Archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this a fringe theory or reliably sourced fact? Independent, high quality scholarship on this issue have concluded that the United States political movement known as the Tea Party consists of both grassroots and astroturf components. Several Wikipedia editors, however, have called this conclusion a "fringe theory"[1][2][3], stating that the movement "is 100% grass-roots" and It's a grass-roots political movement. Period. These Wikipedia editors further claim that any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jumping is, as a completely uninvolved editor:

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

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

This appears to be forumshopping at its most intriguing. Not only is it not related to the stated topic of this noticeboard, is not phrased in a neutral manner etc. it also manages to take absurdist potshots at other editors without notifying them of this discussion, yet another venue for what the OP has posted in far too many places already. [4], the TPm moderated discussion page (multiple posts), [5] self-deletion of his own RfC/U, BLP/N, AN and AN/I posts inter alia all pretty much insisting that he only wants the WP:TRUTH <g> Collect (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks guys, I am reassured the article has wise eyes on it :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See most up to date sources:

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

See also older sources

Issue

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

Importance

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, in a nutshell, the question is: is the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis fringe, or not? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are multiple issues here. There is a difference between the claim that "there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" and the "canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew". No one has presented any relevant scholar who believes that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew; probably because no relevant scholar actually believes that. The problem is that the material that is sought to be added [6] is so misleading as to leave that impression. Even the different claim that the gospel to which Papias was referring existed and was written in Hebrew is a minority opinion (Casey's). Ask yourself: What is the Casey- and Edwards-sourced material even doing there? Is it illuminating the topic of the article (the canonical Hebrew of Gospel)? Or is it talking about the separate topic of the Hebrew gospel, and just muddying the waters?

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

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

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

A) FRINGE

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

Davidson, (1848) p xii,

• Ebrard 1863 p 530,

• Baring-gould, 1874 p. 122

• Nicholson 1879 p 26

• Morison, 1902 p xxxvi

• Schoemaker 1902 p 199

• Barnes, 1905 p 361

• Cassels, 1905 p 420

• Paralipomena by Pick 1908

• Schonfield, 1937 p 246

• Andrews, 1962 p 46

• Harrison, 1971 p 152

• Pritz 1988 p 83

• Bütz 2009 p 176

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

B) Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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