Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

A relatively new article about a fringe writer which could use some attention, I came across this today when its creator tried to add the author's website and sps book to Archaeoastronomy. Another attempt to publicise Herschel is here. Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My word but this page is a mess. I've made a few starter changes but this will probably need more than one editor to go through this and figure out whether this article is notable. An attempt has been made to establish notability by referencing mention in local news sources. Anybody able to confirm these? What were the references about?Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three new users have logged on since I proposed deletion crying that Herschel is a legitimate scientist that must not be deleted while entirely failing to grasp the underlying Wikipedia policies governing notability criteria. Help always appreciated trying to keep the debate on-topic.Simonm223 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quake everyone, Herschel write on Dan Brown's Facebook page that "I have writen to some top wikipedia personel and made my case asking for simple coverage within equal rules as other authors like me have been treated. (11 letters written)". He's now editing here as AstronomerPHD (talk · contribs) - although he has no PhD (perhaps no degree at all as he doesn't claim one), and is not an astronomer. He's annoyed about my asking about his name, he's mentioned that on Facebook. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody else think it hillarious that his main avenue of commuication with his friends seems to be poorly spelled missives on Dan Brown's facebook wall?Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... eleven letters? And no action? Yet more proof that all the "top wikipedia personel" are crypto-illuminati-Freemasons who are conspiring to silence "the truth". (rumored to be the subject of Dan Brown's next book "The Lost Wiki of Solomon's Secret Code"... Robert Langdon uncovers the hidden agenda behind the statement "Verifiability, not Truth", which leads him to a death defying race through Article space in search of clues as to the shocking contents of the original "deleted article"). Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLMFAO, that just made my day.Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel has not taken the deletion well, "WIKIPEDIA UK AUTHORITY DEMAND REMOVAL OF AUTHOR AND SOLOMON KEY FINDING

I have been told by the UK Wikipedia authority Joseph Seddon Re:Ticket#2009090210032671 that I must be removed. Other authors with less status than my own have the right to be on wikipedia but due to the material concerned, I have absolutely no right to be there. All that is left there is the image that I rendered on a separate page... and even my copyrights as the artist have been removed too for the Solomon Key cipher now to be public property. They are out right lying that it has expired. (it was only there two months and copyright text on it now removed) I am releasing all documentation to the media for next week with the other attacks to try and stop my book project that are underway right now. I presented all the third party references they asked for, TV coverage, Coast to Coast radio, many newspapers covering my findings as discoveries, not just an author, two periodicals on the Solomon key and more.

Authors like David Ike that self published, had no media covered historical discoveries, and claims the Queen of England is an alien has a full page spread."

And one of his fans replies "I hope you are able to resolve the above matter as soon as possible Wayne.It appears that a lot of underhanded goings on are taking place presently.Something needs to be done."

So sad. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see why he needed a 'co-writer'. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the writing biz we usually call them "ghost writers" it appears the "co-writer" got an "as told to" contract.Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I figured out why he's ranting about copyright finally. They are using an image of Herschel's re-drawing of circles from the hebrew edition of the Solomon's Key on Solomon's KeySimonm223 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key of Solomon you mean. But he gave it to Wikipedia, so what's he complaining about? One more thing he doesn't understand? Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding this truth there is also a good question as to whether he could copyright a facsimile of a public domain image just because he did the copying by hand. If I draw the golden arches do I have copyright over the McDonalds logo?Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this image -- if it's a manual redrawing, we should delete the image as unencyclopedic. I was under the impression that it is a facsimile directly from the BM manuscript. If it isn't, we don't have any use for it, we should acquire an actual facsimile instead. If Herschel copied this by hand I must admit he did a pretty convincing job with the Hebrew cursive. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, here is an actual facsimile of the page in question. I am convinced that Herschel did not redraw this but simply used photographic reproduction. What he apparently did do, though, was adding a cheesy "parchment-style" background (the actual manuscript is on paper). I will replace the cheesy image with the more encyclopedic one at commons. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Article deleted. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 05:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funky sources. Clean or AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would see if there are any better sources that discuss the topic (even to riducule it). If not, AfD. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are scattered mentions of black clouds in the paranormal literature, but they don't seem particularly notable. Merge somewhere? Fences&Windows 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merging into Ghost.Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that as an option too. Trim and merge into Ghost#Typology? Fences&Windows 18:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly.Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked. Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's up for AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colloidal silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is sort of a perennial trouble spot. "Conventional" authorities like the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the FDA, and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration tend to uniformly agree that it is ineffective and potentially toxic. However, a positive view of colloidal silver is represented by editors active on the page well in excess of its actual representation among experts in the field. Arguments put forth on the talk page tend to include personal websites, editorial testimonials (colloidal-silver-cured-my-dog-without-all-the-side-effects-of-conventional-antibiotics - seriously), medical treatises published in 1913, and the ever-popular conventional-medicine-was-wrong-about-leeches-too argument. Most recently, a negative study of Internet-marketed colloidal silver (PMID 15114827) was excised as "a tinpot study from Botswana". I would appreciate additional input. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That colloidal silver has ineffective and potentially toxic is an accurate statement regarding the above sources, and the general consensus of the scientific community. The tinpot study from Botswana (PMID 15114827) appears to be a standard application of microbiology techniques to demonstrate the utility of a substance as an antiseptic. In addition to testing an internet source, they also tested two home-made solutions at concentrations substantially exceeding those in the purchased one, and likewise found no demonstration of efficacy. While nanoscale particles are an area of active exploration in materials science, an observation of what is happening at Colloidal Silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is nothing short of advocacy, primarily one user. DHawker is a WP:SPA who has for the past two years apparently made edits to colloidal silver of any significance. 70.171.202.96 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia, anyone editor of fringe theories that doesn't side on the "Its a bunch of bullshit" side is immediately labeled an advocate. Colloidal silver is FAR FAR FAR less toxic than acetaminophen and ibuprofen (Which are known to cause harmful side effects beginning as low as a few hundred milligrams). Niether of those are labeled toxic in their lead. Argyria is not toxic, and neither is silver. If you think otherwise, please prove it on the talk page of Colloidal silver, or go change the silver article to say it is toxic and watch your change be reverted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had written a short paragraph on colloidal silver for the article alternative medicine over a year ago, but it was removed there quite soon and I didn't bother with fighting the fringe advocates back then, I already had enough of that. Here is that paragraph, I think it could be quite useful.

Colloidal silver was used before 1938 as an antibiotic, resulting in an "alarming increase"<ref:Gaul&Staud, 1935, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, quoted after Rosemary Jacobs My Story page/ref> of Argyria. Since latest 1995 is has been promoted as an alternative medicine, sparking heavy critique from a victim from the 1940s: "Colloidal silver (CSP) is not a new alternative remedy. It is an old, discarded traditional one that homeopaths and other people calling themselves "alternative health-care practitioners" have pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies, things mainstream medicine threw away decades ago."<ref:Rosemary Jacobs My Story page/ref> diff

I'm going to see whether I can get the articles from the medicine journals from the 1940s that are mentioned on the homepage, and if I'll get some support with that, I'll expand the article. Zara1709 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be discussed here, but that ref is clearly biased based on the wording. I guess the endless supply of antibiotics prescribed to patient by doctors now are the holy grail, clearly safe, with no danger, ever.

Argyria is just argyria. Is is cosmetic, and harmless. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "clearly biased based on the wording". So what? That's not a wiki-policy legimate argument for excluding a source. Try reading this section in our NPOV policy: Wikipedia:Npov#Neutral_point_of_view and the next section on "bias". Read the wording very carefully. We include biased sources all the time. Without them we wouldn't have articles. NPOV requires that we include sources from all sides of a debate, and thus obviously including biased ones, because we are supposed to tell the whole story from the real world as represented in V & RS. If there's a debate, we must document it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zara, Maybe comments like colloidal silver has been "pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies" could be considered somewhat biased language (and probably inaccurate too). But anyway, all the points you make are already covered in the colloidal silver article. The fact that silver can cause argyria is mentioned numerous times. BRangifer, I've read those policy statements you cited but I don't see that they justify including a word for word personal blast such as the one from Rosemary Jacobs about a product (CSP) that has virtually been unavailable for years. Its supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a blog. DHawker (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, this has now gone to Featured article removal candidates. I suspect it is not my place to say more than that. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors, Xellas (talk · contribs) and Paul H. (talk · contribs), are in a dispute about the appropriate level of coverage for the ideas of Robert Sarmast, and have escalated to the level of a WQA. It seems to me that the best solution is to bring more eyes to the question, and that this is the right place to do it. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H may not understand our policies and guidelines as well as some of us, but I'll vouch for his understanding of the subject and attitude - he may need some friendly guidance. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked at WQA, this is ridiculous. Paul H isn't Sarmast, Sarmast edits here but not for quite a while, and I told Xellas Paul's not Sarmast. I can't take direct action as I know Paul. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI I think as Xellas is both attacking Paul and trying to out him as Sarmast. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. LaViolette . . . is an American scientist who has proposed unorthodox physics theories and interpretations of the Bible, Mayan pictograms, the Zodiac and ancient Vedic stories. . . . LaViolette is the current president of the Starburst Foundation, an interdisciplinary scientific research institute."

This article was started on August 19 (by a now-blocked user) and seems to be generating some rancor, including this thread at ANI, and this AfD that closed without consensus on August 27. Fringe-experienced reviewers might be useful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is an RfC on notability of certain parts of the bio material.Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed what I saw as a pov statement, including something about a race of giants (Zamzumim}, and it was reverted by Til Eulenspiegel with the edit summary " the part you blanked makes no mention of any "giants", it merely states that the Hebrews conquered Canaan which is only disputed by fringe". Fringe has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, is Til right? Thanks. I've removed the text again. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who actually disputes that the Hebrews conquered Canaan? Are those few who dispute it now the "mainstream", and everyone else "fringe"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that anyone with a basic comprehension of archaeology would dispute that the Hebrews conquered Canaan. We simply do not have the data which indicates that there was ever an organized, homogenous conquest of "Canaanites" by "Hebrews". There is evidence of warfare, and the movement of people, but we are nowhere near having a clear picture of historical events in that period, or whether a distinct group of Canaanites ever controlled the area in the first place. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone with a basic comprehension of archaeology would dispute that the Hebrews conquered Canaan". Yes, I'm sure you would argue that, but on the other hand, there are entire magazines like Biblical Archeology Review devoted to the mountains of archaeology evidence of how Israelites came to be in Canaan. Stating that "basic comprehension" is required to agree with your POV seems like just typical rhetoric. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there are mountains of solid research done on how the Israelites came to be in Israel. However, there is no evidence of the exodus, or a conquest. We lack a clear view of the historical record in that time frame to clearly delineate between Canaanite and Israelite, which is to say that Israelites may actually have been Canaanites, or a blend of Canaanites and other peoples. Last week, archaeologists announced the discovery of a massive stone wall below the location of the City of David. We had no idea this was there, and aren't certain who built it. It dates to the time of the Canaanites, but we have nothing in the evidence that says the people who built the older wall weren't the ancestors of the people who built the City of David. I reworded the article to try and strike a compromise, leaving in references to the Bible as describing events, but not relying on the Bible to state these events as definitive. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's Biblical Archaeology Review, but you must know it's a pov journal and not in the top rank of archaeology journals. As for 'entire magazines like' it, what else is there? Are you thinking of Bible & Spade? That's your fringe. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you guys basically control wikipedia, why don't you just declare that the Bible is officially and unanimously declared "fringe", and be done with it? (In the name of "neutrality", of course) If anyone disagrees, just block them, then it will be "unanimous", right? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't control Wikipedia, or the Bible. However, the Bible is not a reliable source. It is an extremely important text because of its impact on history, however, it is not an accurate or contemporary record of the events it describes. More than anything, it represents a political text which was assembled after the Babylonian exile from various histories in order to create a unifying foundation myth for the Jewish kings of the time. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That theory is far from proven, and many other scholars and sources disagree. Why don't we just stick to presenting all of their views neutrally and impartially, instead of taking part in these marginalization games and trying to decide which ones are "right"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the Bible is not a reliable source is not in dispute. How or why it was written is certainly open to debate, but there is no question that the Bible is an important piece of history, rather than an accurate report of it. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. I never suggest that we consider the Bible a reliable source. But there is an opposite extreme view that says if the Bible says anything, it's automatically wrong and the opposite of true, even something as basic as saying the Israelites conquered Canaan. I don't take the Rig Veda as a reliable source either. But just because it says Aryans invaded India, can we then presume they definitely did not, because it is an unreliable source and therefore lying? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is ridiculous, nobody suggested anything like this. Incidentially, the Rigveda at no point says anything like "the Aryans invaded India". Hell, the Rigveda doesn't even have a concept of "India". --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conquest is certainly not fringe: as TE says, a lot of scholarship is dedicated to the idea that the outlines of history in the OT are more or less accurate. IMO, biblical accounts of history should not be deleted by a rational that they are fringe. OTOH, the conquest should not be presented simply as fact, but as the biblical account. What TE has restored is not neutral or impartial for this reason: "probably the best account of the Hebrew conquest"--the OT is the only account of the Hebrew conquest. kwami (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did restore that phrase, but didn't keep it there for long since whoever wrote it is obviously not impartial. Although the gentile Roman historians also mention it, btw. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, you have a fair point, but the rationale is not that the information presented in the Bible is fringe. The problem is that the Bible is known to be wildly innacurate on numerous things, while containing interpretations of actual historical events. Historical events portrayed in the Bible cannot be corroborated. If the Bible is the only account of the Hebrew conquest, this does not make it a reliable source that can be referenced. To that end, a description of Canaanites in an article can definitely include descriptions from the Bible, it would have to be presented along the lines of "While the historical record describes XYZ, much of the popular view of Canaanites comes from descriptions in the Bible. Because the Bible cannot be used as a trusted source, it describes the Canaanites as...". That said, such a section would have to be deeply subordinate in the article to any reliable sources. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion here - Til was calling the view that the Hebrews did not conquer Canaan fringe, I don't think anyone is calling the Bible fringe. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. Hiberniantears, that's way more than necessary. All we have to say is s.t. along the lines of 'according to biblical sources'. We don't need to get into a debate about how reliable the Bible is every time we mention s.t. biblical. (As for the Roman sources, wouldn't that be long long after the fact?) kwami (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Til (aka Codex Sinaiticus) has a long history of bible-thumping pov-pushing. Typically insisting on using the Bible directly as a secondary source, as evident by his complaint that we are "treating the Bible as fringe". The Hebrew Bible is, of course, neither fringe nor non-fringe, since it isn't a secondary source in the first place. It is a primary source, a compilation of Iron Age Hebrew texts. Be that as it may, the paragraph in question can be salvaged by improving it: it is almost never a question of "do we keep this material, yes or no" but one of how do we need to edit this to make it acceptable. Now the point here is conflation of the Biblical account with other evidence. In the topic of Canaan, the Biblical account is certainly highly notable, but it should be made very clear which bits are taken from the bible and which aren't. Consequently, the passage

"Many earlier Egyptian sources also make mention of numerous military campaigns conducted in Ka-na-na, just inside Asia. Probably the best descriptions of the Hebrew conquest and occupation of Canaan are given in Deuteronomy 3:12-17 and in Joshuah 12-21."

is not acceptable. We need one paragraph or section detailing the account in the Hebrew Bible, and another one detailing Egyptian sources, but we cannot conflate the two. Obviously, Deuteronomy and Joshuah are in no way a reference to the "many earlier Egyptian sources", which need to be specified in order to satisfy WP:CITE. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Til (aka Codex Sinaiticus) has a long history of bible-thumping pov-pushing." -- Yet another appeal to ad hominem "logic" and blatant personal attack, sounds familiar... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how is it ad hominem to call a pov pusher a pov pusher? I wasn't making a logical argument, I was imparting information for those unfamiliar with Til's history on Wikipedia. "Ad hominem" is something entirely different. It would be "ad hominem" to resort to comments unrelated to the content of Til's edits, instead speculating on his sexual preference, his intellect, his personal hygiene, or his mother. You get the idea. Saying Til has a history as a problem editor with an infatuation for the Hebrew Bible is about as detached and on-topic as it gets. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I would dispute that I am a "problem editor". That is only your personal and subjective opinion, isn't it? Just like I have witnessed countless scores of editors express their personal opinions about you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure. Most of the "countless scores" you mention are "editors" who were blocked because they were in fact socks of other blocked editors, or because they were trying to sabotage the project by inserting the sort of stuff WP:FRINGE is talking about. You can't write an encyclopedia without alienating some people who prefer to adhere to some pre-encyclopedic, pre-rational worldview. If you are one of those, you need only say. Oh, and there is Ottava Rima (talk · contribs). This isn't so much pre-rational as post-rational, this chap will go on an epic crusade to shoot the messenger who told him he was wrong before considering just admitting he was wrong. Perhaps you want to join his cause of "Dbachmann is an evil vandal". Or then you could just focus on the issue and try to discuss the Bible encyclopedically instead of your regular hysteria on how Wikipedia mistreats it as "fringe". I would be more accommodating if you were a new user, Til, but you have been doing this literally for years, and you show no signs of a learning curve. Everyone is entitled to their "personal opinion". But your opinion will put you in a company. And you will be known by the company you keep. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite possibly the most arrogant diatribe directed against other editors I have ever read on wikipedia, with some other comments you routinely make coming a close second. Whatever happened to "comment on edits, not the editor?" Doesn't seem to apply to you. I don't have any more time to waste on your obvious superiority complex and predilection for baiting and accusing everyone with whom you disagree, but neither will I ever acknowledge the pretended superiority you imagine you have over me, and I am no longer going to be baited into continuing this discussion where it doesn't belong since I have better things to do. What you are speaks enough for itself. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refocusing on the content question: Assertions that the Biblical accounts of ancient Middle Eastern history are factually accurate are almost certainly fringe views. This is akin to stating that Homer's famous version of the Trojan War is a factually accurate recounting of history. Kernels of truth exist, but we must mainly rely on current mainstream scholarship to identify those portions (and to identify how they've been altered in the narrative) and most certainly should not take Biblical acocunts at face value. Jericho's walls are the prime example of the conquest: The walls did certainly fall, but the city was in area then prone to earthquakes and the city itself was a ghost town during the purported time of Joshua (or at least thus is general consensus of secular archaeology). In a similar vein, the overwhelming majority of scholarship sees a complete lack of evidence for the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. It is also important to note that modern archaeology generally considers the Iron Age Hebrews to be fundamentally Canaanite in language and culture even as late as five centuries after the supposed conquest (even extending into the time after the united monarchy is said to have split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel). Accounts with some considerable distance in time from this period are generally considered to have a greater foundation in historical fact, but are still usually regarded as heavily biased and edited versions of historical truth at best.

tl;dr version: Insisting that the Bible is an accurate representation of Iron Age history in the region is a fringe view. --Vassyana (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the overwhelming majority of scholarship sees a complete lack of evidence for the Hebrew conquest of Canaan." That's the old circular argument appealing to the "overwhelming majority of scholarship" in a hotly disputed question, if it discounts an equally vast body of scholarship as "fringe" just because it does see solid historical evidence that Israel conquered Canaan and established a polity on their territory. We should acknowledge that there is a dispute among the scholars over the degree of accuracy or inaccuracy, but the most neutral path is always to describe what these positions are impartially, not officially marginalize one POV to endorse the other. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's nothing new, certain people have been trying to rewrite Israel completely out of the history books as much as possible, ever since it started. Never mind Egyptian propaganda, rest assured there are still people today who wish they could bring back the Imperial Romans' Damnatio memoriae that tried to efface the name of Judea following Bar Kokhba and rename it Palaestina. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's reminiscent of Finkelstein's being accused of anti-Semitism - I'd appreciate it if you'd make clear you aren't accusing any of us of anti-Semitism. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Doug, I didn't accuse you or anyone else here, but what I said is still certainly true of bona fide Anti-Semites in the world (not anyone on wikipedia of course). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We agree on that but it seems irrelevant here. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No ancient source is taken uncritically by modern historians. Not the Bible, not Herodotus, not Tacitus, no one. Historians always look over these sources carefully and examine them for whatever biases the writers might have had. We should treat the Bible no different than other ancient historical documents in this regard — sure, we can describe what the sources say about a topic, but we should also take care to discuss how these primary sources have been evaluated by scholars in the modern era. In many cases this will entail saying that Herodotus/Tacitus/the Bible say "X" but modern scholarship holds that this is a myth for reasons "Y", "Z", etc. *** Crotalus *** 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have Satbir Singh (talk · contribs), still merrily spamming us with his unspeakable Kamboja essays. I just discovered Komedes, but there are lots of others. I would be grateful if I wasn't the only one trying to contain this. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, all research on psychic powers this fellow did was completely successful and uncriticised. Who knew? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 11:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Precognition presents itself as entirely a real phenomena. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Pavel Stepanek was never, ever shown to be anything but a full-out psychic phenomenon.

Displacement (parapsychology) shows that if you guess wrongly in a trial, but would have guessed rightly if you had made that guess at some other time, that can be used as evidence of parapsychology too, and there is absolutely no problem with this, indeed, the article says it's a statistically proven phenomena.

...Ah, screw it. Just check the contributions of Rodgarton (talk · contribs). I caught him abusing sources horribly at Parapsychology, and simple requests afterwards like "You claim this paper on card guessing significantly advanced the field of statistics. Can you show it was ever cited in a non-parapsychological context?" were met with non sequiturs like "I don't need to prove it! It was published in a non-parapsychological journal, that's all that's necessary to show parapsychology advanced statistics!" and, later, "Other papers in that journal are cited." Copious personal attacks were also provided.

Rodgarton is pretty much the epitome of a POV-pushing single purpose account, and a thorough review is almost certainly necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Joseph Banks Rhine is pretty much an advertisement for parapsychology, start to finish - criticism is only mentioned briefly, and immediately belittled. This is the fellow Langmuir invented the term pathological science to describe the studies of. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Warcollier leaves me asking: how is he notable? Seems to be yet another self-published fringe theorist who started a self-created foundation to make his "work" seem legitimate. Dime-a-dozen.Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we have a situation where bio articles have been written on people who are well known within a narrow Fringe field, but are unheard of beyond it. If wider notablility can not be established, we should consider deletion. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will support an AfD on those criteria but it may be an up-hill battle as there are cited references.Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention the reason I was checking these articles is because their creator abuses sources horribly (for an analysis of one such section he wrote, and his increasingly irrational defenses, see the first big table at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1‎), and is purely a pro-Parapsychology SPA.. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well he has already started spreading about invective about pseudo-skeptics and I had to put a neutrality tag on a statistics article he edits so... understood.Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think an RFC or similar on him would help? He isn't really here to improve the encyclopedia. just to push his POV. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered something very interesting:

26 July, at Meta-analysis, he makes the following change

The claim he makes there is almost certainly false, see http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/12/579 - a comprehensive analysis of the history of metanalyses that makes no such claim, whereas his cite for the extraordinary claim is to a conference paper presented at a fringe theory conference - however, more interestingly, despite what he wrote there, he makes a very different, very much more inflated claim in Parapsychology:

Parapsychology, 11 August. [1]

Same reference. Claim he knew was false. Bad. Faith. Editor. Let's ban him. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He also has made repeated personal attacks in talk pages, major violator of WP:CIVIL; this is rather annoying. The entire "pseudo-skeptic" lable he bandies about is just a concealed way of criticizing non-believers for questioning in-universe sources he provides supporting "PSI phenomena" (or as I would call it hoaxes, poor experiment design, pattern seeking behaviour and superstition).Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just what is a "pseudo-skeptic" anyway?... someone who is not skeptical enough? Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who uses the cloak of skepticism to attack things they don't believe in, when objective skepticism would not have a problem with it. It's the methodology of many conspiracy theories. (Or at least that's my take on the word. We should have an entry at Wiktionary.)

However, in practice, a "pseudo-skeptic" is anyone who debunks something that I believe in. Since they fail to recognize the Truth, their skepticism must be false. kwami (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami basically hit the nail on the head; believers in this sort of hokum assume that a real skeptic would remain open to their theory and admit that a UFO was equally likely to a Sun Dog since it can not be known either way. Anybody who argues that although certainty can not be attained near certainty can be by the assumption that a parsimonious fitting solution (IE: a Sun Dog) is more likely than one that depends on extraneous entities must not be a real skeptic and thus they are a pseudo-skeptic.Simonm223 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pseudoskeptic: someone who is skeptical more than enough, to the point of WP:COI.. for an encylopedic definition; Pseudoskeptic#Pseudoskepticism. Logos5557 (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Fatima UFO Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jacques Vallée (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I redirected the UFO Hypothesis article to the article of its main proponent. "The Fatima UFO Hypothesis" article's citations were exclusively to proponents' books published by Anomalist Books and references that do not address the UFO theory. Thus, the article was highly inappropriate in the context of both "no original research" and notability. It served as little more than a soapbox to expound on proponent's views. The redirect was reversed by Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) with the edit summary of "redirect and virtual deletion done without discussion or good explanation". I have reinstated the redirect and left a message for Zacherystaylor explaining the problems with the article (User talk:Zacherystaylor#Fatima UFO Hypothesis, permalink). Additional eyes would be welcome on this topic. Also, did I take the correct action here? Is my rationale sound or lacking? Vassyana (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sound to me. But, then, cleaning up the UFO fringe stuff on wikipedia is a stated goal for me so I may constitute a slightly biassed person to confirm from.Simonm223 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) made an extensive and heartfelt plea to keep this article. Unfortunatly the internal logic actually made an extensive and heartfelt plea to keep this article. I have said I would support redirecting to The Miracle of the Sun rather than to the Jacques Vallée article if he would prefer that. Considering that he posted a huge block of text complaining we don't want to discuss the issue and then said he would not be responding to rebuttals for a while so I don't know... might be easier to just keep it at Jacques Vallée.Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After giving it some thought I'm going to be bold and swap the redirect to The Miracle of the Sun.Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) is back again and has launched an RfC on the redirect based on the same "virtual deletion" argument previously used in the timewave zero debacle. I have restored the redirect and commented that he was pointed to the RfC on the issue of whether redirects are deletions a week ago but eyes will be needed.Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Open, interested parties may want to have a look.Simonm223 (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A page created exclusively for the purpose of ethnic bickering among Turks, Armenians and Kurds, under the pretext of the name of a cat breed. The article didn't even bother to link to the article on the cat in question before I touched it. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a whole heap of forks on this topic:

• Van Cat naming controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Van Kedisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Turkish Van (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Turkish Vankedisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Van cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a dab page)

Merging the whole shebang into a single neutral article would seem to be appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the internet loves cats, but this is ridiculous. This kind of self-publicity by cats must not be tolerated![2] Fences&Windows 23:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some attention, Systemizer (talk · contribs) is adding what is apparently OR, but eyes from more scientific types would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if it is OR or not but it is certainly hardcore edit warring. 8 reverts against edits by 4 editors in 24 hours is double-plus-un-good. I have notified 3RR noticeboard.Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Holographic principle is being spammed in the same way by the same editor, who refuses to participate on the talk page. Verbal chat 20:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm waiting on the 3RR admin board to do something before I engage him further in edit warring.Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been blocked for two weeks. Looie496 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently meridians have been proven to exist, and light proven to flow through them. This article is a spammy mess of poor sources and COI advertising. More eyes please. Verbal chat 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organic waveguides in the optical regime: applications to electromagnetic signal induction in biological systems. Also, the article is at AfD now; despite the spammy CoI issues, I am not sure it should be. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does look a lot better now. Will have to check the sources etc if I ever have time. Verbal chat 18:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a content dispute Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl has been removed [3] pr WP:Fringe & WP:UNDUE and not a WP:RS from an article. Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Scholar that article, published in 1967, has a rousing total of 6 citations, none from reputable sources. Google Books shows a few cites, none very important. I basically don't see any discussion of this article from strong sources, so I don't think it should be treated as evidence that the views it describes have been influential. In claiming that extermination of intellectuals is an essential feature of communism it's at least getting close to being fringe, but one way or another I don't think it should be treated as a strong RS. Looie496 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This fringe blp may be unintentionally hilarious, but I think it suffers from several problems, including coatracking, peacocking and puffery, an unencyclopedic and credulous tone, and undue weight. It's a big job though, I'm not sure where to start - and I'm sure tagging will be bitterly resisted. Related awful article Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010... Verbal chat 08:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to apply my favorite Wikipedia policy (WP:BOLD) and redirect the "prediction" article to Igor Panarin.Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great. User:Лъчезар was the fellow who was driving us crazy in the moon land hoax article. Maybe this guy needs to find something else to do besides editing here. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's coatracking lunacy but it's almost worth keeping until June 2010 just to see what the excuses are for the failed prediction of the carve-up of the US. --Folantin (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone familiar with pseudoscience take a look at Alfred Matthew Hubbard? This article has some strange fringe claims: "In addition to being a major proponent of LSD, earlier in life, Al Hubbard invented a device at the age of 16 which provided enough energy to power a boat around Portage Bay, on Lake Union, in Seattle, Washington." They are saying that he invented the "most powerful nuclear battery ever created, and as early as 1919, easily making it the first" — which definitely sets off some red flags in my mind. This article needs major review and cleanup and I don't have the knowledge or resources to do it myself. *** Crotalus *** 15:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These claims are sourced to Rex Research, a one man operation that disseminates information about "suppressed, dormant, or emerging Sciences, Technologies, Inventions, Theories, Therapies, and miscellaneous Alternatives that offer some Hope of helping to Liberate Humanity from itself. " Not exactly a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources and a capsule bio here, it's quite clear that the coil was a free energy scam. A 1928 Popular Science article on "fuelless motors" characterizes it as a perpetual motion hoax. [4] Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Quantum mysticism

Please look to Talk:Quantum mysticism#Third opinion. This discussion has been shifted to absurd rhetoric and I can't start a user RFC until there is more than one party involved. Thanks to anyone willing to deal with all the parties involved.--OMCV (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(moved here from policy RfC by Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have been looking at it but I've found it impossible to follow the quantity of verbiage that has been generated. Not really sure what to do. Looie496 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and lots of it! Simonm223 (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum mysticism?... Let me guess... if you seal a cat up in a box with a hunk of radioactive rock... can you determine if it has achieved a higher plane of existance without looking in the box? Or perhaps... is it really that sinful to seal cats up in radioactive boxes? Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If some more medical type doctors could look over this article and check whether it is fringe or not, and accurate, I'd be grateful at least. There are a few warning signs - such as "despite FDA approval there is no evidence that it works..." (paraphrase) Verbal chat 18:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That paraphrase isn't quite accurate -- what the article says is that there is no understanding of how it works -- there is indeed evidence that it works, although not huge amounts of it. I don't think this should be considered fringe when used for the specific purpose of bone healing -- however there is a tendency in the alternative med community to push treatments like this beyond their validated uses. (I should say that I'm a biologist but not an M.D.. WikiProject Medicine is often a good place if you want input specifically from M.D.'s.) Looie496 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I misread. Maybe it should be made clearer. Thanks. Verbal chat 08:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not especially bad but there's no strong warning like "THIS IS FALSE".. and there are some pro-dowsing sources that are presented as reliable. Does anyone have access to some reliable studies? .froth. (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor tweaking could be used in section on evidence and in lede to make sure there is adherence to WP:DUE but in general the article looks fair and balanced. Suggest consulting JREF and the magazines Skeptic and Skeptical Enquirer for sources if it is felt WP:DUE would be served by additional information on dowsing debunking.Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of good information on this article but there are a few editors who insist on adding npov stuff or poorly referenced pseudoscience and paranormal information; in particular there are a lot of links to BLT Research Team INC. which is a not-peer-reviewed journal about crop circles and Haselhoff, Eltjo (2001) "The Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles:Scientific Research & Urban Legends", Frog Ltd, ISBN 1583940464. Frog publishing is a small publisher that focuses on the paranormal. Neither of these seem to be reliable sources but I'm afraid removing them will result in an edit war since these sources provide the best evidence for paranormal explanations of crop circles. Could either of these be considered reliable sources? Does anyone have suggestions for fixing the articles npov problems? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's been a problem since forever. Remove it, explain it patiently to them, and if they perist then call the cavalry. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure that having "editors who insist on adding npov stuff" is a bad thing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he means WP:UNDUE stuff. Although I see nothing wrong with using "a small publisher that focuses on the paranormal" in an article that is already dedicated to the small world of paranormal fringe theories. --dab (𒁳) 18:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem comes when they start adding "balancing" paragraphs asserting the paranormal POV after each discussion of provably man-made circles. I tweaked it a bit, it's not as bad as it has been in the past though, not by a long way. At one point there were editors who sought to portray the idea that circles are man-made as a minority POV going against the overwhelming scientific consensus - the scientists in qwuestion being so-called "cerealogists". Guy (Help!) 12:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of cleaning up this article but would appreciate outside eyes (drum shot) and review. I'd be shocked that this topic was presented with such a high level of credence, but I've been around here long enough to know better. There seems to be some connection with the Bates Method, which I remember to have been a contentious topic but don't know the specifics of. Skinwalker (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the impassioned defense on Talk:Sungazing wherin the advocate admits to having permanent visual artifacts. Skinwalker (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a report on a bizarre project that claims that any tiny statistical variation in a random number generator that occurs for any length of time any time within a few days of an event the authors deem important is proof of psychic powers.

• Presents this as legitimate, respected science
• Leaves all criticism out of the lead
• Minimises criticism and gives proponents of the project the last word to any criticism.

In short, a pretty bad article. A lot of the articles in could use a similar cleanup, since a lot of true believers have pulled out the crankiest research in parapsychology and made promotional articles out of it. More mainstream parapsychological articles tend to be better. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some improvements and fixed some of the worst wp:undue and wp:npov problems. I cleaned up the citations a little but was unable to add any new or reliable sources, which would go a long way to getting this article into shape. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some further edits to sharpen it and reorganised it. I've put some sources on the talk page here. Fences&Windows 20:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to bow out. I have found some of the comments on the talk page to be quite offensive for personal reasons but I don't believe they actually violate WP policy. If I continue I fear, however, that I may violate WP:CIVIL. Sorry guys. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a report on him up on ANI. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get some eyes over here Displacement (parapsychology) to confirm or counter my reasoning on the talk page. I'm about the only one on the talk page and if the article gets returned to a redirect I'd like to have more than my say-so for the basis.Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article plagued by normal notable-fringe-researcher problems with PoV, Peacockery, etc. Please help. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started to clean it up, but the "Research" section is unsalvageable. It's just a list of Fortean claims peripherally connected to Radin. If a 3rd party reliable source can be found to draw from, that's what's needed to base a rewrite on. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article currently undergoing astroturfing to give the possibility that he has psychic abilities undue weight. - Nunh-huh 11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible recreation (sort of) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dropa. That was a better article. Neither had much about the Dropa -- this one is actually about the so-called Dropa stones. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Dropa thing is just about the worst example of bad archaeology ever. See here for details. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted now as a recreation of an article deleted through AfD. I was tempted but felt I was too involved. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved previously and thus felt no such need for restraint. Glad this awful little hoax is no longer on Wikipedia. _{I've always found the underlying hypothesis of Erich Von Daaniken to be actually quite racist, this idea that the only way non-Europeans could have accomplished anything lasting is through alien intervention, and I hate to see his made-up stories having undue space on Wikipedia.} Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

There's this article at Zero-point field that seems to promote various alternative theories about quantum mechanics and zero point field in a manner not consistent with Wikipedia's policies on the issue. I went and started to discuss it on the talk page at that article, and they seemed to want to turn it into a discussion about the validity of the theories and not how it conforms to WP policy or fails to do so. It seems to involve a group of anon editors, and they're threatening to pull the dispute tag. What to do about this? You should also review the discussion at Talk:Zero-point field too (the last couple of threads about neutrality dispute). mike4ty4 (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article seems reasonable. The section on "Andrei Sakharov and the elasticity of space" seems essayish and a bit inflated. The section called "Related" is really bad. It says, "Such views are not without controversy. Some see such discussion as pseudoscience. [22] However, physicist David Bohm and other respected scientists...". The reality is that nearly all physicists see this as utter nonsense. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. However some also seems to recapitulate stuff already said in Zero-point energy, like the bit about the harmonic oscillator, so perhaps it needs to be worked more into the context of the quantum field theory, as the very first part "In quantum field theory, the zero-point field (or zpf) is the lowest energy state of a field, i.e. its ground state, which is non zero.[1] This phenomenon gives the quantum vacuum a complex structure, which can be probed experimentally; see, for example, the Casimir effect. The term "zero-point field" is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field." Also there seems to be so much focus on the E/M field, is not there a zero point field of every quantum field? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just went in and tweaked the "new age" theories bit. What do you think of the revised version? mike4ty4 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize there are two articles. I don't really see any need for that. Looie496 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this one is that there are virtually no reliable sources, no one takes it seriously enough, so we are ending up with a number of fringe sites used as links. See the edit history as well, please. Thanks. (any time you see Clyde Winters name, be assured it is fringe). Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is a scientist with an interest in fringe science. He seems to have written the article himself and his English is poor. Hence the article is listed for wikification, which is how I found it, and now as having multiple issues. Someone with a physics background could probably knock it into shape more quickly than I can. Is the subject notable anyway? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems non-notable to me after a read. Putting it up for a PROD. If he is notable that should get some RSes into it quick. Otherwise problem solved.Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in discussions back in 2007 Cardone citing pages on Ruggero Santilli and Giovanni Amelino-Camelia as parallels to his that have persisted without deletion discussions. Both do indeed seem to be similar cases. I will prod. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Haven't prodded, as have read more and cases are more complicated. Santilli is director of an institute, subject of an article that was up for deletion, then kept. Amelino-Camelia - don't know if if he is fringe or not, notable or not. Noncommutative geometry is clearly not fringe, its application to physics also doesn't seem to be. Whether or not he is a leading figure on its application to physics as the article asserts, I would have no idea. More eyes on such articles would be great. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he is fringe or not isn't a criterion for WP:PROF being director of an institute might or might not be. What institute?Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His own Institute for Basic Research. Definitely fringe, possibly notable, article judged worthy of keeping although perhaps that should be reviewed. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... doesn't meet WP:PROF.Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a fringe topic that is occasionally full of many unsourced claims. Please add WP:RS, and otherwise improve the page. Verbal chat 09:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I really have to contribute is already there. I put the page on watch and if any unsourced claims pop up I'll be on it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged to Pseudoarcheology. The only reliable source I found in my searches is the Salon article already in the external links. This book chapter touches on the issues too:[5], mentioning "seemingly-out-of-place artifacts" in a footnote. There just isn't the reliable source coverage for a stand-alone article. Fences&Windows 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my biggest concern with the current form of the article is that it gives the impression that the Maine penny is fringey. It may be fraudulent, as the article explains, but since the Vikings were indisputably present in Newfoundland around that time, there is nothing bizarre about the idea that a single Viking penny may have made its way down to Maine. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. I only left it in because... well... the two editors who recently became active on this, Verbal and I, both have a bit of a reputation and I really didn't want to be involved with yet another accusation of back-handed deletion argument at the moment. (For the record, when I want an article deleted I put up an AFD and I'm tired of having people call valid redirects and merges back-handed deletions.) Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OOPs are a significant topic in archaeology and anthropology. While they are often used for fringe theory promotion, they are also an important teaching tool in the field. OOPs are broadly discussed as reasons why a skeptical, conservative, and exacting methodology is required in digs and the analysis of data acquired in them. I do not believe that I have still have my textbooks that mention them, but it should not be difficult to find textbooks discussing the phenomena and how it emphasizes the importance of solid field and research practices. The Center for Inquiry and other clearly reliable skeptics have also addressed the topic in various publications. The article should focus on the handful of most prominent examples and the scholarly use of the topic that I just mentioned. A paragraph or short section noting the (mis)use of OOPs for fringe theories, most notably within the broad field of "alternative history" (pseudoarchaeology), would be appropriate and sufficient. Vassyana (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find good sources you'll be doing better than I. My searches for "out of place artifact[s]" got almost no reliable sources, am I missing a good alternative search strategy, or will offline sources probably be needed? Fences&Windows 23:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here: [6], [7], [8]. Can someone keep an eye on this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for those who are admins, a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. User:Cs32en has been editing disruptively for months now. This is just the latest example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend checking the talk page history for the required notice. This user is well aware. I've disputed their editing before and believe they were notified then. Next, go to WP:AE and request an indefinite topic ban from an uninvolved admin.Jehochman ^Talk 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest For Knowledge has insisted on adding/maintaining content that is not supported by independent secondary reliable sources. [9] [10] [11] While the user would always (correctly) insist that content that he dislikes must be based on independent secondary reliable sources, he apparently does not consider this necessary for content that he likes.

However, if content from Matt Taibbi's book, for example, could be included in the article, then content from David Ray Griffin's books would be admissible, too. Of course, such a general rule would be unhelpful and in violation of Wikipedia policies.

I hope that A Quest For Knowledge will reconsider his actions. I have already warned the user that his actions may be considered edit-warring.  Cs32en  12:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Aaronovitch is a British journalist who authors regular columns for The Guardian and The Times. Aaronovitch won the What The Papers Say award for a writer about broadcasting, the Orwell prize for journalism and the What The Papers Say Columnist of the Year award.BBC News His articles on conspiracy theories have been published by WP:RS including 9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet. He's been featured in National Geographic's 9/11: Science and Conspiracy documentary.

Matt Taibbi is a journalist whose articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories have been published by Rolling Stone magazine including 9/11 Truth: Bald Regurgitation of Another Bombing Conspiracy and THE LOW POST: The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies. He was also featured in National Geographic's 9/11: Science and Conspiracy documentary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there should be enough reliable, independent secondary sources that have reported on the opinions of both authors.  Cs32en  19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User is aware of the decision per [this AE thread]. However, since he's a single purpose account, he got a pass, after promising, er, nothing. But hey, Wikipedia is an experiment in internet sociology, and if people just blocked individuals like Cs32en the second they appeared there wouldn't be the requisite drama, right? Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've filled out a request for arbitration enforcement.[12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comments on the actual merits, but from the viewpoint of somebody who hasn't been involved in this (i.e., me), the diffs in that AE request don't even come close to justifying action. If Cs32en has committed other sins, you will have to point to them. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Looie496; I am quite familliar with both sides of the argument as some members of my family subscribe to 911 conspiracy theories while my own skeptcisim prevents me from saying more than there is a slight, very unlikely, possibility of subterfuge beyond the official story. Frankly the most recent edit from Cs32en was removal of a properly referenced source that suggests that belief in 911 conspiracies is idiotic. Though it appears to meet the criteria for inclusion I can certainly understand why somebody would not want to have wikipedia calling them an idiot. I am inclined to say that, while I may not personally agree with Cs32en's position it does not warrant any sort of punitive action on the part of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That some sources use words such as "idiot" is not really a problem. Every reader may decide for him or herself whether to take such sources seriously. However, we should not make those sources appear to be more notable or prominent than they actually are.  Cs32en  15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe religious figure, huge biography, few citations, needs serious pruning.Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tagged a bunch of stuff and tried to fix the PoV a little. Help would be useful. Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as theosophy related figures go, Prophet is actually quite prominent. I have access to a lot of material about that general topic area and NRMs in general. I have some other wiki obligations that I need to attend to first, but some time later today or in the next few days, I will dig around for some sources and help prune/rewrite the article. If I don't get to it sometime in the next few days, please leave me a talk page message as a reminder. Vassyana (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is rather significant, and actually rather important to the new NRM workgroup as well. The recent biography by her daughter, Prophet's daughter by Erin L. Prophet would be a great source for the article if anyone has access to it. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no doubt, she is notable but the article is a mess. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This pending AfD might benefit from review by some fringe-policy savants.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which was previously a racist troll magnet called Race and crime, has reared its ugly head again. Some have tried to fix the problems, and the article is better than that it replaced, but it still contains (until I removed them anyway) raw statistics, in a table format without any contextualising or explanatory text, and some fringe theories, one factoid sections (removed), and a section "Racially motivated crime" which contains a paragraph about one rather dubious theory. Many many more eyes and opinions please (I may be being overly harsh as I remember the problems with this article in the past, so please can as many of you go and have a look, and see what you can do). Verbal chat 15:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very random collection of anecdotes from various publications. I'd start by looking for publications that summarize what other scientists have written, and things that have received attention outside of the scientific community. The article should also contain a section on the evolution of the controversy inside and outside of the scientific community. The current structure of the article is unhelpful for further development. I suggest removing content that is not supported by independent secondary sources as a first step.  Cs32en  15:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a suggestion last time this came to this board to expand such an article to become Demography and crime, to give balanced coverage of the impact of demography on crime. Fences&Windows 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt whether this article will be rescuable and although the Demography and crime suggestion could be considered, I don't hold out much hope for it either. You can pluck two ideas from the air and they will sound like an essay question (miniskirts and antisocial behaviour; alcoholism and computer games; Heideggerian philosophy and climate change). They may not make a good essay question though, and it is not the way to generate an encyclopedia article. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section Pre-Graves goddess threesomes in Triple Goddess has a {{cn}} tag on virtually every clause. I'm inclined to delete the whole section, but if anyone would like to take a crack at cleaning it up before I take WP:BOLD action, be my guest. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have provoked a burst of referencing, which is good, because it would be a real shame to lose that material if it is valid. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, the "sources" added are all primary sources with the 'interpretation' of them is being done by an editor. I'd leave the section up for a while, there is some potentially citable content there hidden amongst the nonsense. Any help properly citing it would be appreciated! Davémon (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brought to attention of this board as it involves WP:EXTREMIST AfD up. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear content fork with Random Number Generator. Article creator is opposing redirect. Third party opinions welcome. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't think this is a proper redirect. The material in that article does not belong in Random Number Generator in my opinion, so by redirecting, you're effectively deleting the article without discussion. The phrase "random event generator" gets 447 hits on Google Scholar (virtually all parapsychology-related), including a number of articles that use it in their titles, so a claim that it does not deserve coverage on Wikipedia would be doubtful at best. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the name in what way is a "random event generator" different from a "random number generator"? Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways: first, it runs in hardware whereas most random number generators are actually "pseudorandom" algorithms that generate sequences that are not truly random; second, it is used for a specific purpose whereas software random number generators are used for a huge range of purposes. A "random event generator" is a type of random number generator, but its use is so unusual and fringey that it would be undue weight to even mention it in the random number generator article. Random event generators are notable but barely so; random number generators are a major topic in computer science that every programmer needs to understand. Looie496 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the alternate redirect (which links to parapsychological uses of the hardware device) satisfy you? I am fine with it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Being hardware doesn't make it not pseudorandom, that would depend on the hardware - and it should be discussed at random number generation. Parapsychology isn't the only, or even a very good, application for real random numbers. The software/hardware debate is also a bit misleading - there really isn't much difference between them, any hardware can be implemented in software - and hardware is generally "petrified software". All instances of general purpose software and hardware are used for a specific purpose, so I don't see what that changes. The new redirect is the best resolution I feel.Verbal chat 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the redirect is that if things go as they usually do on Wikipedia, somebody will remove that material from the random number generator article in a week or so, and nobody will complain about it. (I'm certainly not going to keep watch for this.) Other than that, the only quibble I have with what you wrote is that unless you believe in hidden variables, quantum mechanical randomness is "true" randomness that can't be implemented in software. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{Undent}I wouldn't entirely rule out hidden variable theories within quantum mechanics; it's fully possible that there is deterministic crap happening that we just haven't observed or effectively described with math just yet. But that's getting a bit off topic. I have no intention of removing information from random number generator either, I understand your concern but I'm reticent to allow a POV fork in the off chance that somebody deletes properly referenced discussion to a fringe use of hardware derived random number generators. Simonm223 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware means all physical artifacts, not just related to computers (and actually hardware in "hardware number generator" means "physical artifacts"). A zener diode is a hardware for instance, which can provide random data based on its thermal noise. You can't upload (or petrify) a software into a zener diode but you can use a software to collect and transform the data from it. Therefore, there is a huge difference between hardware and software random number generators. When the source is physical, it is hardware random generator, when the source is an algorithm or a software it is pseudorandom number generator. Logos5557 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a topic appropriate for discussion in random number generator. Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the recreation of Astrotheology.PelleSmith (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously AfDed & deleted -- see WP:Articles for deletion/Astrotheology. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derham's book seems notable enough as per Google scholar here and even JSTOR has a few articles relating to the subject here, but the article is a mess. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]