion is prejudiced. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ahah - but I didn't say "mainstream academia", I said "mainstream education". Meaning, this is the impression you walk away with from college, while actual academia has long (say, since the 1970s) been aware that things lie a little different. --dab (𒁳) 08:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That being said, you would be hard-pressed to find any work actually on ancient Greek history, culture, and religion to support the claims made in that article. It is limited only to works targeted to a consumer audience wanting to believe ancient religiosity was the practice of magic that you can find such claims, and not beyond. In fact, in works that could be considered academic, such as Luck's Arcana Mundi, they tend to spend a substantial amount of time defending assigning the label magic to such practices. ---151.201.149.209 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

can we please get down to individual claims, at the article talkpage at this point? I am not summarily endorsing everything in the article, and it isn't helful to keep boo-hooing about "the claims in the ariticle" in general. I have noted that you have repeatedly misrepresented claims made in the article in an attempt to make them more outlandish that they really are. Thus, you are claiming at Talk:Greek Magical Papyri that "the article" presents Hellenistic magic as a "cohesive religion", while there is no such statement found in the article. Also, if you're going to pursue this campaign, please consider using an account as a courtesy. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I addressed your concern on Talk:Greek Magical Papyri. The article does assert a "religion of the Papyri Graecae Magicae". --151.201.149.209 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

---

a "dump of a research paper" would imply WP:OR, but I don't really think it is that bad. It is a difficult and opaque subject, and could definitely do with expert attention, We could apply inline tags to mark the issues raised, but in general I suppose it is natural that the article has magic as its focus without necessarily "overstating" magic. If we saw such a focus on magic in, say, Hellenistic religion, the matter might be different, but this article is, after all, ostensibly dedicated to disucssing magic. --dab (𒁳) 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not an area I know much about, but reading the article, I did think the OP might have had a point. Obviously the Greeks and Romans engaged in all kinds of practices which we would today label "religion", "science", or "magic". But they didn't necessarily divide these up in the ways we would today. The article seemed to me to "protest too much" that there was a continuity between today's magical practices and elements of Graeco-Roman culture that were labelled "magic" without a great deal of discussion of whether the label fitted. I suspect that the answer is to continue developing the article. I'm sure that the references Dieter knows of will be a good addition. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, the "protesting too much" is often a problem when "debunking common misconceptions", since it assumes the reader is holding such misconceptions, which may or may not be the case. This is an issue of style. dab (𒁳) 18:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Magic in the Greco-Roman world is a book report?

As I have tried to delve into the cited sources, and validate quotes and citations, it has become glaringly obvious that this article is, at the very least, a synopsis of the chapter Magic from Georg Luck's book Arcana Mundi. It makes many of the exact same statements, references the exact same sources (which became obvious the original contributor of the article did not read), and in some places seem to walk a very thin line on what could be called plagiarism. Please see my recent comments on the talk page. How does this get handled? --151.201.149.209 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It gets rewritten to avoid the plagiarism. If you can figure out who contributed the text, you should consider informing them of the problem on their talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the bulk of the article, which goes back to the original contributor Elvenearth, who does not appear to be active. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am continuing to find almost verbatim quotes from Luck's Arcana Mundi, but attributing them to research of other sources. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So we went from "fringe" to {{onesource}}. Since Luck (1985) is academically published, I do suppose it is permissible as a source, and it is good practice to start out an article on an academic topic by summarizing the gist of a dedicated monograph. It still remains, however, to avoid copyright violation, and to allow for the presentation of other viewpoints, especially from more recent publication since the source used is already aged more than 20 years. dab (𒁳) 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would have never found it if the sections I deleted for failing source verification were not restored by someone citing Luck's Arcana Mundi. The original contributor used Luck's quotes and citations of other sources as his own, and they were failing verification. So we have both "fringe" and {{onesource}}. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

At last an explanation why the recent sources I found weren't used. Thanks Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

List of UFO sightings

I have begun the process of systematically cleaning up List of UFO sightings. I could use some help. We need to rely on good sources to do this clean-up. I have already removed all the website citations to youtube videos, enthusiast organizations, and conspiracy theories. That leaves a vast majority of the "sightings" without a reliable source reference. We will eventually have to go through and remove the "News of the Weird" citations as well: just because it was a slow news-day doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article on your UFO sighting. Once we've confirmed with the best sources, we can remove the sightings that do not have mainstream, independent, third-party coverage.

Please help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

At the very least I'm prepared to remove all those that don't actually involve flying objects. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

VedicScience (talk · contribs)

Another round of regular "Vedic" quantum quackery for a change. This edit should make clear what is going on. It may be worth to keep on the lookout for the "reference" given,

• Vedic Physics (ISBN 0-968-41200-9) by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ph.D.

--dab (𒁳) 11:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. Moreschi (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

also performing at Rigvedic deities. And yes, it appears that they mean it :p dab (𒁳) 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(s)he has added nonsense to quite a number of pages and is using the help of a sockpuppet/"friend" too. Special:Contributions/69.250.46.133. With his ego I doubt he will embrace Wikipedia's rules. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've sent him to WP:AN3 now. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

He's back and complaining to Jimbo - User talk:Jimbo Wales about me, Dab, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors needed at Talk:Zecharia Sitchin

Please see [13]. You need to look at all the article edits made by the SPA IP editor, not just the most recent, to get a full picture. And - this IP editor's first edit was the 27th, fast learning curve? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

AIDS origin

Nature published today an article about the origins of AIDS and so I looked at what Wikipedia says about this subject.

AIDS origin lists two hypotheses as subsections: Cameroon chimpanzees hypothesis and Oral polio vaccine hypothesis. The later is "generally rejected by the scientific community" and yet, it holds much more space within the article. Isn't this against the Wikipedia:Undue policy? bogdan (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm here only to state guidelines on weight, not to reflect on the reliability of sources and the topic itself: an topic within an article should reflect how much reliable sources say about it. If there are 10 books on the origin of AIDS, 8 of which are about Cameroon chimpanzees, 2 about oral polio vaccines, and a pamphlet about the CIA tampering with smallpox (I made that last one up) the article should reflect 80% about Cameroon chimpanzees origin, 20% about oral polio vaccines, and perhaps nothing about the CIA. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit too rigid. The article should be written in a way that gives readers an accurate view of the distribution of opinions in the scientific community, and should give the most prominence to information that the scientific community as a whole views as most important. That doesn't necessarily mean using 800 words about chimpanzees for every 200 about polio vaccine. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the issuoe of the original post, agree with the spirit of M's reply, and acknowledge L's caveats. That said, a confounding issue is that a significant part of the polio section are inconsistencies with the theory and opposition to it. So it is not as simple as space=support. To me the issue with that section is mainly an editorial one; such poor prose is in fact common on topics where there are strong but divergent opinions. The resulting text ends up being various POV threads tied in a Gordian knot of nominal NPOV. It reads quite messy, even if the overall coverage of the positions mirror the sources well. Nothing a good rewrite can't overcome though. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can provide a bit of editorial context: the OPV AIDS hypothesis (polio vaccine hypothesis) is a widely discredited belief which has been pushed hard by a handful of dedicated - some might say overly dedicated - accounts. The response has been to add material indicating the hypothesis' lack of credibility, and hence the bloat. We have a POV fork: OPV AIDS hypothesis. The AIDS origin page should very briefly summarize the key points and link to that POV fork. That will fix the WP:WEIGHT issue on the AIDS origin page, and the detail can go in the OPV/AIDS fork. I'll try to work on this as time and inclination permit. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Followup: [14]. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I call a good rewrite. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Titanic alternative theories

I am trying to add a section to balance the "Ship that Never Sank" section in Titanic alternative theories and am meeting some opposition. Would someone be willing to look at my proposed draft in Talk: Titanic alternative theories (Section 5.1.1) and give their opinions as to whether the level of detail I include is appropriate? Thanks. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your additions clearly benefit the article. Go for it. I'm watch-listing the article. Since the, um, fringe-pov-pushers on this are IPs, it should be possible to solve any edit-warring you run into by asking for the article to be semi-protected, if it comes to that. Looie496 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

'clearly benefit the article'. how is that so?24.11.214.147 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gardiner's theory is very fringe, verging on "tiny minority". The article needs to make that clear. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looie, thanks for your input. There's been a flurry of editing by others and myself these past couple of days, and I think the article is improving. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Root race

I deleted a chunk in this theosophy-related article that rehearsed pseudoscientific arguments against plate tectonics. It might get reverted. And it would be good to have some geologically knowledgeable people looking at the articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, pretty much every single bit of biology, geology, and paleontology in that article is bogus according to modern science. What's more, it looks like it isn't even Blavatsky's bogosity, but the poorly-sourced bogosity of a guy named David Pratt superimposed on Blavatsky's bogosity. I would favor either reducing the article to a stub, or else AfD'ing on the grounds of being unfixable. (Even the dates for the geological time periods are way off the mark.) Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I hadn't noticed that it strayed so much from Blavatsky's views, which are to some extent notable. I'll be bolder. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a problem when the article relates Blavatsky's "root races" with Steiner's "epochs".

I do not think that there is much doubt that when, for example, Blavatsky calls the "fifth root race, the so-called Aryans", that she really was talking about a (supposed) racial group. Likewise Alice Bailey, who discusses root-races extensively in her books. That seems very different than Steiner's periods of time. I know for certain that Bailey said that the root-races actually expended across time periods. Bailey considered the Chinese the fourth root-race, and I recall her referring to the Australian aborigines as remnants of the third root-race. I am not as familiar with Blavatsky as with Bailey, but my understanding is that Bailey took the concept of root-races directly out of her studies of Blavatsky. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take Steiner out and if Bailey uses the exact-same term put her in. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That will take some time. The Alice Bailey books are no longer available online, so it will be necessary to do web searches to find enough material. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Practical Kabbalah

This article has no real sources, and may contain nothing but original research. It is difficult to know what to do with it because, if I started to delete problematic and unsourced material there would probably be nothing left aside from the Gershom Sholem quote. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of potential sources though, as I've noted by adding them as "Further reading". I've also fixed the existing refs, though I'll agree page numbers are needed. I didn't write the article though, but, say, are you stalking me now? Bob (QaBob) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This article does seem to have huge problems. Googling produces two radically different sets of results: Jewish results which take a completely mystical approach (particularly connected to one Laibl Wolf and to chabad websites, and esoteric sites which seem to understand it as Jewish practice of magic. I do not see this reflected in the article at all, especially since some of the first type of sites emphatically rejects the legitimacy of the second type of site. I see significant fringey problems here. Mangoe (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am attempting to improve the article, but was not the original author. It needs significant organization and expansion from someone who actually has the sources at hand, though it is clear that they exist and present varied viewpoints as you suggest. Bob (QaBob) 02:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue I see is that it's questionable whether there really is such thing. The Jewish sources don't seem to think of it as a thing unto itself, and the fringey talk seems to be making a claim about the Jewish qaballah that isn't true. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no question whatsoever that there is such a thing. The Hebrew term is Kabbalah Ma'asit and Gershom Sholem writes that it actually predated what is simply known as Kabbalah. The real question appears to be what sources are reliable and what sources are not. Bob (QaBob) 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There are profound differences between religious Jewish Kabbalists and academic historians of Kabbalah (not to mention Hermetic Qabalah). To many of the religious students to Kabbalah, any publicly available information on Kabbalah is a source of worry, and Kabbalah Ma'asit is considered far too dangerous for any person but the most saintly:

Does any of this sound dangerous? Yet countless times I have heard from people and scholars that this area of study is both deadly and dangerous. Sometimes these scholars bring evidence from scattered souces in the practical tradition of Kabbalah. Again, we turn to Rabbi Moshe Miller in the introduction to his new translation of the Zohar: “The practical tradition of Kabbalah involves techniques aimed specifically at altering natural states or events – techniques such as the incantation of Divine Names…. However, Kabbalah ma’asit [practical Kabbalah] is meant to be employed by only the most saintly and responsible of individuals and for no other purpose than the benefit of man or implementation of G-d’s plan in creation.” Rabbi Miller goes on to point out a very important fact: “Even in the era of the great kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac Luria, known as the holy Ari (mid 16th century), there are indications of these techniques being abused by unfit practitioners [as they are today]. The holy Ari himself admonished his disciples to avoid [in fact he forbid it] the practical arts of Kabbalah, as he deemed such practice unsafe so long as the state of ritual purity necessary for service in the Holy Temple remains unattainable.” [15] (This site is the site of a very religious publisher, and after sundown today it may be unavailable until sundown tomorrow.)

Interestingly, it is frequently the people least qualified who think they are most qualified. In any case, having spoken to many religious Kabbalists, I can assure you that they consider even the best academic historians of Kabbalah to be mistaken in the extreme in their views of Kabbalah. In a way the differences remind me of the comment by Walt Disney that "first we do it and then the critics tell us what we have done." Artists, like Kabbalists, tend to think the academics who analyze their work are unqualified to understand, and the academics tend to think the artists do not really understand their own work. Of course, since this is Wikipedia, the weight tends to go to those scholars who are academically notable, and the standard for inclusion in articles is verifiability not truth. I suppose nothing else is possible under the circumstances...but it is not difficult to see the limitations. However, in the case of Kabbalah, there are highly notable religious scholars (frequently rabbis), and their views do need to be included. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that the rituals of Aleister Crowley are 10 times more dangerous than anything practical Kabbalah may have to offer. Orthodox Hinduism also condemns Tantra, which itself is a rather mixed bag of spiritual techniques mixed together with trashy sex manuals. What can one do but pray in whatever way seems right to us. Bob (QaBob) 23:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

English Qabalah

This article has sources, but seems to synthesize a number of primary sources that have little in common into an article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It recently passed AfD, sorry, old chap. Bob (QaBob) 23:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Surviving an AfD does not mean that the article does not have serious problems that need to be corrected. I have just explained what I consider the main problem on the article talk page [16]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no synthesis. You are misusing the term. But thanks anyway. Bob (QaBob) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think in a particularly technical fashion it could be termed a synthesis. It would be useful to find some survey matter on the subject, but mostly what I found were various proponents/whatever of the different systems who more often did not seemed to lack any notion that other people had tread the same ground. As far as fringeyness is concerned, however, the article is sober and does not endorse any system or indeed make any claims one way or the other as to the worth of these systems or the notion in general. There seems to be a running battle going on between the two in question, but this is not a fit arena for it. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful for your opinion. It reflect what I and Sticky Parkin were attempting to achieve from an article which started out as spam for a specific self-published book on the topic. Bob (QaBob) 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edit summaries

Please look at the last 50 contributions of Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to be back on his campaign no remove qualifiers whenever "psychic", "mediumship" or "parapsychology" is mentioned. Two illustrative examples of things he's done in the last 48 hours:

• [17] Which he justifies with, "See Three layer cake with frosting for the status of parapsychology." Eseentially using the arbcom to claim that parapsychology must always be treated as a "science" in Wikipedia. I think this is a misapplication of arbcom rulings and would like someone other than myself to tell him to stop.
• [[18] Where he removes the word "self-proclaimed" (though it is obviously correct) with an edit statement: "per ArbCom on the paranormal Cultural artefacts" which is taking extreme license with the ruling, in my humble estimation.

Looking at his contributions over the last few days, it seems clear to me that Martinphi is back on his a campaign to remove verifiable caveats associated with parapsychology, psychic powers, and mediumship from across this encyclopedia. This is the type of disruption he was sanctioned for by arbcom. However, I need to get some outside opinions as to whether this is enforcement-caliber problems.

SA, would it help if I tried to broach the subjects with him? NB that I might agree about removing qualifiers, as I don't think this is usually the right way to distinguish science from non/science topics. (I do think they should be distinguished, however). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My main issue is not with removing the qualifiers (sometimes the removal is okay, sometimes it is not), but him assuming the mantle of arbcom to do so. He uses this as a form of immunization from legitimate discussion about single words. There is nothing in any arbcom ruling that says we cannot describe someone as a "self-proclaimed medium", and yet, according to the summaries I have above, Martinphi seems convinced that arbcom has given him some sort of mandate to waltz across Wikipedia removing words at his whim. Please have a word with him. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please look through his contributions (especially those which contain the two edit summaries I outline above) and see if you see a problem. The history between him and myself makes it difficult for me to intervene directly.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, these are WTAs or the equivalent. In a properly framed article, the reader will have ample opportunity to understand the the subject is controversial or discredited, without our having to use such weasel words. I assume the mantle of the ArbCom because the ArbCom was very clear in its decision. I know a lot of people don't like that decision, but till they can get the ArbCom to modify it, I think it should be followed. Perhaps my edit summaries should read "remove weasel wording," and then point the the ArbCom. See also, this, as it talks about framing. As to the status of Parapsychology: We talked long with the ArbCom about that very issue, explained it thoroughly, and that is what they put in their decision. Did they make a mistake? Some think so. Did they do it by accident? No way. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a request for clarification on the Three layer cake point: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Paranormal. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ADvaitaFan

Could this user be a sockpuppet of User:VedicScience. They both like to reveal the "truth" to "uneducated" editors. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, both need careful scrutiny. Doug Weller (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

clearly not the same user, but clearly one with a similar set of symptoms. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He might be the same actually. He's from the same metro area. Look at his knowledge of Wiki and his talk style. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not just you, my friend dbachmann, I've been watching the new account on the block too! I'm blocked right now - courtesy of Dougweller! What is notable is he (or she) seems to have the same impression of admin Dougweller. Doug's latest rv note says "We edit Wikipedia by consensus (not verifiable facts)" - go figure! I am wondering why Wikipedia would make this guy an admin! But I got it - how this whole thing works and is bound to fail, especially if nothing changes. I was going to contribute a lot more on so many topics but I am going to stay put until Wikipedia fixes this "bandit ring game" which includes mainly POV dimmies who contribute nothing but are undo addicts tripping up good faith editors into 3RRs. What's really dumb is even long-timers dabble in mindlessly just to look good within the circle of favor, and even a few admins can't seem to separate wheat from shaff!!! All this would be clear to anyone who can barely go through edit histories. I wonder why all the smart people of Wikipedia haven't realized this yet. Wikipedia definitely needs to look closely at revising rules on admin monitoring. There should be an automated score for each user based on edit warring history and admin privileges controlled based on score. With so many who are in for "my way or highway", all this will ultimately and most certainly lead this nice project to a disastrous "dimipedia" over a period of time, not an encyclopedia! It's a shame, but hard truth! My 2 cents. VedicScience (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, stop this. Seriously, quit trolling. Final chance. Moreschi (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty funny. I didn't block him, and he's made up the rv note "We edit Wikipedia by consensus (not verifiable facts)" -- how about a diff for that, VS? And now he's complained to Jimbo. Doug Weller (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Avanduyn

I'm not sure if this belongs here or not, but this editor is adding loads of OR (including a map he created himself, [19] "Known Emigration of Abraham's Children to Katura". Can someone take a look particularly at Xerxes I of Persia which he has heavily edited. I'm removing some of his OR but I expect he'll put it back. Is the map something that can go to AfD as OR? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He relies heavily on Seventh Day Adventist Bible commentaries, are they a reliable source? And an inerrantist website, www.studylight.org, clearly not a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

SDA commentaries would be reliable sources for the SDA point of view, no more or less. It is unlikely in most articles that the SDA viewpoint would be appropriate to include. As a general point, material of that nature would be more likely to be appropriate when drawn from a larger/more prominent viewpoint. For example, Catholic Bible commentary or Saudi Quran commentary would be more likely to be appropriate for inclusion (as larger/more prominent viewpoints) than Adventist commentary. Vassyana (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you perhaps talking about Midian? I can't see anything more than slightly problematic in Xerxes I of Persia, but Midian definitely has issues. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And incidentally, the map at the very least has a bogus source description. He wrote that it is entirely his own work, which is obviously not true. Looie496 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of almost all the articles he edited in Sept and July [20] . The rift valley stuff, the map, and his reliance on 7th Day Adventist literature (I see he is some sort of pastor in that church). The Xerxes edits rely heavily on 7th Day literature. I agree, the map itself is not his own work. But I'm not familiar with what we do about images like this. Doug Weller (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence yet that van Duyn is not a reasonable person who can be worked with, and I don't like the fact that people are simply trying to bulk-delete his material without discussion. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

His rift valley claim has no source. It was removed from some articles in July and he's replaced it. I did do a quick search to see if I could find one and failed, so removed it. His map, besides possibly a copyright infringement, has a route with no source either. He may well try to claim Adventist literature as a source, but he needs more than that and in any case, despite frequent references to such literature, hasn't used it for the rift valley claim. I think the onus is on him to justify these edits. Doug Weller (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted to his talk page asking for sources to the rift valley claim. Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

it is a good sign to see him openly stating where he is coming from, self-identifying as a SDA pastor. We should encourage him to contribute to SDA topics and refrain from using SDA sources for historical topics. --dab (𒁳) 15:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Carantania, History of Slovenia

Several articles concerning the history of Slovenia have seen a lot of disruptive editing in the last few days. The problem involves fringe theories and improper, non-academic sources. The articles are putting forward a disputed claim according to which a Slovenian state existed in the Alps in 595 AD and that this was the same entity as the medieval Dutchy of Carantania. The idea has been taken from a non-academic historian Jožko Šavli.

The actual background is roughly as follows: when describing the fights between Slavs and Bavarians in 590s (595 AD being the year when Slavic-Avar army defeated the Franks), the Lombard historian Paulus Diaconus refers to the area populated by Slavs as "provincia Sclaborum" (for more on this see: [21]. J. Šavli claims that "provincia Sclaborum" means "the state of Slovenes" and that this was the same entity as the later Carantania, which in fact is a myth since Carantania is not mentioned in historical sources prior to 660 AD.

The affected articles are:

• Carantania
• Carantanians
• History of Slovenia
• Slovenes
• Slovenia
• Timeline of Slovenian history

I have reverted many of the edits in the last few days, on the grounds that they involved distorting historical data, as indicated in the edit summaries, but believe somebody with administrator's rights should intervene here. Please note that the issue has been put on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard before: [22].

In my opinion, particularly the article on Carantania should be kept on administrator's watchlists as the issue is a popular topic of Slovene nationalism. Regards, Jalen (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don´t agree with you Jalen, pease read [[23]], and you can see that your opinion is discussed there. You can disagree with Dr. Jožko Šavli, but I´ll not allow you to offend him. And please stop reverting my editions without answering in the discussion page first.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm looking through this. Moreschi (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Moustafa Gadalla

I'm not sure what to do about this. The guy is fringe, his books are self-published through his foundation (and at least one has been used as a reference elsewhere). I found this comment about him on a web forum " the modern pyramidologist Moustafa Gadalla, not really a scientist or historian but possessor of a B.S. in civil engineering from the Cairo University. He is author of the Pyramid Handbook. Gadalla's claims are wild in the extreme, the essence of which is that all of the masonry pyramids from Dynasty 4 were in reality great energy collectors that attracted a mythical space gas called orgone to create an even more mythical substance called psi-org energy." Ah, now I didn't know this, evidently the bluehouse effect drastically increases when you laminate a pyramid. [24]. Fantastic! Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD. Not notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moustafa Gadalla. I agree. Moreschi (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

fringe theory promotion at Psychic

See for yourself. I've reverted for now, but... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also note this ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This won't be resolved unless editors from both sides are able to have a reasoned discussion about it. Really ought to be possible since all concerned are experienced Wikipedians. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If each side would refrain from overly strong statements which cannot actually be supported, and allow the other to make more limited and qualified statements backed up by sources, it seems to me that the problem would be quickly resolved. The talk page shows certain editors hold extreme positions and seem intent on inserting them using sources that don't actually say what they are being represented as saying. Bob (QaBob) 15:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

QaBobAllah, which editor are you referring to as more reasonable? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about any editor being reasonable. I did say some editors seem extreme. Your edits seem perfectly reasonable, though. :-) Bob (QaBob) 15:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mordvins (and subgroups)

Another "ethnic" mess. Note that we get ethnic mysticism mixed with valuable (as in difficult to find) bona fide information in broken English here. Lots of patience and good judgement is needed. Still, the epic "history" added since July is quite clearly mostly bogus. See also this note on my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh god. Some of this is {{essay-entry}}, some of it is OK, some of it is fringe, and some looks like plain lying. It's going to need a lot of careful picking apart as was done with the equally obscure Hungarian prehistory business. Moreschi (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some good sources are cited. Is Finnic peoples good enough to use as a reference point? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

when I was getting my bearings in this topic back in July (it came to my attention via Mastorava before--after) I found that most encyclopedic sources mention the existence of the Erzya and Moksha but without any further differentiation between them. I.e., we have no quotable sources at present to justify two separate Erzya people and Moksha people articles, even though it is undisputed that they are two real subgroups of the Mordvins. The problem appears to be that some diaspora Mordvins have come to object to the term "Mordvin", but it is difficult to make any sense of this since the contributions are mostly in English so broken as to be near-incomprehensible. --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Learning from you how to be bold, Dieter. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some good trimming and re-ordering has been done. Thanks to whoever it was that got rid of the section attempting to link the Mordvins with the Scythians and Amazons of Herodotus! Now, what's all this weird business of railway listings? Moreschi (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the dubious material to Talk:Mordvins/workpage. It may contain valid facts, but we cannot keep the live article in such a state until somebody manages to sift through this. Also take a look at the huge amount of text at Talk:Mordvins. Somebody appears to be using Wikipedia as a dumping ground. It will be difficult to handle this, since these are obviously contributions in good faith, and there seems to be a significant language barrier that will make it difficult to explain to the user what we are trying to do at WP. dab (𒁳) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please dab do not remove sourced facts from that article Mordvins in the future like you did with the last edit [25]. Feel free to remove anything that has not been sourced, I'll get to the History part ASAP and clean it up according to published secondary sources.--Termer (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note for anyone following this: it's all going fairly well at the moment, with useful talkpage discussion, good sources coming to light, and the article in a much better state than it was with possibilities opening up for definite improvement. We should get a good result here without much grief. Moreschi (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Constantinian shift

Won't the Constantinian shift article be considered conspiracy theory or fringe theory? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it seems to be a concept used by some small religious groups. The article needs a lot of improvement/stubification/merge/deletion. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I would agree. The problem is that I thought what you just defined the article as, is what makes it into a fringe article. Specifically via the Jimmy Wales criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Just asking. It is a shame that the group pushing the idea make terrible mistakes in their handling of historical figures and events. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Protoorthodox

Isn't the Proto-orthodox Christianity theory, too another conspiracy theory or fringe theory? One to counter the ante-nicene term as it is used by academia? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it seems to be a term used by one scholar. It is not worth an article if it is not now used by other scholars. Proposing new terminology is bread-and-butter scholarship, but most new terminological proposals fall on stony ground. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've googled some other usage. A definition is given here:

The type of Christianity that ultimately became predominant was neither Judaic nor Gnostic. It developed out of Pauline, Johannine, and related forms of Christianity and consisted primarily of Gentiles. [...] Scholars call this type of early Christianity "Proto-Orthodoxy" or "early Catholicism," because it was the forerunner of the types of Christianity that developed later, known as Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Another passage I found here associates it with Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. The term seems to be legitimate; the problem with the article is that it deals almost entirely with Bart Ehrman's fringy theories. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The theory and in specific Bart Ehrman's use of it are often discussed as a conspiracy theory.[26] Google it for fun. You know that wikipedian editors use the term in the wikipedia article Early Christianity. This rather then the more common term ante-nicene. Also note there still is no ante-nicene article per se, while there is a Proto Orthodox one. that is alittle uneven. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing to do is to redirect it into the appropriate point in Early Christianity. Mangoe (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What about?

What about say Martin Bernal's (who listed as a American classical scholars) Black Athena and Afrocentrism? LoveMonkey (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What about it? Are you making a specific suggestion? Black Athena is certainly a notable book. Afrocentrism is a notable topic. I'm not sure what you are asking. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Paul I mean like what Mary Lefkowitz and Zahi Hawass have to say about them. What about it? Is there something wrong with Leftowitz and Hawass' work? Black Athena has been discredited and is listed as psuedo-history so is wikipedia saying something different about that now? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not asking a clear question. They are notable as subjects for articles. The relevant articles should include the criticisms of academics, including Lefkowitz (and maybe Hawass), indicating the extent to which the views in question are accepted or rejected by the mainstream. Bernal's position is ambiguous. His writings are certainly discussed within academia. I hope, for example, to attend this forthcoming conference [27]. Paul B (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. That looks to be an excellent event but I wonder why Bernal is still allowed to dissiminate as he has been discredited. I wonder how he will address this [28]. It is a shame that he teaches a conspiracy theory that the Greeks are liars and thieves. What a shameful thing. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admirer of Bernal, but I don't think he called Greeks liars and thieves. However, your question has been answered. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey please repost the answer you gave me again. I seem to have missed it. If someone else posted it clarify if their answer is also your answer.

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

At a guess, are you asking about Bernal and Afrocentrism in relation to WP:FRINGE? Obviously both are notable: Bernal is discussable as a partisan and non-mainstream author on classical topics. Notability is key here, as Bernal's academic qualifications in ancient history are pretty limited - by training he's a Sinologist/political scientist. Rather like Bernal himself, a few Afrocentric claims are perfectly sane, most are fringe, and the rest range from bizarre to lunatic. Bernal himself, however, is more moderate than figures like Diop and James, although he does at times endorse their work. Moreschi (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hit the nail on the head Moreschi. Again I wonder how the link above- [29] will be discredited and or discarded since before even that the above subjects where discredited but yet they persist in academia.LoveMonkey (talk)

Please stop soapboxing immediately. If you have a question about how the encyclopedia presents an issue, then ask it. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Itsmejudith then are these subjects fringe or not and if they are why are they not noted as such? If the subjects are not then why are other articles which show the same characteristics treated as fringe? Now don't dodge and dont defend political correctness. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Itsmejudith please answer the question.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So I'm not to dodge, I'm not to defend political correctness and I'm to answer questions relating to a range of articles within three minutes. I think you'd be better off dealing with a different respondent to this board. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No you interrupted. You just dodged too. Just answer my questions. Your the one requesting immediancy. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, LoveMonkey, I answered your question. Now please read WP:SOAPBOX. Martin Bernal correctly states that "Bernal's specific theories are not accepted by the majority of classical scholars", which is adequate, and while Afrocentrism is in poor shape, this will be fixed eventually. Black Athena could be more critical, but I've seen worse articles. If you have specific suggestions as to how to fix up Afrocentrism, easily the worst of the three, please go to it. Otherwise, this thread becomes pointless. Moreschi (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK fair enough. I will leave stating this. Considering my experience I am not going to engage those articles. I have been editing enough to tell from the way this was handled here I would be walking into an edit war. An edit war I would by sheer entropy- lose.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

User KVDP (talk · contribs) is making some changes to the alternative medicine page that I think require a review. They are also creating new articles (such as "Healing therapy") which they are then adding to the lead of the alt med article. A few more eyes on this would be great. Verbal chat 12:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See also Breathing therapy, Psychologic therapy, Body therapy, Healing therapy ... all new articles created by the same user, consisting of a list copied from CAM for dummies (copyvio?). Verbal chat 13:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

and Relaxation therapy .... Verbal chat 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Africa

Oh dear. I have long shunned taking a closer look at this article. Now I have, and I see there's practically everything wrong with it that can be wrong with a non-stub article. Apparently it has been a paradise for unchecked Afrocentrist rambling for a long time. Anyway, this is unacceptable. This is an article about a continent and should get top priority. So, before we invest more time in petty disputes over Macedonia, Indian antiquity, the nationhood or race of Egyptians, we should see our way to fixing this shameful state of affairs. It is bad enough that the real Africa is neglected by the rest of the world, there is no need to duplicate the trend on-wiki... --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the articles on the continents is particularly good and there is no consistency about sections or ordering. Should we raise this with Wikiproject Geography? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

true. We should try to initiate a "continent cleanup" process acting in concert. The Africa article also isn't quite as bad as I first thought, the problem is mainly the insanely long "History" section, which could be trimmed with comparatively little effort, since all the sub-articles are already in place. There are few articles that are better suited to WP:SS than aricles on entire continents, and it is appalling that they aren't in excellent, terse shape yet. What these articles need to give is concise overviews over key facts organized by main sub-topics, not rambling prose. --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, History of Africa is in poor shape with its insistency on separating the continent into regions within a flaky periodization. Makes it hard to summarize. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's the fringe? Agreed the articles need work, but this is the fringe theories noticeboard. Better discussed elsewhere methinks. Vsmith (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not actually true if Afrocentrism is involved. Moreschi (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Or Eurocentrism, the opposite fringe. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Moreschi (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And I have NO idea what is going in with this section. Who on earth wrote that little {{essay-entry}}? It doesn't even accord with the section heading! Moreschi (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. The first paragraph seems OK (up to the citation), then it goes haywire. --Folantin (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the bulk of the flaky, off topic stuff from that section. Thanks for pointing it out, Moreschi. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I cut all the unreferenced stuff because it was too speculative (venturing into counterfactual history) and essayistic. Also, it didn't focus on the period at hand. It might be possible to salvage some of the material but this section needs reworking properly. --Folantin (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Category talk:Ancient astronaut theory

User:Self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) intends to take the pseudo-science tag off this, saying "Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this category, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this category.". Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)