Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 34

Nutrigenomics

This bit sounds ok

By doing so, nutrigenomics aims to develop rational means to optimise nutrition, with respect to the subject's genotype.

This bit sounds less ok

" it allows the examination of how nutrients affect the thousands of genes present in the human genome. Nutrigenomics involves the characterization of gene products and the physiological function and interactions of these products. This includes how nutrients impact on the production and action of specific gene products and how these proteins in turn affect the response to nutrients."

The references look not-good. And having a quick look on the WWW shows me that a lot of people who use the word "nutrigenomics" also use words like "reiki" or "healing energy" and so on.

Is "nutrigenomics" valid science with fringe hangers-on (like anything quantum)? Or is it bunkum?

--178.103.43.176 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a very confusing system. :-/

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory (3rd nomination)

There is currently an AfD on Heim theory. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

Christian Science

There is a lot of discussion, at Jimbo's page, NPOVN and Christian Science as to whether it's neutral to call Christian Science pseudoscience in connection with it's positions on Medicine and Science. More knowledgeable input welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no - this is outside the remit of this noticeboard. There is no 'fringe theory' involved, in any meaningful sense, and we have no mandate to extend the brief of Wikipedia policy regarding fringe matters to include religious belief. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To me, the belief (which has ~100,000 adherents) that science and medicine are an illusion and should be rejected in favour of spiritual science and faith healing is profoundly fringe. Note that Christian science is a religious group, it is not "Christianity and Science". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So if it was the Roman Catholic church, with a billion plus members, it wouldn't be fringe? Anyway, you miss my point - Christian Science isn't a fringe theory, not because it isn't 'fringe', but because it isn't a 'theory'. It is a system of religious belief. It is outside the remit of this noticeboard. Or if it isn't then something seriously needs to be done to ensure that it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regardless of how deep I examine your inner workings, and alas, find the beliefs on your cuff, also in the deepest part; it is your POV! I find the notion that your being thoroughly convinced, extrapolates the reality I must assent, to be foremost amongst fringe ideas; perhaps even brain-food for the lunatic fringe.  --My76Strat (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Err, what? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice response. Get back to me after you examine the meaning of profound. Then we can discuss how that term you wish to freely ascribe, at leisure, is not of your provenance! What would you do if you weren't consistently labeling the fringe pseudosciences, or explaining your infallibility in doing so?  --My76Strat (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Err, what?" likely refers to your edit seemingly lacking a point or any context and not because Wolfie doesn't understand the word profound. I'm sure the long verbosity of your prose makes perfect sense in your head but this is not the first time you've written something that appears incomprehensible (not to say that with a fine tooth and comb it wouldn't make sense, but who has time for that?). Actually, am I remembering wrong or did something like that come out at your RFA? Sædon^talk 02:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You're not remembering wrong; you're applying what you remember, wrongly! It does not require effort, like you describe, to communicate with me. IRWolfie- knew my manner;^[1] he knew the color of my prose. And the message was evidently clear^[2] as well. I reject the assertions; misplacing "the long verbosity of your prose", as criticism, imply. Thoroughly!  --My76Strat (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If use and custom, having the help of so long time and continuance wherein to eschew obfuscation, of so great learning and experience be which to furnish matter for the refining, of so good wits and judgments which can tell how to refine, have griped at nothing in all that time, with all the cunning of a splattered blancmange whose nacreous, almost luminescent sheen conjured within me an image of a rather Plantagenet style by all those wits which they will not let go but hold for most certain in the right of our writing, then Wikipedia only puts forward the principled request but with no certainty to trust to. But the antecedent, in my opinion, is altogether turgid, wherefore the consequent is a great more than probable for a non-autochtone, and thus we/they also can emerge the new idea unceasingly in the construction -- constructing while revising -- has the possibility in the end also not not entirely as desired. Obfuscated encoding might very well be good evidence to prove conception of parsimony, an impression entirely corroborated by the distinctly monotremic mastication of verbiage which currently, with a touch of logorrhea, though no man as yet by an public writing of his seems to have seen, yet the post itself is ready to show them to any whosoever which is able to read them and withal to judge what evidence is right in the rite of writing rightly. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Should have emailed. You call it whatever you want. Fringe, pseudoscience, even bullshit; I really don't care. My beef with IRW predates that minor argument, and exceeds its scope. I don't give a fuck if you get it or not. But; if you don't either ask, or take nothing from it; or do what you like. Telling me to do it your way is not going to work, sorry. Bye!   --My76Strat (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It is fringe because it is founded on making fringe claims about medicine and science which are pseudoscientific. For example, it claims to be science, and that something akin to denial of disease can heal, denial that the world is real etc etc. This is why it falls under FRINGE. I think discussing pseudoscience, and whether something is or not pseudoscience, is always within the remit of this board (I see a similar discussion took place about Scientology in the archives). Many astrologers claim Astrology is a religion, would that make it fall out of scope? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP misstates the issue -- which is that should Wikipedia's voice be used to call a religion a "pseudoscience" and not even use the word "religion" in the lead? The word "religion" was, in fact, removed after it was suggested to be added to the lead. There is no issue of "fringe" here except insofar as all religions are "fringe" to someone. Nor do I find an aside about Astrology to be particularly on point here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a fringe belief system insofar as it contradicts science is outside the remit of this noticeboard; that psuedoscientific beliefs are part of a religion is neither an excuse nor surprising. CS beliefs are pseudoscience just as much as creationism or scientology are, though only the parts that actually attempt to challenge science. Sædon^talk 02:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. When Young-earth Creationists, Scientologists, or Christian Scientists present their beliefs as religion, then it is not Fringe and doesn't concern this noticeboard. However, all three of those groups present pseudoscientific beliefs as legitimate science, and thus are Fringe and do concern this noticeboard. In the case of Creationism, some old-earth creationist groups have no disagreement with legitimate science. They just hold a religious belief that God is hiding behind the curtain and pulling the strings in a completely untestable way and use phrases like "outside of science". As long as they avoid pseudoscience (or someone figures out how to do a laboratory an experiment that proves that there is no God) they are not Fringe and don't concern this noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The definition of Pseudoscience has changed over the years. Some sciences have become pseudoscience while other pseudosciences have become science or redefined themselves as a belief system by dropping scientific claims. However, in almost all the definitions, Christian Science qualifies as a pseudoscience. The theory that disease is caused by sin and cured by prayer is essentially unfalsifiable. Yet, CS rejects mainstream science such as vaccines, organ transplants and blood transfusions. This compares with the Catholic Church which nowadays tends to avoid challenging established science and is sometimes supportive. I don't know about the third check which is whether the practitioners test their theories using scientific methods and seek mechanisms or simply accept them without any critical thought. The final and most important check for being pseudo is whether their belief system and theory masquerades as science. Here, even without considering the nature of their claims, they would have to remove the word Science from their title: Christian Science to avoid this qualification. Kooky2 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Except for the problem that their use of "acience" antedates the modern usage thereof ... in the 19th century it did not have a restrictive usage as currently. In those arcane days, it could also mean "knowledge" in general. IIRC, the Christian Science Monitor was, in fact, known for excellent articles on science. Eddy was "President of the Massachusetts Metaphysical College". Last I checked, "Metaphysics" was not "science" in the current sense of the word. It is generally referred to as "philosophy". And the sentence: Theology and Physics agree that both Matter and Spirit are real and right seems to make clear that the "science" is "philosophical" in nature. In fact, the term "Christian Science" according to Eddy was "metaphysical healing" -- thus philosophical in nature. End cavil that the word "science" in the name has anything to do with a claim of modern science. FWIW, I have absolutely zero connection with the topic other than an ancestor who was possibly a member of that church circa 1900. OTOH, he was more likely a Unitarian. Collect (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has a problem with religions that at one time held views that were later disproved by science. For example, for our purposes it doesn't matter what the Roman Catholic church taught about science in the year 1000. We only care about what they teach about science now. So, what does Christian science teach now? How about:

http://journal.christianscience.com/shared/view/9y0n9pkdxo

http://sentinel.christianscience.com/shared/view/28r0o5e9it4

http://journal.christianscience.com/shared/view/27j25tzbbok

http://christianscience.com/prayer-and-health/real-life-experiences-of-healing/more-accounts-of-healing/mental-illness-healed

Those are concrete claims about actual medical conditions. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They are - and there is no way we'd ever cite them as WP:RS. The point is though, that 'Christian Science' is a religion - one that claims that prayer cures diseases etc. Many other religions make exactly the same claim - and picking on one, and labelling it 'pseudoscience' merely because they have the word 'Science' in the name is nonsensical. Are there credible academic sources that describe CS specifically as pseudoscience? Do these sources explain how CS differs from other religions in this regard? If such sources can't be found, we have no business engaging in WP:OR to pick out one religion for special treatment - and if such sources can be found, WP:WEIGHT still applies. So, where are the sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many religions that claim that prayer cures disease, but very few that teach adherents to not seek medical attention (and we make a point of covering those few that do: see Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions.) As far as I know, there is only one religion that has a system of "practitioners" that the adherent is taught to go to instead of a doctor: see Christian Science practitioner. That's notable, and in the case of the children of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists, there religious practices can result in prosecution in some jurisdictions, which is also notable. That's why we call it pseudoscience. You assertion that we "label it 'pseudoscience' merely because they have the word 'Science' in the name" is a straw man. I challenge you to show a diff where anyone here made such an argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that unless reliable sources can be found that explicitly label Christian Science as pseudo-science, then Wikipedia shouldn't be labeling it such. We can all reach our own conclusions about the nature of the claims made by the adherents of a religion, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Davémon (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

From List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Religious and spiritual beliefs:

• Spiritual and religious practices and beliefs, according to Carl Sagan, are normally not classified as pseudoscience. However, the following religious/spiritual items have been related to or classified as pseudoscience in some way:

Christian Science is considered by some to be pseudoscience and has been described as such by skeptics such as James Randi, John Thomas Sladek and Joe Nickell. The claim that Christian Science is pseudoscience has also been discussed at some length in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Gale's Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics uses it as an example of a religion trying to associate itself with science. The notion of Christian Science being "real" science has also been disputed by philosopher John Searle though the term "Christian Science" as used by Mary Baker Eddy predated modern philosophical definitions of scientific method.

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider a stage magician James Randi, a science-fiction author John Thomas Sladek or a paranormal investigator Joe Nickell as indicative of consensus on the issue. Gale's is better, although it falls short of calling the religion pseudo-scientific. Again Searle is not explicit, and puts Christian Science on the same level as military science, which I'm not sure indicates it should be labeled as pseudoscience, just that the word "science" sometimes gets applied to domains that aren't really all that scientific. I would be looking for academic, scholarly sources, perhaps specialists in New Religious Movements or the public reception of science.Davémon (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling James Randi a "stage magician" is equivalent to calling Albert Einstein a "patent examiner" or Adolph Hitler a "painter". Those are all true statements, but rather miss the point regarding the areas where those individuals are/were experts. Randi and Nickell are recognized experts in the area of identifying pseudoscience. Christian Science has better sourcing than most of the entries in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Religious and spiritual beliefs. It was correctly identified as pseudo-science in medical journals over a hundred years ago[3] and even Mark Twain (See Christian Science (essay)) wrote

"The Christian Science Church... makes no embarrassing appeal to the intellect, has no occasion to do it, and can get along quite well without it."[4]

As a general rule, one does not get arrested and prosecuted for giving ones children medical treatment based upon sound science, but you certainly can be arrested and prosecuted for giving ones children medical treatment based upon pseudoscience.[5]

Or consider the words of Christian Scientists themselves: Bill Scott is a spokesperson for and defender of CS[6] and even he says

"No rigorous scientific studies or laboratory experiments have been performed. The anecdotal evidence they represent may seem inconsequential from a strictly natural science perspective, but I assure you they are not insignificant to those who have been healed."[7]

This same author earlier quoted Wikipedia's article on the Scientific method and claimed that "unparalleled historical record of over 80,000 accounts from around the world, testifying to the efficacy of a healing system that has continued for over 125 years" satisfied the requirements found in Scientific method.[8]

The claim that a Christian Science practitioner is an acceptable substitute for a medical doctor is what makes Christian Science a pseudoscience, and is a good example of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

James Randi is, in my estimation, primarily an entertainer, a pop-culture entity. He is not a serious figure in religious studies, anthropology, science or medicine. He does not have an academic track record in a relevant field, so I don't consider him a reliable source. WP:RSN would be the place to get other opinions. Harry Houdini, whose debunking of spiritualism might be a better analogy than Hitler - a good man in trying to stop people from being duped, but probably not a 'reliable source' for encyclopedic purposes. The Equip.org site is nothing but proselytising by another church, and useless in terms of sourcing, again WP:RSN might show otherwise. I do not consider Christian Scientists claims about themselves useful in this discussion. You might consider their claims an open admission of pseudoscience, they might consider it an expression of faith. Either way, that is an interpretation of a primary source and that is not wikipedias job. The 1902 Medical Review looks like a good source, although I cannot see the whole text to determine what it is actually saying, more sources along those lines - mainstream medical journals etc. - would help support the categorisation of those practices as pseudoscientific. Davémon (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that Randi is not a reliable source in this context. Carl Sagan is an authoritative source on pseudoscience with a PhD in astronomy and physics and as a Professor at Cornell. However, James Randi has had no scientific training or as far as I know no university education and admits that he has an "abysmal ignorance of statistics". However, his skills as a magician make him adept at identifying trickery or self-delusion in attempts to demonstrate the paranormal. Kooky2 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Total Immersion

Total Immersion is to swimming as ChiRunning is to running. The founder appears to be a successful promoter of the technique in that TI has a large web presence, however, I am having difficult finding "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My inclination is to go to Afd with it, but I thought I would check in here first to see if anyone is able to locate any reliable secondary sources in which a proper stub could be salvaged. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

... yet again. "Restoring balance", not-remotely-MEDRS compliant sources, baroque displays of straw men, etc, etc. Skinwalker (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Could someone else take a look at Special:Contributions/Pottinger's_cats and tell me if they notice a pattern? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Deyermenjian

I'm not convinced this guy meets our notability criteria. If you look for him in Google books you find mention of his name in various fringe books, but not much else. He is used, or rather I think misused, in a variety of articles. Ran into this when I found the website [yurileveratto.com/] being spammed which led me to a group of non-notable articles - Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress - all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratt and his personal website which I am taking to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how big this problem is, but I also found an article on Paititi, which features a lot of editing by these two:

• Gregdeyermenjian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paititi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And we have another pair of articles, Labyrinth City and Petroglyphs of Quiaca, largely edited by this fellow:

• Franciscos58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

which I see Doug has also sent off to AfD. There's a whole lot of promotion going on here, it seems. I have to wonder about the whole thing given that the one obvious hit GScholar produces for Yuri Leveratto is in a book on ancient astronauts, in Italian. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article Paititi is full of promotional stuff without independent sources. My guess is that we have at the most 2 editors here and some socks including IPs. The articles created by Paititi (talk · contribs) look problematic. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Every time I look again, I find more affected articles and more IPs. For example, Paititi also created Pusharo, and lo and behold, it has Deyermenjian's name in it and Levaratto's website as a source. And here we have Paratoari, created by the user and with the same names and links. I think we really need a subject expert here who knows the field, because I just don't know how much of this is simply promotion of material that may eventually become important, and how much of it is pure puffery, and how much of it is woo-woo junk. So far I don't see a lot that forces me to believe the last of it, but it's obvious that Deyermenjian and/or Leveratto are behind these edits. Mangoe (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We also have 190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs) adding like to various Leveratto websites. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped messages on a couple of noticeboards looking for experts. My reading from this is that this material isn't fringey, but it's probably not up to the level of meeting out inclusion standards. Leveratto is harder to puzzle out but it's pretty clear that there's no possibility that he's notable, and that his various red-linked appearances here could go away. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveratto is certainly fringe:[9] "as we know, the Middle Eastern world was in contact with the New World from the time of the Sumerians (see my articles on the Fuente Magna and the Monolith Pokotia). Then South America was visited and partially explored by the Phoenicians (see my article on the Petroglyph Ingá) and megalithic peoples (see my article on Calcoene cromlech). It is then the possibility that Middle Eastern peoples and then have Carthaginians explored the interior of the continent (see my articles on the Cave of the Manuscript Tayos and 512)." (Google translation from the Spanish version of his website). David Childress seems to have worked with Deyermanjian. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

New article Yuri Leveratto

Coincidence? Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Leveratto. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Rod (optics)

Claims that rods have been "discovered" in Malaysia published a few days ago in a Malaysian newspaper have been added as "new information" to the article. I believe this material was added in good faith, so I've left it in, slightly expanded for context. However after carefully reading the story, I find its claims to be wildly uncharacteristic of a WP:RS reliable source. It states as fact that "rods" have never been physically or scientifically explained, that insects have no ability to turn at extreme speed, and names someone called "Matthew Lazenby @ Jigger" as the discoverer of such wisdom. My instinct at this point is to remove this questionable "report" from the article, but I can't tell if the source, dailyexpress.com, is actually a reliable source, or the Malaysian equivalent of the Weekly World News. Thoughts? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be reliable for general news, but newspapers are poor sources for science at the best of time, but properly that's an issue for another board. I think we can assume that Mr Lazenby@Jigger did actually photograph the rods and make the claims he is reported to have done. I'm inclined to leave it in because it gives an insight into the attitudes of crypotozoologists about this phenomenon. The rational explanation for Rods is explained clearly enough. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who chooses to ignore it in preference to Mr Lazenby@Jigger's apparent belief that a colony of Rods are living in an Indonesian cave is free to do so. You can take a reader to the Pierian Spring, but you can't make them drink. Paul B (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but the consistent major grammatical errors in the Daily Express story bother me. They indicate a bad English translation of some other language, probably Malay. Who knows what original meanings have been altered by these errors? I would tend to consider it, on the whole, unreliable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Fringe archaeology AfDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeira Fortress
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Leveratto
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroglyphs of Quiaca
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruins of Miraflores
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labyrinth City
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinchera Fortress
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ixiamas Fortress

Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)

Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)

Cholo50 (talk · contribs)

Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)

190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)

190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)

190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)

190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)

186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. I've edited your post above as {{user|186.115.57.7}} allows direct access to contributions. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archeologo40. I've found another account and more IPs. One editor used a photo one minute after Leveratto uploaded it. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I had forgotten about the "|" trick. (Insert off-topic rant about every website coming up with a different "simplified" alternative to real HTML and then expanding it until it is more complex than HTML here...) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Domicile (astrology)

Yet another astrology fork: Domicile (astrology) - and the only source cited is a entirely unremarkable website [10] with no indication of why it should have any particular credibility, even to the 'believers'. If 'domicile' in this context means something different from 'House (astrology)', it is unclear, and the latter article at least cites a few more sources. I can see no reason why the former article couldn't be merged into 'house' - or at least, the parts from 'domicile' which can actually be sourced to something better than 'some bloke on the internet'. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems to have lain dormant in the literature until a 1996 translation of Initiation Astrologique, a posthumous work by Papus published in 1920. You can see here that this system is documented there. I've found a very few earlier references that suggest association between the planets and particular signs, and there are other books published earlier in the 1990s which seem to use the same terms, but this is the first work I see that really lays out the system. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to not meet the requirements in WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The single source provided is insufficient, but the concept has been pretty widely discussed in astrological literature—albeit not always using the term “domicile”. AIUI it has nothing to do with houses—as the lead does indicate—but with the supposed affinities or antipathies between planets and signs.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

A few extra eyes on James H. Fetzer would be appreciated as there have been a few recent attempt to add unreliable and primary source material to the article. Thanks! Location (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Contribution history of today's editor in this article, ISP 24.177.119.16, indicates Fetzer is editing his own article again. (diff) Location (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing issues discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#EA WorldView and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors. Location (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychotronics

Psychotronics was recently (re)created following an Articles for Creation request, and apparently translated from the Spanish although the Spanish article is a lot shorter. From a (very) quick glance, it looks OK with properly formatted references etc. But it's appallingly badly written, filled with typical fringe bollocks and, most importantly, draws on a host of sources which I don't think are likely to be held up to be reliable. Some of the sources are published books but, for example, published by "The Theosophical Publishing House".

I feel the entire article is beyond salvation and just needs deleting as fringe-cruft, but am getting bogged down in trying to work out what is reliable, if anything.

Perhaps someone else could take a look at it? GDallimore (Talk) 01:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfect candidate for WP:BLOWITUP. I removed a few unreliable sources and the information that was attributed to them. Lots more to do. Location (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is is mostly WP:OR based on sources that are either irrelevant, misused, summarized in badly fractured English, or blatant mind control conspiracy fringe websites like "mindjustice.org". Reminds me a lot of Ethereal Being. WP:TNT applies here, the best thing to do would be to restore the original redirect to parapsychology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Also from the same user: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MindGuard_(software). - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Complete and utter bollocks. Not worth wasting time over. AFD, and watch it WP:SNOW, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Kill it. Kill it with fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Having gone through the full list of 54 references cited, I actually found two reliable ones which give an interesting perspective on the history of psychotronics. I've tried to salvage the article for now. GDallimore (Talk) 11:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I see that the article Parapsychology, is still changing since the beggining (17:04, September 29, 2001), even quite naively nowadays, up to a quite prolonged edition, please see: [11], and its unreliable references 127-129... perhaps the article Parapsychology is not the best reference to accude after deleting mine, which has been criticized because of mistakes such as those already mentioned by GDallimore... aside that possibility of deletion, realize that Psychotronics is a topic that deserves special attention due to the extension of the other topic. I insist that Wikipedians must be restricted to the same policies, in order to edit parallely the same Wikipedia. I disagree to GDallimore, in starting the article according to your point of view about "Psychotronics"... it was accepted and rated as C-Class by SarahStierch, it wasn't so wrong!.. you already deleted even the patents!..--Paritto (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The current state of the article indicates some of the problems with an over-rigid reliance on the - understandable - approach that only "officially" reliable sources should be used. It attributes psychotronics to a Canadian doctor. The real history is not difficult to uncover. The problem is that much of it is only citable to parapsychological literature or supportive books about it. The concept was created by cold-war Czech researchers as part of an attempt to create a "materialist" form of parapsychology with machinery that would direct "psychokinetic" and other such supposed activity. It appears that some of these techniques were linked to non-mystical ideas about mind-body interaction, which is partly because of the anti-religious bias and philosophical materialism of Marxism, but it also fed into the development of western psychiatry moving away from Freudian ideas. It's certainly a legitimate topic for an article. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a 1st paragraph about Zdeněk Rejdák, so I hope it now has the "real history" Bhny (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(Off topic comment moved to my talk page) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Crop circles

The article Crop circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has, for as long as I can remember, been a battleground. Every time we pare it back to reflect the views of the reality-based community (circles are almost all man-made as pranks, those which are not have prosaic explanations), along come the "cereologists" to promote the idea that the scientific consensus view is in some way controversial - what Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. described as "the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it."

Latest problem user is Stochastikos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has virtually no contributions to Wikipedia other than to try to boost the paranormal side in the crop circle article.

I am now warning him that per previous consensus, continuing in the same vein may get him topic-banned form crop circle and potentially any other article on fringe science or pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This raises another, broader issue. What do we do with pages that are an attractive nuisance for True Believers? Most of the folks who hang around the Fringe Theories Noticeboard are interested in how Wikipedia handles many different pseudoscience topics but are not particularly eager to make a career out of one particular page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is but the symptom of a deeper phenomenon. Think of it this way:

• Inherently, Wikipolicies encourage both openness and the expenditure of effort. Hence UFO, free energy, crop circle advocates etc. are free to edit, regardless of how many beers they have had that night.

• As the number of articles increase, less and less of these articles can be watched by the 3,000 or so high frequency editors, and the 30,000 or so mid frequency editors. That ratio has plummeted by over 300% since 2007. In fact the drop is 340% (3.2 / 0.92) for the high frequency editors, per number of Wikipages.

• Rfc/U attempts are very time consuming, so only the most extreme cases get handled.

Unless something changes (and I do not know how) fringe will walk in by persistence. It is a simple ratio-based fact. There at least 500 fringe topics (but over 1,000 is more realistic) and dozens of people around the world who support each fringe item. That means that in time 5,000 fringe advocates may show up, at least. The blood sweat and tears to leave them WP:OR messages is just not there, as 30,000 new articles get added every month There was some fellow who kept saying that the Chinese pyramids are Turkish, and he may yet add that all over the place - there are just not enough editors to watch over him. And I do not know of a solution that can be agreed to by the community at large. History2007 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I agree. I keep running into fringe stuff I never heard of in my field of interest (archaeology), such as the Leveratto stuff above, and I'm considered to be a bit of an expert on this. For those who have the time, User:AlexNewArtBot can be useful, I'll be monitoring User:AlexNewArtBot/ArchaeologySearchResult for instance. And the last RfC/U case you and I were involved in was successful beyond expectations, but Paul Bedson's threat to sock will be difficult to combat. Back to cooking Christmas dinner now. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the last Rfc/U worked, but because the three of you spent so much effort on it - I spent very little time on there, however. And the fact is that there is no way in the world 5,000 Rfc/Us can be performed for all the up and coming fringe lovers, and their sockpuppets. And let us remember that the effort to monitor paid advocacy by PR firms is diluting conscientious editor resources - not to mention all the BLP issues that eat time like Pac-man, etc. So there is a serious shortage of editor resources.

As a social experiment Wikipedia has been widely successful in getting information on "less than controversial" common knowledge topics such as cities, rivers, lakes, etc. But along with the openness came the fringe advocates. That may be part of the nature of crowd-sourced open systems. I do not know how that can be avoided now. I am not even sure if WMF or the highly active Wikipedians have any possible solution to this, or that in the midst of all the paid-advocacy issues this problem is even within their attention span. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Compared to the rest of the web and the blogosphere, wikipedia is a great success in keeping fringe stuff under control. I think we're doing ok Bhny (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, we certainly are doing well. On the other hand, watching trends, predicting future problems and trying to head them off at the pass is a Good Thing. On the third hand, prediction is hard; if someone had described Wikipedia to me and asked if I thought it would work I would have predicted failure with the vandals and trolls and spammers destroying everything, as happened on USENET.

The best thing to do is to keep using this noticeboard to bring attention to any problem articles, continue dealing with fringe pushing editors as we have been doing, and keeping an eye out and commenting on any policy changes that may may this easier or harder. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

My post was probably getting somewhat off topic for this board, whose aim is to alert people. Yet, I think it is good to have a big picture as one does things. So I will stop now, after pointing out a couple of issues. Regarding Bhny's comment, yes, Wikipedia is absolutely better than the chaos called the websphere where Elvis is still alive and making crop circles. But I do not have (and do not know of anyone who does) any idea of how rampant fringe is within Wikipedia and how it will compares to tightly managed systems such as Quora. Only time will tell. Regarding Guy's point about persisting on this board, I totally support any effort to fend off fringe. Yet I think we do need to be realistic. So again, only time will tell, but I have for long hoped (and suggested on WP:VP, etc.) for much less tolerance for fringe, and faster expulsion via "rapid Rfc/U" for persistent fringe editors. But one thing I am ready to bet on: given the diverse nature of editor views, major Wiki-policy changes are pretty hard to implement now. History2007 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a project?

I wondering if it might be helpful to create a fringe theory wikiproject under whose auspices this noticeboard would then be placed, and which could tag articles as being under its purview. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience appears to partially fit the bill, but it's only semi-active. A lot of fringe theories (e.g. JFK conspiracy theories, theories about Masons secretly ruling the world) aren't pseudoscience, exactly, so the project doesn't have the same scope as this board. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if a new flag and national anthem will do anything as long as there are too few people - Luxembourg is no threat to anyone. The challenge is having more sober people than fringers. Here are your active members anyway. Now, how many fringers are out there? History2007 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It takes about 3-4 editors to undo the damage caused by a single fringe-proponent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At a minimum, case in point ... Given the current laid back policies, there is just no way to stop them without blood, sweat and tears. No way... History2007 (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Pseudoscience wikiproject does include some very active editors - the problem is that nowadays there is little work which needs coordinating in the way that many other projects work. Editors dealing with pseudoscience either work solo or they discuss issues on noticeboards like this one - so the project pages are relatively quiet. Not dead; just sleeping. If we do need to use a wikiproject, use the Pseudoscience wikiproject instead of creating a new one... bobrayner (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Lane (author)

A statement in Mark Lane (author) reads:

After the Warren Commission Report was published in September 1964, Mark Lane interviewed numerous witnesses who were ignored by the Commission, and then used these interviews and evidence from the Commission's report to published an indictment of the Commission, entitled Rush to Judgment.

In this context, "ignored", means "intentionally disregarded", implying that the Warren Commission was involved in a conspiracy to suppress evidence regarding the assassination of JFK. I have attempted in different ways to change "ignore" to "not interviewed" or attribute the term "ignored" to the original author from which the statement was taken (i.e. R. Andrew Kiel in J. Edgar Hoover. The Father of the Cold War. How His Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup and Escalation of the Vietnam War) with no success. Good luck finding information on Kiel to determine if he is an expert on Hoover, but from the snippets that can be gleaned within GoogleBooks, the book does appear to be conspiracy oriented. [Edit: All I can find on Kiel is that he "teaches United States History at a senior high school in Ohio".] Ideas on how this should be addressed? Location (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No conceivable source could possibly support using "ignore" instead of "not interviewed". "Not interviewed" is factual and encyclopedic (assuming of course that the sources say they were not interviewed), but "ignored" implies a value judgement -- it implies that they should have been interviewed. Wikipedia can report that source X says that they should have been interviewed, but we cannot present what is essentially an opinion in Wikipedia's voice as if it were an established fact. I am going to check the references again and then change it to "not interviewed". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I made that change, but I can see that there are a lot more issues with that page. I suggest filing a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (Be sure to carefully read the Guide for Participants at the top) and see if it can be resolved that way. (Note: I am a dispute resolution volunteer at DRN, but of course I won't be working this case because I am not an uninvolved editor) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, the Bold change was made, Reverted, and now a Discussion has been initiated (although why it was started in this venue I do not understand). The cited source states this:

After the Warren Commission's final report was completed in September 1964, Lane interviewed numerous witnesses ignored by the Commission.

The source uses the word "ignored", thereby conveying reasoned intent (as opposed to simply overlooking some witnesses by chance), whereas your proposed change conveys something completely different, and thus would require a citation to a different reliable source. We don't cite a source that says one thing, yet convey something completely different in our Wikipedia article. The Kiel source does not appear to be "essentially an opinion" piece on its face, so I must assume you are questioning what this source conveys due to the existence of reliably sourced information to the contrary. If that is the case, could someone please produce that source here for review? It would be a simple matter to check the source(s) that support the change you are proposing, and add that citation to the article. Alternatively, if you are questioning the reliability of the Kiel source itself, that concern should be raised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Location was right to bring this issue up here at the fringe theories noticeboard, and his comment

"I have attempted in different ways to change 'ignore' to 'not interviewed' or attribute the term 'ignored' to the original author from which the statement was taken (i.e. R. Andrew Kiel in J. Edgar Hoover. The Father of the Cold War. How His Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup and Escalation of the Vietnam War) with no success"

Is accurate. I just tried myself to make the same changes and was reverted by an editor who appears to only edit political articles. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but doing that sort of editing tends to instill bad habits; if every day you end up undoing all sorts of bogus info inserted into political articles by POV pushers, you might end up treating non-political editors who are just trying to deal with fringe theories on Wikipedia the same way.

In essence what we are being asked to accept here is the fringe views contained in a book with "How the Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup" in the title being presented in Wikipedia's voice as if they were established facts. This is exactly the sort of thing this noticeboard was created to deal with.

I would like to ask the other regular noticeboard participants to weigh in here. Am I wrong in my conclusions above? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "ignored" is a major problem. It does have negative connotations, but I don't think it necessarily implies active intention. It might imply sloppiness, lack of time, or indeed sensible selection of people based on the relevance of their evidence. I am concerned about the book itself (published by something called "university Press of America", which offers a "streamlined" decision making on publication [12]. Xenophrenic seems to think that if a source is deemed "reliable" in a generic sense its assertions have to be accepted as uncontested fact. That's almost never the case. Paul B (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I found a direct interview with Lane which starts here and runs on for some pages. Lane certainly says that the commission ignored some of what some witnesses said, and de Antonio says that they (in doing the film the two of them worked on) found "whole worlds that the Warren Commission missed" (p. 176) and found a witness that the commission supposedly said doesn't exist. My impression is that their condemnation of the commission's work in gathering evidence is too comprehensive to be summarized in a choice between two words. On the other hand I'm very uncomfortable casting any of this in anything other than "he claims that" language.

Also, Kiel's book has next to no footprint. Of the five reviews on Amazon, three are gibberish. University Press of America is, at least if you believe this discussion from the fora at The Chronicle of Higher Education, a vanity press; I've found other academics who say the same thing. I would not consider him to be a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the post where User:Location started this thread, he (and I) have no problem with Wikipedia saying that Lane says that the commission ignored some witnesses. What we both have a problem with is with User:Xenophrenic making Wikipedia say that the commission ignored some witnesses, as he did here, even going so far as to misstate Wikipedia policy in his edit summary. Having Wikipedia say that the commission ignored some witnesses violates Wikipedia policy on fringe theories, which is the reason why we are discussing it here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to address an earlier reversion by Xenophrenic (who, incidentally, I believe was acting in good faith) that included the statement "you don't attribute a statement of fact as if it were not" and citing WP:YESPOV: "you don't attribute a statement of fact as if it were not". That part of policy refers to five principles to follow: 1) "Avoid stating opinions as facts." 2) "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." 3) "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion." 4) "Prefer nonjudgmental language." 5) "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." If "the Warren Commission ignored witnesses" is an opinion, it must be attributed. If it is a statement of fact, it is "seriously contested". While it may give too much weight to someone with only high school teaching credentials, I am OK with it's current version attributing the opinion to Kiel. Location (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already raised this on the talk page. The problem seemsd to be that Xenophrenic takes "avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion" to imply that there should be a reliable source specifically contesting the claim, otherwise any assertion is an "uncontested factual assertion". This interpretation would create a serious problem with fringe theories which are not typically discussed in every detail in reliable sources. But even quite normal speculations and theorisations by historians should usually be attributed and we should use common sense to distinguish theory and opinion from simple facts. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I just tried myself to make the same changes and was reverted by an editor who appears to only edit political articles ... doing that sort of editing tends to instill bad habits --Guy Macon

Wow. You really went there? I'm going to remind you once, nicely, to please refrain from commenting on editors. When I'm not editing articles the likes of Chuck E. Cheese's or Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire, or arguing vociferously against editors at the Conspiracy theory article who are attempting to legitimize their crackpot and extreme theory-crafting, I do indeed dabble in controversial political subject matter. That experience has taught me that when an editor can't make a reasoned argument about content and edits, and instead resorts to attacking editors, nothing good will follow. Let's not do that again, okay?

• Xenophrenic seems to think that if a source is deemed "reliable" in a generic sense its assertions have to be accepted as uncontested fact. --Paul B

Correction: Xenophrenic does not seem to think that. Xenophrenic thinks that if an apparently reliable source is not determined to be unreliable, and an assertion from that source stands uncontradicted by other reliable sources, the assertion should be accepted as uncontested fact. See the difference? So either show that the (Kiel) source doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, or produce a reliable source that conveys different or contrary information. (You'll note that I already suggested this above.)

• What we both have a problem with is with User:Xenophrenic ... even going so far as to misstate Wikipedia policy in his edit summary. --Guy Macon

Correction: No, I did not misstate Wikipedia policy. Policy says that we do not present fact as opinion (and "attributing" an assertion as "According to 'source'..." conveys that it is merely opinion held by that source). I see that you omitted an explanation of how I "misstated" policy, so I anxiously look forward to your justification.

• But even quite normal speculations and theorisations by historians should usually be attributed and we should use common sense to distinguish theory and opinion from simple facts. --Paul B

That is an interesting assertion. I doubt that I would have taken issue with the attribution of information from Kiel if similar attribution was applied to content in the article from Bugliosi, Moore, et al. But it wasn't. And since no one has raised the reliability issue of Kiel at WP:RSN, nor provided sourced information contradicting Kiel (and Lane, and de Antonio, and others?), there appears to me to be a selective application of "common sense" here.

Please note that I share some of the concerns expressed above about the author (Kiel - not exactly widely published), the book (with its provocative title), and the publisher (a 'University' press not tied to a specific university?) -- but at the same time, it can be said that the source is from an academic, published by a specialist in "high-quality research and textbooks", and is heavily annotated and footnoted with an almost 100-page bibliography. You really should raise the reliability concern in the appropriate venue. Also, please note that the content under discussion asserts merely that the WC bypassed certain witness testimony for whatever reasons (and Paul B mentions several probable ones above), and does not state or imply that the WC did so as part of a "conspiracy to suppress evidence", as suggested above.

• I would like to ask the other regular noticeboard participants to weigh in here. --Guy Macon

I would like to second that request. In addition, I would like to remind editors to refrain from making edits on the material being discussed while issues and concerns remain unresolved. If your need to edit war is that great, while an unconcluded discussion is ongoing, perhaps a diversion is in order. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: "And since no one has raised the reliability issue of Kiel at WP:RSN, nor provided sourced information contradicting Kiel (and Lane, and de Antonio, and others?), there appears to me to be a selective application of 'common sense' here." Given the hundreds if not thousands of very specific claims that have been leveled against the Warren Commission by various critics, it's conceivable that you will not find a specific rebuttal for each and every one. Do other reliable sources think the Warren Commission was acting in good faith? Of course. (Here is one from the HSCA.) It is a huge contradiction to believe that the Commission acted in good faith but also intentionally and deliberately disregarded certain witnesses for nefarious reasons.

Also, if we are in agreement that "the WC bypassed certain witness testimony for whatever reasons", then the neutral words for that are "not interviewed"... not "ignored". The terms imply different things.Location (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is a huge contradiction to believe that the Commission acted in good faith but also intentionally and deliberately disregarded certain witnesses for nefarious reasons.

That is a contradiction you have fabricated out of whole cloth. There is no indication in the text under discussion that the Commission acted "for nefarious reasons". Perhaps you are reading too much into it? As for your linked source that says "The committee found that the Commission acted in good faith, and the mistakes it made were those of men doing their best under difficult circumstances", it also criticizes,

"the failure of the commission to receive all the relevant information that was in the possession of other agencies and departments of the Government" ... "the committee concluded that the Warren Commission failed in significant areas to investigate 'all the facts and circumstances' surrounding the tragic events in Dallas ... the committee made the judgment that the time pressures under which the Warren Commission investigation was conducted served to compromise the work product and the conclusions of the Commission ... The committee also discovered certain basic deficiencies in the capacity of the Commission to investigate effectively the murder of a President. ... The committee found, further, that the Commission consciously decided not to form its own staff of professional investigators, choosing instead to rely on an analysis by its lawyers of the investigative reports of Federal agencies, principally the FBI and CIA ... the Commission did not take advantage of all the legal tools available to it ... failed to utilize the instruments of immunity from prosecution and prosecution for perjury with respect to witnesses whose veracity it doubted ...the Commission should have candidly acknowledged the limitations of its investigation and denoted areas where there were shortcomings ... As the committee's investigation demonstrated, substantive new information has been developed in many areas since the Warren Commission completed its work. In conclusion, the committee found that the Warren Commission's investigation was conducted in good faith, competently, and with high integrity, but that the Warren Report was not, in some respects, an accurate presentation of all the evidence available to the Commission or a true reflection of the scope of the Commission's work, particularly on the issue of possible conspiracy in the assassination. It is a reality to be regretted that the Commission failed to live up to its promise."

Your linked source acknowledges the very deficiencies conveyed by the Kiel source.

• if we are in agreement...

But, you see, we are not -- hence our discussion here. The neutral and encyclopedic way to convey what a reliable source says is to convey what the reliable source says, and not a personally preferable euphemism we devise. Please use common sense and good editorial judgement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the above request: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mark Lane .2F R. Andrew_Kiel. Location (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Xenphrenic "corrects" my comment above by saying "Xenophrenic thinks that if an apparently reliable source is not determined to be unreliable, and an assertion from that source stands uncontradicted by other reliable sources, the assertion should be accepted as uncontested fact." Then Xenophrenic is wrong- for reasons I have already given. If we requiore a reliable source to specifically contradict each individual assertion we will be in fringe-theory-heaven. This is exactly why I said what I did about your "apparent" views: "Xenophrenic takes "avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion" to imply that there should be a reliable source specifically contesting the claim, otherwise any assertion is an "uncontested factual assertion". This interpretation would create a serious problem with fringe theories which are not typically discussed in every detail in reliable sources." You have just confirmed that you believe just that. We cannot adopt such a mechanistic approach. It is unworkable. All you need is a generically reliable source - such as the newspaper recently discussed here on the subject of Flying Rods. As long as it has not been specifically contradicted, then LO AND BEHOLD, you can present the cave-colony of Flying Rods as uncontested fact - according to the gospel of Xenophrenic. Paul B (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This one is a no-brainer. Xenophrenic is wrong, for the reasons stated by Location, Guy Macon and Paul B, and, I've reverted to the neutral presentation, attributing Kiel's opinion to Kiel. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have requested temporary full protection of the page so that the edit warring stops while we discuss these issues. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request that this conversation be narrowed to a discussion of how we at Wikipedia should handle fringe views concerning the Warren Commission, with a possible expansion into a discussion of how we at Wikipedia should handle fringe political views in general. Several of the issues brought up by Xenophrenic above are outside of the scope of the fringe theories noticeboard. I advise not responding here to these off-topic side issues even if you believe that they are incorrect. I advise instead discussing the reliability of the sources on the reliable sources noticeboard, discussing the content or the article on the article talk page, and refocusing this thread on a discussion of Wikipedia should handle fringe views concerning the Warren Commission and other political fringe views. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Cult archaeology alert

This Friday night the History Channel presents 'America Unearthed' "n AMERICA UNEARTHED, forensic geologist Scott Wolter, a real-life Indiana Jones, will reveal that the history we all learned in school may not always be the whole story. Across the country, ancient symbols, religious relics and unexplained artifacts suggest that civilizations from around the world have left their mark for us to find today. Wolter not only digs through the surprising burial ground that is America for arcaheological secrets, but he also uncovers compelling evidence that pre-dates the official "discovery" of the New World and turns a lot of what we think we know about American history on its head. America Unearthed proves there is a lot we don't know about our past, and that people have gone to great lengths to cover up these mysteries."[13]. It will also include claims that the Mayas visited Georgia. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow. When did the H Channel change from trying to be truthful to trying to find a new low in pseudo-documentary? I remember when you could watch fairly accurate programs on that channel. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed that the History Television we get in Canada was basically the same as your History Channel—but now I wonder, because “trying to be truthful” seems quite uncharacteristic of the former. Their schedule is dominated by stuff like extraterrestrial interventions à la Von Daniken; Bible stories; imagined combat between, say, Vikings and samurai; WWII documentaries that are mostly a vehicle for low-budget CGI of tanks blowing up; “reality TV” featuring various dangerous occupations; several series about finding, assessing & haggling over antiques & curios … Not to say they don’t carry any worthwhile historical programmes, but these are pretty few & far between.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

They are probably concerned about these numbers. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@Binksternet Supposedly ~2007 but I could have sworn it was earlier. (Edit: did not intend a pun on the previous user's username!) a13ean (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a funny image, but I would criticize it for not emphasizing Hitler in the first five years, too. The H Channel was, during that time when I was watching it the most, what my wife called "All Hitler, All The Time".™ Ask her, she'll back me up. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Great Scott has his own page Scott F. Wolter. He seems to be a 'theorist' of the Kensington Rune Stone. Oh, and the Knights Templar were involved,... but I guess that goes without saying really. [14] Paul B (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would the Mayas not have visited Georgia? Is it a big deal whether they did or didn't? Of course the programme sounds like rubbish and shouldn't be used as a source in the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it even means for the "Mayas" to "visit" Georgia (one has an image of Mr and Mrs Maya on holiday). Of course some form of trading contact is not especially unlikely, but it's just that the Mayans, like the Knights Templar, tend to carry with them all sorts of emblematic significance, which makes boring tangental trading links turn into Something Really Meaningful That Changes Our Whole View of History. Paul B (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if this man's page actually said what his qualifications are (if any). Does anyone know? Deb (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't find them on his company's website, which I find strange. I find the company strange too; at first glance it is a dull engineering company testing concrete, but then it is also involved in the Newport Tower and other fringe archaeology. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually at least as concerned about the Maya stuff. It's edits like this one [15] that I'm concerned about. How Thornton managed to get the History Channel interested in him I'm not sure. His book is self-published. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is now an edit war in which a new account, who appears to be claiming to be Wolter himself, is removing all criticism. Paul B (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've raised him at COIN and he says he's complaining to Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And now warned him about 3RR after his 3rd revert. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, if that really is him, his comments indicate that he's not exactly a rocket scientist (in addition to not being an archaeologist). Deb (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts as to who this anon contributor might be? Deb (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Philip Coppens (author)

I'm not convinced yet this this author is notable. I'm surprised at the number of links that have been found so far[16]. Google shows up many more.[17]. Even found Philip Coppens Dead (quickly deleted). His death may increase this. There may be times when it's appropriate to use him, but if anyone has spare time they might want to check some of these sometime. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now listed for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Coppens (author) Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nexus (magazine)

He led me to this. Does it seem like a reputable publication to anyone else? If so, I may not nominate it for deletion. Deb (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Before you nominate it, you should have a look at the notability criteria for magazines [18]. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't see anything there to deter me. Deb (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The relevant question regarding an article on a magazine isn't 'is it reputable', but 'is it notable' - and as such, this isn't really an issue for the fringe theories noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's closely linked with Philip Coppens - his main claim to fame seems to be that he wrote a lot of articles for Nexus. But it's a subject area I'm not very familiar with, which is why I'd like to hear the opinions of people who are. Deb (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

After a bit of googling, came to the conclusion that it is notable, so I have added some third-party references. Deb (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Fusion Energy’s Dreamers, Hucksters, and Loons

Interesting article in Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/fusion_energy_from_edward_teller_to_today_why_fusion_won_t_be_a_source_of.single.html

Their conclusion:

"Given this history, it's easy to understand why fanatical devotees gravitate to unorthodox approaches to fusion energy, be they cold-fusion moonbattery or schemes touted by startup companies with more cash than brains. The mainstream scientists who've been pursuing the dream have left us with little more than a thicket of delusions and broken promises. And, if one is to believe them now, after six decades of work, the clean, nearly limitless power of fusion is still 20 years away. At this rate, it will always be." --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nice article, and, from what I know, gives a pretty much balanced perspective.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  I never knew moonbat could be verbified... and perhaps it could be even renounified into a battery which fires moonbats... the possibilities are tantalizing... a13ean (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sphinx water erosion hypothesis‎

An editor here is adding material from Robert Schoch and removing material by Ken Feder[19] on the grounds that " Feder is not a primary source and is only repeating the opinion of someone else and is redundant regardless. Find a primary source such as Lehner is you want ot add to this topic.)" This is also a breach of NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is this climate-change related and thus covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Final decision? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The article is essentially about a dispute between some geologists, who claim that the geological evidence supports their conclusion even though there is no archaeological evidence to support it, vs some archaeologists, who refuse to even consider the geological evidence because there is no archaeological evidence to support it. Both parties have a case, but their cases pull in opposite directions, and the available evidence is not conclusive either way. To the extent that climate change is mentioned, it refers to climate change some 5000 to 7000 years ago, where the climate change itself is not disputed just the dating thereof. Wdford (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Gérard Encausse/Papus

First, I'm inclined to move this bio back to Papus given that this is the common name used to refer to this seminal hermeticism proponent. Second, the article is rather sad, and is at present dominated by a "just-so" story about how he predicted the death of Tsar Nicholas II. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The 2006 move has the following comment: "Moved Papus to Gerard Encausse: Encausse is most often referred to by his civil name rather than his magical motto." The default is to call people by their actual name. We need a good reason before we use a magical nickname. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the move comment is incorrect. A quick Google showed about four times as many hits on his nom de plume as on his legal name. Also, here we have an obituary from the British Medical Journal [20] which states that "He was better known by his adopted name of 'Papus' than by his own." Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The default is to use the name someone is most well known as, which isn't necessarily their actual name. In this case it doesn't look like it is. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

Editing at this crapola Discovery Channel exposé is threatening to pick up again. Really it needs to be run over with a lawnmower as I am guessing right off the bat that nobody in the field really takes the claims seriously. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Only a lawnmower? Did you lose the bulldozer? Zero^talk 11:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I put merge templates on the article for the documentary and the book and argue that they should be redirected to the article on the tomb itself. I think putting all important information in one place better follows WP:NPOV policy as far as undue weight, content forks, and so forth. In practice it should be more purge than merge. DreamGuy (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

U-procedure and Theory U

Can anyone make heads or tails of this? I think something might have been lost in translation. Does not appear to be notable to me, but wanted to check here before AfDing it. a13ean (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't figure it out either, but it does appear to be quite popular: [ http://www.google.com/search?q="Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U" ] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I see a lot of stuff from the guy on it, but secondary sources are somewhat limited, although I guess having an MIT class on it counts for something... a13ean (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Management guff but not essentially pseudoscientific. A connection to Peter Senge might make it notable, as the idea of a learning organization is popular (but still management guff). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Looked at it some more; I don't see anything fringe or pseudoscientific about it. Whether it is notable is another question, but not one for this noticeboard.

BTW, does anyone know how to make links to Google searches work? I get

http://www.google.com/search?q="Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U"

when I type in

http://www.google.com/search?q="Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U"

and I get

"Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U"

when I type in

[http://www.google.com/search?q="Otto+Scharmer"+"Theory+U"] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just cut and past the whole darn url from your browser. [21] - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That Englishman John Wilkins invented the metric system

I am concerned that an uncorroborated 2007 interpretation of a small subset of the works of John Wilkins, a 17th century English clergyman and natural philosopher, by the late Pat Naughtin, an Australian metrication campaigner also known as Mr. Metrication, is being used (both directly and indirectly) to support the notion that the present day metric system was invented, not by the French at the end of the 18th century as is the traditional and mainstream historical view, but by the said John Wilkins in the mid 17th century.

My curiosity was aroused yesterday when I came across the claim in the "International System of Units" article that those in France who developed the metric system in the 1790s "used a number of principles first proposed by the English cleric John Wilkins in 1668". This assertion was not supported by the cited reference, which was actually a citation referring to a scanned copy of part of a 1668 essay by Wilkins, and a "translation" of it by Pat Naughtin - hosted on the "Metric Matters" website, the website of the said Pat Naughtin. I then decided to look for other links to John Wilkins.

Next I came across him in "Metric system". In the history section there I found this: "The idea of a metric system was proposed by John Wilkins, first secretary of the Royal Society of London in 1668." This was again accompanied by a cite of Pat Naughtin's scan and "translation" of part of Wilkins's essay and also by a cite linking to a BBC video reporting that Naughtin claimed to have discovered, in an ancient book, that Wilkins had invented the metric system. This was now getting even more intriguing.

I also found similar claims, supported only by Naughtin's "translation" or the BBC report about it in "Metre", "History of the metric system", "England" and "Kilogram" and totally unsupported in "Lists of British inventions".

In each of those articles I tried to "neutralise" or water-down the claims for Wilkins's role, leaving the possibility that he had described a decimal system, but removing the (explicit and implicit) implications that he had invented the actual metric system of today. This didn't go down too well with another editor though, who came back with some other references. Each of the new references though, either drew directly from Naughtin's interpretation of Wilkins's essay, or indirectly via the website of the UK Metric Association (UKMA, a single-issue metrication pressure group) who cite Naughtin's interpretation.

I would like to hear the opinions of those here as to whether Naughtin's interpretation of Wilkins's work (and direct and indirect references to it) should be deemed to be a fringe view or whether it can now be accepted as the mainstream view on this important aspect of the history of the metric system.

The references:

• Wilkins's essay on Naughtin's website
• The BBC report
• Paper quoting UKMA
• The UKMA content cited in the above paper

MeasureIT (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't fringe history of science. It's amateur history of science that seems to be increasingly accepted in the mainstream. There is nothing implausible about the idea that the Royal Society would be interested in metrication, or even that Wilkins would have proposed a measure very close to the metre. In terms of Wikipedia articles, make sure that claims are not too strong and are attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The material is being seriously misrepresented. The only part of the Wilkins proposal which was enacted in the metric system was the decimal basis of the units; he specifically rejected the method used to set the length of the meter, and proposed instead a method involving a pendulum. The Beeb was careless and repeated unjustified claims which they could have checked themselves easily enough. We can cite Wilkins for decimalization, but that is all. Mangoe (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wilkins also proposes the same development of linear measure to cover capacities and weights as was eventually used in the metric system. Taking his Standard as analogous to the metre, his Pint corresponds to the litre; more significantly IMO his Hundred and Ounce correspond respectively to the tonne and the kilogram, being the respective weights of a Bushel and a Pint of “distilled Rainwater”. Regarding decimalization, he actually expresses a preference for an octal system, but defers to “general custom” in proposing a decimal system instead. (I should note that I’ve only read the original monograph, so have no comment about what’s been claimed about it.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that people are looking for a yes/no "who was there first" , which is too simplistic to capture innovations like the metric system. Not really fringe, but do not go beyond what good sources say Itsmejudith (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. We cannot use primary sources to cite who was first in developing this, we need reliable secondary sources for that, otherwise it is not only fringe, it would be original research. So as it is, this is unacceptable use of sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I am the “other editor” mentioned by User:MeasureIT. He did not have the courtesy to let me know about this discussion (I had notified the 3RR noticeboard about his behaviour shortly before he posted here). I would like to raise a few points:

• He used the term “universal measure” from which the word “metre”was derived) See Metre#Name.
• A Wikipedia article describing his book ‘’An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language appeared in 2003, a few years ‘’before’’ Naughtin publicised the chapter on units of measure.
• Many writers in the 20th century attribute the concept of the metric system to Gabriel Mouton. Mouton published his work 2 years after Wilkins
• Mouton only discussed the unit of length – Wilkins proposed defining mass in terms of a specified volume of rainwater – a concept also proposed by Thomas Jefferson in 1790 and a concept that was used by the French revolutionaries.

In response to User:Mangoe, we can cite Wilkins for a lot more than just decimalisation – his proposal, apart from the use of a pendulum rather than the earth’s meridian and the use of a standard set of prefixes encompassed every other aspect of the metric system as first introduced by the French a century later. I agree that we cannot state that he “invented” the metric system or that he was the first, but we do not know how much of his proposal was taken on board by Jefferson or by the French and how much they developed independently of Wilkins.

All that Naughtin did was to publicise to the world of metrology one chapter from a book, the whole of which was regarded by philosophers is being a good first attempt at classifying many things in nature. I propose that Wilkins should be included in the List of British Inventions with a caveat that this is the earliest ‘’known’’proposal and cite reliable sources (of which there are many) that give the credit to Mouton.

Martinvl (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Could we say, as User:Martinvl suggested at the bottom of the talk page at [22] that if an academic copied an interpretation of Wilkins's work from Wikipedia and merged it into their own article and published the result on a reliable site, but without citing Wikipedia, that that is an endorsement for that particular Wikipedia article - an implicit peer review - and proof of the academic concerned rating that particular Wikipedia article sufficiently highly that they cannot do better themselves? MeasureIT (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the context - in this case, the appearance of the factoid in summer school lecture slides is no good indication of academic acceptance. Agricolae (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say no in any context. If the material in Wikipedia had a citation to a reliable source we wouldn't be asking the question. Even if the academic is a recognized expert, his quoting Wikipedia while violating our licensing (attribution required) makes the unsourced statement very suspect. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the use of black and white statements like "So-and-so invented the metric system". This is the way of speaking that the media like; everything is the best this, the first that, the most wonderful whatever. It sells TV shows. We should use less hype. Wilkins proposed a system of measures based on powers of ten, which is very interesting, but he didn't design the other main features of the future "metric system". Just state the plain facts. Zero^talk 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The "plain facts" (to quote User:Zero0000) are:

• Wilkins proposed a system based on decimal numbers
• Wilkins proposed a system in which length, area and volume were directly related (no acres, no gallons, just units of area and volume that are related in a decimal manner to the basic unit of length.
• Wilkins proposed a system in which mass was related to volume via the medium of water (cw one litre of water has a mass of one kilogram - that was the original definition)
• Wilkins proposed a system which relied on natural phenomena, not artefacts that were in the custody of a king.

These facts relate equally to both Wilkin's proposal and the metric system as implemented by the French in the 1790's

Other factors worth considering are:

• Wilkins proposed calling his standard of length the "Universal Measure", which, five years later was translated in Latin as being "metreo cattalico" from which we got the word "metre".
• Wilkins considered three options for the universal length - the meridian of the earth, standard atmospheric pressure and a "one second pendulum". Given the understanding of science at the time, he suggested that the pendulum held the most promise which is why he suggested that method.

Commentaries by Dominus (2006 - United Kingdom) can be found here, by Naughtin (2007 - Australia) here and by Stone (2008 - United States) here. Stone's work was published in the the journal of the Society for Technical Communication where he cited Naughtin's work.

Those, as I know them, are the plain facts - hardly a fringe theory.

Martinvl (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no robust reliable sources provided though in any of the few articles that mention it, and no sources aren't traceable directly back to Naughtin's 2007 theory or via the UK Metric Associations website to it. Hardly mainstream support is it. We should remove it from the articles I think, or word it very carefully to reflect the status of it. MeasureIT (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a university course where Wilkins is identifuied as a prime mover of the metric system. This site ranks the University of Alaska (where this course is given) in the range 301 to 400. Visist the site to see other universities that have been given the same ranking. Martinvl (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It says in a timeline, "1668 John Wilkins, first secretary of the Royal Society of London, suggests a base 10 system of

measurement." Nothing about being a mover, let alone being a prime mover of the metric system. Agricolae (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a Univeristy thesis. Martinvl (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to look like zealotry. If you have to do Google searches to find the most obscure mention of a subject (an upper-level undergraduate math class taught in the Great White North, and a public administration thesis on a highway signage project) in order to prove it noteworthy, it usually means it is not very noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A book, published in 2012 by Terry Quinn FRS (former director of the BIPM) (extracts here) credits Wilkins as having proposed a system that was essentially the same as the French decimal system. Quinn make no mention of Mouton. I think that this settles the argument. Martinvl (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The book is about the proceedings from 1851, it doesn't go into the origins of the system at all except in passing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked Quinn's book and it seems to be a perfectly reliable source that can definitely be cited on the subject of Wilkins. On page xxvii, Quinn summarizes what Wilkins did and writes "In other words, he proposed essentially what became a little over one hundred years later the French decimal metric system". I don't see the slightest reason that can't be quoted. Note that he does not say that the French were influenced by Wilkins (and hints otherwise), so Wilkins' role in the history should not be overstated. Incidentally, the whole work of Wilkins is readable here (start at p181). Also, here is a biography and photo of him, while here and here are two volumes of his scientific musings. A truly fascinating guy . Zero^talk 11:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed an RS, my comment was merely related to the WP:UNDUE aspects of it. But you worded it more eloquently than me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Another place to inspect Quinn's book is here. Zero^talk 11:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Naughtin (2007) here - self published investigated a link between Wilkins and Jefferson, but his research was inconclusive. I think that this can (or maybe should) be added - Naughtin did not make any claims in this respect - only "It is possible that ... but I don't know"). Martinvl (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Two more comments:

1. This paper seems quite a good summary, though we should respect the author's wish on the 8th line.

2. I see some apparent original research as I look around, and (finally) am starting to get the point of this listing here. For example, at Metre#Name it is claimed that Wilkins' phrase "universal measure" led to the word "meter". No source is given for this. It needs a source that explicitly states why the French adopters of the word mètre chose that name; where is that source?

Nothing new under the sun... It seems this argument has been around longer than we thought. In 1805, just 10 years after the French adopted the metric system, a letter appeared in the Philosophical Magazine of London (Vol. 21, No. 81, Feb 1805, pp. 163–173) [23] arguing that all the essentials were invented by Wilkins and decrying the fact that it was implemented by the French without acknowledging the British priority. After quoting at length from Wilkins' book, it says (p.170):

"The above extracts contain, as far as I know, the earliest sketches of the ingenious methods therein proposed; and our neglect of such suggestions of our own countrymen, has been very properly rewarded by our obliging neighbours, who, as in other instances, have done our nation the honour to adopt and combine them, without distressing our modesty by an acknowledgment. I have no room or time, at present, to expatiate on this becoming and characteristic exercise of politeness."

Is that great or what? Incidentally on page 173 there is an intriguing comment "the decimal division of weights and measures has long been established in China" which shouldn't be hard to find a modern citation for if it is true. Zero^talk 15:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Can this peer-reviewed article be excluded on the basis of being "fringe"?

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Genetic studies on Jews. Please add further comments there.

Comment: the closed discussion below includes notes to the effect that discussion should move to the article talk page but instead, as mentioned above, a whole new page has been created. Is this a good idea?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The only effect was to stop the discussion dead in its tracks by shunting it to a page no one knowledgeable about fringe issues will read. We needed outside input, not in-house squabbling.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The regulars here on the fringe theories noticeboard (myself included) dropped the ball on this one. See Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#META: Scope Creep?. You folks who edit the page should have been told early on that this noticeboard is not designed to be an extension of the talk page and advised to try to resolve the dispute through an WP:RFC and then WP:DRN if the RFC doesn't resolve it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not contribute to the debate, mainly because my insights into genetics are about as useful as my views on who are the greatest players in Rugby League. However, there is a much wider issue here. There are a number of contentious areas in which genetics are being used to make or support claims about history and ethnicity. There has been widespread disquiet about the ways some geneticists try to make splash by "proving" some claim or other about ancient ethnicity. Some of the worst offenders like Antonio Arnaiz-Villena go way off into fringe territory, and others like Stephen Oppenheimer get big coverage for "radical" claims (in his case that the English were in Britain before the Romans). Discussion of Indian history is bedevilled by this because of ideologies linked to the "eternal" Indian origin of Sanskrit and Aryan/Dravidian/Tribal distinctions. Geneticists have also been known to make quite cynical comments about how they can get funding for 'proving' some ethno-nationalist claim or other. We do need an appropriate forum in which this general problem about sourcing can be debated. Paul B (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and this area is rather like Wikipedia:MEDRS#Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies. Peer review is not a guarantee that any particular study will make a positive contribution to scientific consensus, particularly an outlier like this one. Mangoe (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The call was quite simple. Numerous peer-reviewed genetic articles adduced (incorrectly) for one theory existed on a page. Attempts over numerous articles to introduce one of several peer-reviewed genetic pages that disagree with this meme were edit-warred out. The papers, for or against, all appear in the same quality journals, only the ones with the "wrong" conclusion were held hostage as WP:fringe. All new scientific articles that disagree with a prior position in the field would, by this logic, be fringe. I don't think this novel approach reflects any policy. I'm sorry that walls of text repeatedly posted wherever this problem made it difficult for you guys, but Zero's neat presentation and responses deserved better, crisper judgement than they got.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the subject, there seems to be pretty broad agreement that this is not a simple fringe case, whatever the problems, and so why was discussion diverted to a new page instead of back to the talk page of the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

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

---

This noticeboard is not the appropriate place for editors of Genetic studies on Jews to continue lengthy discussions, which should normally take place on the article talk page. Regular contributors to FTN, uninvolved in this or related articles. have made several diverse and reasonable points concerning the original question, without reaching a clear consensus. At the moment the discussion has started to become a little too personalised and is swamping this noticeboard. If it must be continued here, please could it be moved to a subpage? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You as uninvolved user can close this thread I think--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Zero asked if this could be included in the article, or whether it was fringe, and to be excluded.

Results

• Not fringe or no objection:Zero, AndyTheGrump, Ubikwit, Itsmejudith, Nishidani, Evildoer187 (a reservation re inclusion into lead), Binksternet, Andrew Lancaster.(8)
• Exclusion:Shrike, Tritomex, (2)
• Undecided but possibly excluding: Dougweller (possibly), Agricolae (2)

I'm fine with closing, as long as it is clear that Zero's query was been met with a reasonable majority for inclusion.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think such summary should be left for uninvolved user.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I suggested creating a subpage. This was not a yes/no vote as Nishidani is suggesting. If something like that is required please start an RfC on the article talk page. Mathsci (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani's recap would appear to represent an accurate recounting of the discussion, so there doesn't appear to be a need for such formality as an official vote.Ubikwit (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Mathsci is correct technically. I confused editors with outside opinion. The vote should read the positives (AndyTheGrump, Itsmejudith, Binksternet) - four undecided (Agricolae, olive, Dougweller, Mathsci, whose implicit math science I ignored). If this must drag on, it goes to the RfC page, though I'm disappointed at so much argument over what looks pretty straightforward, that's the way this joint works, or dysfunctions. Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Magnanimity is nice, but you left me out, and olive was decidedly not in the "undecided" block, as far as I can tell.Ubikwit (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

More eyes on Energy Psychology pages, please

I would appreciate more eyes on Emotional Freedom Techniques‎, Thought Field Therapy, and Tapas Acupressure Technique; there appears to be an effort to make these fringe psychology topics more mainstream by use of non-independent sources and WP:SYNTHing together sources. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagged as advert while pressing my own head... I say Afd them all - pure fringe. History2007 (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Megalithomania

Fringe conference masquerading as a serious study of prehistory. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I say Afd it, just like the one above. History2007 (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Questioned spinout article on the Gospel of the Hebrews

An article on a theory regarding what seems to be a variant form on the Gospel of the Hebrews hypothesized by some modern scholars, and an existing spinout article on that theory, is currently being discussed at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#New merge tag, where that spinout article is being suggested for merging into the main article. The questions so far as I can tell are, basically, about whether the spinout article contains SYNTH problems as well as, possibly, NOTABILITY problems, and whether it ultimately should be merged into the other article. Almost all articles relating to early Christianity around here deal in some way with the beliefs of individual editors, sometimes regarding ideas which have achieved some degree of notability, sometimes not. In any event, I believe it would very much be in the interests of everyone if some knowledgable editors from this board reviewed the material and probably discussed the matter on the talk page of the article. John Carter (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Panspermia

Of interest:
Talk:Panspermia#Chandra Wickramasinghe's fringe science
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Fossil Diatoms in a New Carbonaceous Meteorite
--Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Talmud Jmmanuel apparent hoax by Billy Meier

The alleged Talmud has a J instead of an E because extra-terrestrials told Billy Meier to put it there. Hoax creator's article needs, work, Talmud needs either an AfD or a para in Meier's article and turning it into a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talmud Jmmanuel‎. It says something that the best documentation of the hoax I could find was from a competing religious fringer. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Natural-born-citizen clause

Editors are pressing Stephen Tonchen's birther theories as meriting equal and opposite coverage to the usual view. It as been suggested we should be involved in this; discussion is taking place on the article talk page. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Fringe or Significant Dispute

I believe The Natural-Born-Clause article accurately reflects contemporary legal and popular thought; however, all may be moot if original understanding of the founders is what Birther legal scholars (named under Major Revision Needed) claim. These are unified and therefore strong in voice; they see “constitutional heresy,” and they have never yet seen “their day” in the higher courts. Perhaps they won’t. However, if they do, the Supreme Court will look intensely for original intent. Is the dominant contemporary legal-and-popular-thought skyscraper built on a weak foundation? Even if a minority opinion saw it their way, heavy odds are on the side of scandal in a politically charged combustion chamber ready for that spark--see the talk page argument-- especially if any attempt is made to “suspend” the Constitution in the tumult of the financial days ahead. (2013 is not going to be a nice year in the bond market (four times larger than the stock market with a popped bubble bigger than 2008 and hyperinflation the moment interest rates rise.) I wish this were exaggeration; it’s not.) The smaller courts seem to have sensed this higher court possibility; the VAST majority of decisions have AVOIDED comment, LIKE AVOIDING THE PLAGUE. Wikipedia would want to be safely in the NPOV zone. That’s the point of “Major Revision Needed”—the dispute is real and threatens, however “fringe” an editor or a consensus of editors may have thought the issue was in the past. Be sure a “fringe” label is not just a no-substance, fraud-admitting “Alinsky or an excuse for one-sided POV!”

As I said on the talk page, I don’t have the time to do it justice. Somebody else will have to do it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthebetter (talk • contribs) 05:52, 16 January 2013‎ (UTC)

There's nothing in your screed to indicate your preferred version has any basis in Wikipedia policy. Also, nice touch saying you won't put in any effort yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I love the leap from original intent to global financial meltdown to suspending the constitution to Saul Alinsky.- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucky Louie, I see that you are familiar with Saul Alinsky; you knew his first name. However, I trust that you aren't foolish enough to fall for his lie (that he’s not lying to those he counsels to lie, cheat, intimidate). I do trust that you want to make Wikipedia a reliable source in every respect, otherwise what’s the point of Reliable Sources, NPOV, and Fringe Theory Resolution?

Here is the start of an update that I received at 12:17pm today from my subscription to “Money and Markets” from Weiss Research, Inc., a group that predicted the 2008 meltdown and warned its investors—not like mainstream media--well in advance:

“First, Treasury bonds started to waver and tip over.”

“Next, it was bundles of home loans packaged together as mortgage-backed securities.

“Then, municipal bonds started to crack and lose value.

“Now, another batch of bonds is entering the house of pain — emerging market bonds! Just take a look at this chart of the iShares Emerging Markets USD Bond ETF (EMB).

But in the past few days, this ETF suffered a string of high-volume sell offs

— the highest concentration of such sell offs EVER!

“Not only that, …”

I think you see the point. Whether this is the big one yet, I don’t know. Yet, I’ll tell you what I do know: Interest rates only have one direction to go, and a rise equals a massive bond sell-off.

I invite you to my talk page if you want to discuss the possibilities of the Supreme Court looking at original intent and scandal with “suspension of the Constitution.” First, I invite you to study all of my sources to Major Revison Needed at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause.

To HTF, sorry, I don’t have the time. I would also trust that you are interested in the long-term welfare and reliability of Wikipedia. I’m new to it and really have no investment. It won’t bother me much if Wikipedia is not NPOV at Natural-born-citizen clause. If you want to see the basis of the “screed,” again, please see the sources in Major Revison Needed on Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause. mintbark 23:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The NPOV policy clearly states that we are to cover "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We can report on "fringe" theories only to the extent that they are discussed in sources that are accepted by Wikipedia policy as being "reliable". No amount of fear-and-doom apprehension about what could happen if the US government collapses, etc., can change the requirement that we follow our rules on reliable sources. No matter how unified and strong the so-called "birther scholars" may be within their blog domain, they simply do not exist for our purposes unless we can find their views covered in mainstream publications and media. If you can't accept this, you need to try to get the NPOV policy changed before you can expect the rest of us to change the way these alternative theories are (or are not) covered here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is something that has worked for me; there are a couple of pages on Wikipedia on topics where I have a strong opinion, and one of them is, in my opinion, covered poorly / misleadingly. Other than a couple of minor newbie attempts seven years ago before I registered a username, I have never edited either one, nor have I commented on those pages elsewhere on Wikipedia. That's because I agree with the following quote:

"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

By sticking to topics that I don't have strong feelings about, I avoid any unconscious bias, and I avoid the tendency to edit the page according to what I know to be true (which would be a violation of WP:OR) instead of reporting what is in reliable sources.

BTW, I just looked at those pages again -- I haven't done so in years -- and they both have gotten a lot better without my involvement. Sometimes you just need to trust your fellow editors to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Richwales. You’ve been patient, fair, and decent throughout our discussions. You’ve tried to acquaint a “greenie” with the rules and “ropes.” I’m going to put it on hold for now with one final question: where does an affidavit fit in? Certainly a court will receive it as evidence, and it’s only as good as the witness. Will Wikipedia policy receive it? And thank you Guy Macon for the good advice. The problem I see is the "live tiger loose in the museum" and the personnel don't yet seem to recognize it! mintbark 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

An affidavit that is part of the public record can be used... however, they are very tricky to use appropriately... there are some serious limitations to using one. First, an affidavit is a primary source (see WP:PSTS for more on when it is appropriate/not appropriate to use primary sources). Second, an affidavit is a self-published source (see [[WP:SPS for more on when it is appropriate/not appropriate to use self-published sources). One important limitation on SPS sources is how we phrase the material we take from them... SPS sources more reliable for attributed statements as to the author's opinion, but less reliable for unqualified statements of fact (a lot depends on who wrote the SPS source). This raises the another limitation (or rather a question)... how much WEIGHT to give the opinion. Is the affidavit an expert opinion, or that of "just some guy"? Does mentioning the opinion of the person who wrote the affidavit give his/her opinion WP:UNDUE weight? And finally, ask whether the existance of the affidavit is significant in relation to the subject/topic of the article (or does it realate to something trivial). Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Very helpful, excellent answer Blueboar. Thank you. mintbark 17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. An affidavit means only that the person writing the affidavit is saying (and presumably sincerely believes) something. A court may "receive as evidence" the contents of an affidavit, but that doesn't automatically mean the court has decided to (or is obligated to) accept as true the contents of the affidavit — the court must still evaluate all the various pieces of evidence (including, possibly, affidavits and other claims saying different things) and decide what the truth is.

Wikipedia, however, is not a court of law. We do not judge the factual accuracy of claims, we only report on what others have said about these claims (per the primary-vs.-secondary-source issue already discussed above). And we don't decide which one of a set of conflicting claims is "the truth"; the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy says we report all the various mainstream, reliably substantiated claims and let the reader decide (if he wants to) where the truth might be. Again, most of the sources putting forth "alternative" theories on this subject are not the kinds of sources that the Wikipedia community has decided over the years to accept as generally reliable; and given that fact, we must go with what the sources accepted as reliable say.

If you look at, say, the Minor v. Happersett article, you will see that it discusses pretty much only that case's status as a voting rights case which was pretty much rendered moot by the ratification of the 19th Amendment. That is because reliable sources (books, law journal articles, and the like) have framed the Minor v. Happersett decision in this fashion and no other — if there is in fact a conspiracy to suppress Minor v. Happersett as the Supreme Court's supposedly definitive and final word on who can run for President, said conspiracy is not any recent invention of Barack Obama or John McCain, but on the contrary, it goes all the way back to 1875. As you will see from the Minor v. Happersett talk page, I made a serious effort to get a bit more mention of the current "natural-born citizen" spin into the article (if only to show that this interpretation, though popular in certain circles in recent years, has been consistently rejected by every court that has considered it) — but the current consensus is that the theory is not deserving of even this paltry degree of mention because it isn't acknowledged at all in any sources of the kind we accept as generally reliable.

Some of the material in question here might be acceptable at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories — an article specifically devoted to the fringe theories in the context of their being generally recognized as "fringe" theories. Even there, though, editors need to concentrate on material from secondary sources that discuss the theories, as opposed to directly quoting the claimants themselves.

As for the possibility that, by so severely restricting what kinds of sources we can and cannot use, we are training a blind spot on the "live tiger loose in the museum", I can only say that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"; please see (and carefully study) WP:CRYSTAL. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Meteorite Diatoms

Interesting article from Slate Magazine's Bad Astronomy blog: No, Diatoms Have Not Been Found in a Meteorite. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts

"It has been proposed in this section that Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts be renamed and moved to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses." Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And it's being opposed on the basis that some of these claims really are accurate, just dismissed by people like, you know, archaeologists, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is the wrong reason to oppose it... When it comes to covering a theory, Wikipedia does not care whether the theory is accurate or not... it cares whether it is notable or not. However, that does not mean we ignore the issue of whether the theory is accepted or dismissed. And we don't have to cover (notable) accepted theories in the same article as (notable) dismissed theories. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, maybe this skewed, clueless discussion explains the absurd voting behaviour in the RfC. Since when is the Norse settlement in Canada "dismissed by people like, you know, archaeologists"? And pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and America, while not actually proved, is such a promising hypothesis due to the sweet potato connection (not just the plant, also the word for it) that a lot of serious researchers seem to be looking for this right now. The only thing that is wrong with the title is the silly plural. Before Gun Powder Ma moved the article to the "hypotheses" title in July without consensus, the title was Pre-columbian transoceanic contact, singular. But then the move wasn't undone correctly.

Has the fringe noticeboard become the new playground for the group voters who used to populate WP:ARS in order to cast mindless keep votes at deletion discussions? How about reading an article before voting on it? The fringe in it is clearly marked as such, maybe even too clearly. Hans Adler 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Weston A. Price Foundation

Edits by Pottinger's cats (talk · contribs) (added originally through 128.114.105.66 (talk · contribs)) are blatant WP:SYN violations from my viewpoint, as well as NPOV and FRINGE. Discussion (what there is of it)here).

Basically, Pottinger's cats wants to rebut criticism of the foundation with his own original research, sourced by primary sources (changes presented below in bold):

They also point out that prior to the widespread use of pasteurization, many diseases were commonly transmitted by raw milk, while they made up less than 1% of food and water contamination disease outbreaks by 2005[17][18], though the FDA's own source data shows that for Listeria contamination, raw, unpasteurized milk had 3.1 cases, pasteurized milk had 90.8 cases, and Deli meats had 1598.7 cases.

The director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration division of plant- and dairy-food safety, John Sheehan, called the organization's claims on the health benefits and safety of raw milk "false, devoid of scientific support, and misleading to consumers"[2], though an article in the International Milk Genomics Consortium, while expressing ambivalence about raw milk, nevertheless stated that pasteurization can "destroy complex proteins and other components that could bolster human health", and noted raw milk's protective effects against allergies in children.[20]

The anti-vegetarian and anti-soy views of the foundation have also been criticized in several publications.[23][24][25] Joel Fuhrman MD wrote a series of articles entitled "The truth about the Weston Price Foundation" in which he argues the Foundation is a purveyor of "nutritional myths", largely because they have failed to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence.[3] However, the soybean is listed on the FDA's poisonous plant database.[26]

The other change he made, as I pointed out, is probably worth discussion:

The foundation has been criticised by medical and health experts criticized by Joel Fuhrman and the FDA for "purveying misleading information" and "failing to update their recommendations in light of contradictory evidence".

There are other edits he's made that are currently not in dispute that others might want to look at, most of which were removed, including those made through 128.32.166.162 (talk · contribs). --Ronz (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There are similar problems with the edits of Pottinger's Cat on Orthomolecular medicine. Mathsci (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

With orthomolecular medicine, I was merely attempting to restore an old article, but ceased with that, as it did not follow WP:MEDRS. My recent edits to it have been WP:MEDRS compliant, and have consisted of the introduction of new meta-analyses. I accept that under WP:SYN, the poison plant database and international genomics consortium and msnbc article can be removed. I advocate for the use of criticized by Joel Fuhrman and the FDA. I have made an edit in which I removed all the problematic items I previously inserted.Pottinger's cats (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There are problems also on Emotional Freedom Techniques. Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I wanted to appeal that. The sources I use are clearly WP:MEDRS compliant, but they get reverted continuously, with no justification being given. They are reviews in mainstream journals that are totally relevant to the article.Pottinger's cats (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not how it looks either on the article or the talk page, where you seem to be edit warring and in a minority of one. MastCell and the others have experience with WP:MEDRS, advocacy, etc. You are not engaging in discussion with them. Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They merely say, on the edit history - "I don't think these are improvements". The sources do come from reliable secondary sources and adequately controvert the position currently in the article, as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=533974374&oldid=533953100Pottinger's cats (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a long discussion on the talk page which you appear to have ignored. As the other editors write on the talk page, a survey written by an advocate is not reliable. Equally they make the point that the statements about acupuncture are WP:SYNTH. But let them comment here, since some of them have already remarked that you are making similar edits on several articles. Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As I note below - the article relies on an attempted debunking of acupuncture, hence my inclusion of the reviews controverting that negative position. Also, what is of relevance is that the reviews written by the advocate appear in mainstream journals - they are certainly notable enough for inclusion.Pottinger's cats (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is more of the same. Not so blatant, but still Pottinger's cats introduces a primary source to rebut the criticism:

John Robbins has written a critique in which he reviews the history of the Weston Price Foundation and provides evidence that Weston Price had initially recommended a vegetarian and dairy diet to his own family members as the healthiest diet, though he later became convinced through his research that a diet with meat and high animal fat supplemented by vegetables and minerals would provide optimal health.

--Ronz (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Emotional Freedom Techniques

Controversy exists between the article as it stands now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques

and my edit to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotional_Freedom_Techniques&diff=533974374&oldid=533953100

The only response in opposition to my edits is that the person who did an overview agrees with the practice. However, his substantial reviews have been published in mainstream journals, and warrant inclusion. Also, part of this article relies on a supposed debunking of acupuncture, which has been controverted with reliable reviews that I have included. I attempted to compromise by including ALL sources, both pro and con, but the pro sources were removed without justification, simply because the other editors didn't like them, even though they meet WP:MEDRS.

I have attempted to resolve this issue in a talk page, but other editors (particularly Mastcell and Bobrayner) simply revert my edits, and do not engage in meaningful dialogue.Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment left on talk page. GaramondLethe 01:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Pottinger's Cats could first deal with the concerns about their editing which have been raised at Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques, Talk:Orthomolecular medicine, Talk:Weston A. Price Foundation, Talk:Organic food &c. bobrayner (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For emotional freedom techniques, I responded at the talk page. For orthomolecular medicine - my subsequent edits complied with the requests given, but included extra meta-analyses. I understand the criticisms given at the other sources.Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Basic idea of the topic: used by people without medical degrees, sold to the hopeful, believed by the gullible. Welcome to WP:Fringe. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is busy again. Previous discussions are at [24]. I've raised a couple of NPOV issues at WP:NPOVN#Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Any masochistic editors interested in the area might note that there are a few spinoffs recently created - not, like this one, on the history of the controversy, but on various controversies themselves, eg Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Asiatic Race Theory (titles need fixing - hypothesis is best and lower case of course) and others. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Utter disaster of Katrina proportion. I commented on NPOV board. The only way to settle it may be to get the far off users to use the Emotional Freedom fringe techniques just above here... History2007 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Frances Cress Welsing

We have an editor here who is removing any commentary on her by other scholars - with the edit summary "the best source for understanding Dr. Welsing's views is her book the Isis Papers, not the biased views of others.". Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And the edits are about White Power! Who would have thought that such a dry, noncontroversial topic would have been the subject of so much debate? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship

Respectfully suggest this topic be re-classified as non-fringe theory based on the following:

• Per Dr. Steven W. May in his “The Poems of Edward De Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, etc.” from *Studies in Philology* Vol. 77, No. 5 (1980), p. 10: “Professional scholars have dismissed his [Looney's] arguments along with those of his successors in the cause, often with some indignation, yet the “Oxfordians” have made worthwhile contributions to our understanding of the Elizabethan age. Foremost among these is [B. M.] Ward’s quite competent biography of the Earl,…. Also noteworthy is Charles Wisner Barrell’s identification of Edward Vere, Oxford’s illegimate son by Anne Vavasour, a relationship which escaped E. K. Chambers…. Scholars tend to belittle as well the significance of the Oxfordian movement, yet its leaders are educated men and women who are sincerely interested in Renaissance English culture. Their arguments for De Vere are entertained as at least plausible by hosts of intellectually respectable persons, and the general interest in the “Oxfordian” movement is undoubtedly more widespread now than ever before.” See Professor Steve May — http://www.shef.ac.uk/english/people/may Knitwitted (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This board does not make official declarations about whether a theory is fringe or not, though it can help form consensus. It is well known that May was once relatively sympathetic to Oxfordians. Your quotation is 33 years old. I doubt you'll find anything comparable in his recent writings. However, even in that statement he says nothing about the non-fringe nature of the theory, only that devotees of it have found out some historically valuable facts. This is unsurprising; De Vere's life had been barely researched at that time, since no-one was very interested in him. Neither of the examples cited has anything much to do with the theory. Ward wrote a "quite competent" biography of the earl (in which the theory is never discussed and is only mentioned in passing). Charles Wisner Barrell helped to identify Oxford's illegitimate child, again something that has nothing to do with the theory. I might add that Barrell's tendency to misrepresentation of evidence, evasiveness and possible outright dishonesty vitiates any of his contributions, minor as they are, as you have to check the facts behind everything he writes. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide, it's for the experts on the topic. It's very clear that any theory that someone other than Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare might as well be a theory that aliens built the pyramids instead of the Ancient Egyptians. Heck, even the quote cited above just confirms that most scholars don't take the theory seriously. DreamGuy (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup - the quotation given more or less describes the “Oxfordian” theory as fringe itself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the quote above used to justify this request is an example of that much-beloved Oxfordian tool of cherry picking. May also wrote, "As I worked on my edition of the Earl of Oxford's poetry during the 1970s, I hoped, as I still do, that I might find some connection between De Vere's work and the writings, any writing, of William Shakespeare. Unfortunately, I discovered instead a gulf between the two poets' styles that rules out any direct ties between their output. I looked further into De Vere's life as I prepared my book, The Elizabethan Courtier Poets. The facts of his biography and career at court made any connection with Shakespeare or his writings even less likely." Tom Reedy (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of cherry picking, it is interesting to note how the same article I've proposed as an argument against fringe theory re the Oxfordian authorship page is well and appropriate to use for the lead-in to the Edward_de_Vere article: "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate,[1]. Could someone please direct me to what Wikipedia rule determines what part of a 32-year-old article can be used where and why it would not be applicable elsewhere? Knitwitted (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt at cherry-picking has clearly backfired (to mix metaphors). You attempted to portray May as saying something he didn't. He made perfectly clear in the first quote that "Professional scholars" then considered the Oxfordian theory fringe. His statement cannot therefore be used as "an argument against fringe theory re the Oxfordian authorship page", on the very good grounds that it is self-evidently nothing of the sort. Next time, before you bring your cherries here, I suggest you inspect them a little more closely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, . .Andy, I think women are entitled by nature to have only one 'cherry'. Of course lusūs naturae do exist, and all are worthy of the most minute inspection.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I never can tell whether you are disingenuous or just obtuse. My point was not that (relatively) old articles cannot be used. It was that you would be hard put to find even him saying anything similar. In other words, the passage does not even represent May's views very well - and that's despite the fact that it says very very clearly that Oxfordism is fringe. Not a word in it implies anything otherwise. The other passage represents views that no non-partisan commentator on Oxfiord disagrees with. It's used simply because it's a conveniently neat summary of the standard view. There's no reason why the quotation you cite could not be used in a relevant article, but you were not proposing to use it; you were claiming it to be proof in some way that Oxfordism is not fringe. Paul B (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I vote for disingenuous. Almost her entire Wikipedia tenure has been devoted to time-wasting exercises in futility in which she counterfeits innocent good faith and does her best to try the patience of other editors. I don't believe anybody is that obtuse. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Say Tom, instead of spending your time slurring your words, why don't you prove Dr. Shaheen's assessment of Shax's cites per the Geneva Bible is incorrect? Then kindly prove the accusations by Howard and Arundel against Oxford are false. You're reluctance to correct errors in facts proves you can't. Best, Knitwitted (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See straw man and Ignoratio elenchi. You might also like to check out Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics. Paul B (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Knitwitted is topic-banned from all edits (both article and talk edits, in all namespaces) related to the Shakespeare authorship issue.[25][26][27] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, the topic ban was instituted today, after the edits above (so they are not violations). Looie496 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Roza Bal

Anyone remember this one? See Talk:Roza Bal and my new entry at WP:COIN. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It goes back to this edit. She edits under her own name and has no qualms about COI. Ever since Notovitch's work well over a hundred years ago that topic has been a magnet for unsubstantiated fringe ideas. I asked her to read WP:MEAT anyway. The fun way out would be to get her to argue it out elsewhere with the people who run the gift shop at Shingō, Aomori... I am not sure which is more far out... History2007 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate titles... which is right?

Islamic golden age is a redirect to Abbasid Caliphate#Islamic Golden Age but ... Islamic Golden Age also exists - someone needs to sort this out. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I did another fix- linked the main article from the section in Abbasid Caliphate article. Weird thing is the main article is shorter than the section. O well. (Also this isn't fringe at all) Bhny (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Abraham in Islam

I don't know much about Islam in general, but something in this pattern of edits got my Spidey Sense tingling: [28]. There's something in the tenor and tone of these which seems to be of the "exposing the Truth that no one else knows" variety. The same basic additions were made by an IP address that I assume is the same person before he/she registerred, the edit summary here is enlightening: [29]. I could be wrong, but perhaps someone that does know more about the Quran could look into these changes and see if they have merit, or if my suspicions are correct here. Seems a bit odd. Again, I don't have the knowledge in this area to assess the situation, but something about the way in which these changes are made sent up red flags for me. --Jayron32 07:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The content appears to be derived from a debate over a YouTube video [30]. Paul B (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that much. Wholesale changes to articles based solely on youtube videos is probably meets the definition of fringe, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 13:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Uriel's Machine

This is starting to creep back towards concealing the truth that this is woo-woo bullocks archaeology. I know we'll get the inevtable fight over it but the lead needs to but up front about the truth that this is rubbish. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus in India (book)

Almost entirely sourced to a website. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I used to have a copy and have read the book, have you? Jesus in India reflects the view of history of the Ahmadiyya religion, just like all religions have their respective views of history, but is this the right board? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Both/either this and/or the RS board may work. The thing to do would be to use book itself, and not the website, given that it is not clear if the website is a real reflection of the book - which was in any case collected after his death. The fringe angle comes in when it says that "Buddhists who seem to have reproduced the Gospels in their books" sounding as a historical element which no longer applies to Islam, but would be against all that historians say about Buddhism: that it may have been softened recently as it met the west, but had no influence from early Christianity. Overall the entire series of Wiki articles on Ahmadiyya is less than organized. Heaven forbid that I touch them, but when the pages verge on asserting historical influences on Buddhism which are no longer religious items, it applies to this board. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Christian Science

On the Christian Science article, I noticed any criticism has been deleted and there is nowhere any mention of Christian Science being a pseudoscience. Please see these references I have found:

• Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement by Ruth A. Tucker
• The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin
• Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America By James C. Whorton
• World Religions and Cults 101 By Bruce Bickel, Stan Jantz
• Cults, World Religions and the Occult by Kenneth Boa
• The Kingdom of the Occult Walter Martin, Jill Martin Rische, Kevin Rische, Van Gorden Kurt
• Self-Help and Popular Religion in Modern American Culture: An Interpretive Guide by Roy M. Anker
• The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience by Michael Shermer
• Christian Science as Pseudoscience by Robert Miller
• Annals of Gullibility: Why We Get Duped and How to Avoid It by Stephen Greenspan

If you read any of the above references, it is clear Mary Baker Eddy was a fraud, and Christian Science is a pseudoscientific cult. But none of this or these references are aloud on the article? Fodor Fan (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed just over a month ago on this noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Christian_Science. Mathsci (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for this, I just looked throught that, so the final conclusion is to leave any criticism off the page? Fodor Fan (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Reception section of the article? Looie496 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have read it, it is missing much information. Only yesterday did I add a source from Martin Gardner that Eddy was a morphine addict, why was this never included before? And on the talk page there is now someone talking about "NPOV". See the talk page on the Christian Science article, I have collected valid sources which show Eddy was a fraud, and committed plagiarism etc. I have also found Newspaper reports of suicides associated with Christian Science, but I try and add them and they keep getting deleted. Fodor Fan (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear to me why the fact that Eddy may have been a morphine addict is a relevant criticism of modern Christian Science, nor that members of the movement commit suicide from time to time. Neither of these make the movement pseudoscience. Agricolae (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a big fuss about this several weeks ago with (as you'll see from the Talk) User:Jimbo himself weighing in. See also this discussion on Jimbo's Talk page.

Unsurprisingly, Christian Science as a topic has attracted several editors with strong views. However, this was largely neutralized when User:SlimVirgin carried out a major re-write of the article with - in my view - exemplary skill to give us pretty much what we have now. I think it's pretty neutral, and it's currently nominated as a GA.

However, I have always believed it would be correct to characterize the healing aspect of Christian Science as (probably) pseudoscience and (almost certainly) quackery. Consensus was not with me. I view the apparent prohibition on characterizing religions (and especially pseudoreligions like Christian Science) in these terms as being a kind of subtle censorship.

Of course, one could write reams about all the crazy stuff that Eddy did -- but most of that would, I think, sit more properly in the article about her. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo weighed in about calling it pseudoscience only. He didn't actually read the rest of the article; he just read and edited the lead; when he removed a mention of pseudoscience he just removed it from the lead but not the rest of the article where the sources actually where. I suggest people look at [31], a lot of which has been removed by the Slim and the Christian science practitioners who now appear to dominate the article. The history has been changed to give what Christian Science practioners assert precedence, rather than what the academic sources say. Much of the sourced content I added has been stripped. The use of the term "Christian Science" by Quimby was removed. For some reason the new york times is now being relied on over and above the academic sources. This is made worse that some editors (who I would regard as generally scientifically inept) seem to believe that Science didn't refer to Natural science in the 1870's, and are basing their removal of sourced content also based on that. See Talk:Christian_Science/GA1#Content_selectively_being_removed. also. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the user SlimVirgin needs to be told to step down from the article, they seem to think they own it. Every edit I or another makes they revert, and their reason is that the sources are not written by "expert"s, this user recently deleted references by Eugene V. Gallagher, Ruth Tucker (a historian who has written on new age cults) etc. It seems they will delete any criticism of Christian Science, and in response claim it is becuase the sources are not written by experts... they have also ignored all the sources written by notable scholars or experts that I listed above etc. Fodor Fan (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cataloging the Sarkarverse

I've started a page User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles to keep track of all the articles relating to Sarkar, PROUT, and Ananda Marga. Please feel free to update it and refer to it. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in case anybody's interested, there are currently six AfDs on related articles:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microvitum in a Nutshell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROUT in a Nutshell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabhat Samgiita
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhasita Samgraha

bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there enough server space to track all these articles? It looks like they are going to overflow disk space any minute now. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Another question: Which user started more articles that were Afd-ed one after another within a month? Is it user:Cornelius383 or user:Paul Bedson? Is there an Afd-Olympics of some type here? History2007 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to kick an editor while they're down (we should be focussing on the content) but there are surely other editors with a higher number; maybe somebody like Marshallsumter.

Meanwhile, Garamond Lethe has started another two AfDs: Ananda Vacanamrtam and Idea and Ideology. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And let us not forget the Joefaust follies.... Mangoe (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But in the Olympics there are gold, silver and bronze, so 3 editors may yet get medals... History2007 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The catalog is completed, as best I can determine. It's actually more compact than I thought. There seem to be three core pieces: Sarkar and his publications, PROUT, and Ananda Marga. There is a long list of passing references at the end, but a lot of the apparent spread of things is caused by a couple of heavily used templates. My thoughts at the moment are as follows:

• Obviously the heavily promotional quality of most of this needs to be brought under control.
• Notability of PROUT is a big issue here. If nobody outside the Sarkarverse cares about it, then it needs to be cut out of all the various places where it is referred to.
  • On that note, Ravi Batra's Ig Nobelity is going to doom him to notability no matter what happens to PROUT.
• Ananda Marga enjoys a certain notoriety due to its associations (real or merely alleged) with several notorious incidents. I question however the notability of the secondary figures and places associated with it.

I invite others to look at what I've dredged up and provide their own comments. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Web Bot - standalone article or merge for this supposed clairvoyant internet bot?

We have an article on a supposed internet bot called Web Bot that claims to be able predict events such as the (non-event) 2012 phenomenon. The notability of this is being disputed by User:Serendipodous, who wants to redirect to 2012 phenomenon (where it is mentioned under 2012_phenomenon#Other_catastrophes as he does not believe that this project is notable - and he is concerned that it is a scam. I reverted the undiscussed merge as I believe that the project, however dubious, has gained sufficient coverage in notable sources to warrant an article - and I believe that predictions and supposed workings goes beyond the '2012' predictions but these cannot be discussed in the merge target as they would be out of context. I recognise that the page needs to avoid endorsing the reality of this 'tool' and should avoid using dubious websites as sources, but I think this can be managed through normal editing. I would appreciate views on how to best manage this content. Fences&Windows 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said there, a clear lunatic fringe item, but with coverage, so no need to merge. But the junk sources need to be deleted as you said and its clear failures pointed out. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear: the merge was not "undiscussed". I opened the merge to discussion for a week on the article's talk page; it is simply that no one responded at the time. Even with the dud sources removed, however, there is still the question of continued notability post-2012. I have not found a single reliable source documenting the phenomenon since the beginning of the year, and since this is transparently a money grab by two people preying on the computer illiteracy of the general public, there is a question as to whether keeping the page ultimately does more harm than good. Serendi^podous 14:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If it does not deserve to exist, just Afd it. I think it deserves to exist as a monument to the gullibility of the human race... History2007 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Karma in Jainism#Scientific interpretation

There is some RS/N discussion concerning the fringiness of of some Jain notions and in particular a specific book on the matter. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said there, generally a fringe idea (not just Jainism, but elsewhere too) and usually followed by those who know just a little physics, although a few well known physicists have wandered in there and said things that other scientists generally ignore. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A few esoteric articles for your attention

Weltmer Institute of Suggestive Therapeutics - ever see anything so in your face?

Sidney Abram Weltmer

Grace Mann Brown

Joseph Sieber Benner Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a go at editing the Weltmer Institute page (so you'll need to look at a prior version to see it in its full glory) - but as an adjunct to this it would seem that Sidney Abram Weltmer also has some problems. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a little bit on the Sidney Abram Weltmer biography. Chunks are clearly copied from a source. I can't find the source online and it seems to be very old, given its use of the present tense, so it is most likely out of copyright. Is he definitely notable? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems the institute was quite well known in its time - especially in Nevada, Missouri ;-) ... there are a few reasonable sources floating around so I say it makes the cut, and is part of the story of the fashion for mental healing/hypnosis of its time. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI}

The Benner article is an interesting case. As it says, ominiously, in the lead "Little is known of his life, and the information are not published openly to the public."

I have pecked at the article a bit and introduced a couple of sources.

Benner it seems was a businessman who bought a printing press and took-up automatic writing. He has a cult following boosted in part by Elvis Presley's interest in one of his books. A lot of the article as it stands looks like a fairly good piece of original research, with that information that is sourced, being sourced rather weakly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The funniest part was Elvis' "hairdresser-turned-guru" planting the idea in Elvis' mind. I bet a Wiki-article will soon appear about how hairdressers can plant thoughts while working on people... But seriously, much of it has no hope and the big quotes need to go - else will be cruel to the reader really. Who cares how much he paid for the printing press. I suggest trimming by 50% at least. The Weltmer page is even worse. Needs a 70% trim. History2007 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The hairdresser thing I added :-) I believe it's the only statement in the entire article sourced to a peer-reviewed journal. Now that is strange ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Trimmed lavish quotations, some copyvio, and dodgy sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Very nice. Now perhaps Mr Weltmer's page needs a haircut too, with magnetic scissors perhaps. History2007 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked it over. It's 90% copyvio cut and pasted from Weltmer's own biographical sketch. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggest Weltmer Institute of Suggestive Therapeutics MERGE TO Sidney Abram Weltmer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of us are lucky enough to have received talk page posts from the articles' creator. He's insisting our policies be changed and claiming we are violating the US constitution. See Talk:Weltmer Institute of Suggestive Therapeutics. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And here I was, thinking that the US Constitution (Not to be confused with the USS Constitution) restricted what the government can and can not do... --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The government is absolutely not allowed to cut hair with magnetic scissors without paying royalties to Mr. Weltmer's institute. And if you add merge tags as LuckyLouie suggested it will probably go through. History2007 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't realize the article creator was cut and pasting from books with expired copyright. Sorry. But still. An entire article copied from a primary source is not good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Plagiarism. Plus creating a biography from someone's autobiography is a terrible idea. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

David Frawley

Just reverted an attempt to remove criticism from this article. As the editor is actively editing I expect to be reverted myself. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Microvita theory

I'm wondering if someone could take a look at the sourcing for this one, or let me know if there is reliable sourcing for the theory. Thanks! Location (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a case of a self reproducing article. Does Cornelius383 ring a bell? There is also the Afd on Microvitum in a Nutshell which I think should just be renamed to Microvitum in for Nutcases. Pure fringe. I say just Afd it. The article has the audacity to say: "The author predicts that they will soon be recognized by conventional science." Well, let him write the article after they have been recognized. History2007 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's another piece of the Sarkarverse which has featured prominently here and in AfD. We should just redirect it back at the author. Mangoe (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Serious notability and neutrality problems. However, there are a lot of other problematic articles still out there... bobrayner (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there's a related Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems of the Day. Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I dropped by. Also note Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ananda_Marga_Elementary_Philosophy. There are probably more. GaramondLethe 01:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Another 30 articles on the topic may appear next week. These guys do not take a hint. Time to do a Rfc/U on user:Cornelius383, of course, if anyone has the time. History2007 (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And there is a funny possibility here. Should the people at Emotional Freedom Techniques just above here read about Microvita theory, they could quickly do a self-published book (not hard by cut and paste) on how it uses these sub atomic forces... Then build a page for it. So this noticeboard may just brew new fringe after all. History2007 (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

tat will hardly help the articles here; the problem is that all the sources in most of the related articles are self-published, and no matter how many there are, they will never show notability DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Law of One

This board had a section about the article that got deleted here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination). There is an ongoing AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One which is about the series of books in which Ra's words were published. I am concerned that this is essentially the same material under a different name. Mcewan (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The article conspicuously omits the ancient astronaut scenario this particular belief is founded on. The Ra-channeled material does not have much of a footprint in academic sources that discuss various UFO religions, but here's one: [32] - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Another guru case

As a sober article on new religious movements we have Contemporary Sant Mat movements. As any regular here might guess, the articles on the various movements and gurus involved are overrun by adherents, as can be seen for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sant Bani Ashram (Ribolla). I'm not sure how to handle this, and it might not be entirely within our purview, but my look at these tends to find articles written by believers for potential believers. Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, you're doing great work here and your Sarkar catalog in particular has been invaluable in helping me improve that area. However, as enjoyable as it might be to use words like "outbreak", "gurus" and "overrun", the result down in the trenches is that editors are having to deal with charges of canvassing. Whether or not that charge is valid is beside the point: it's just one more objection that has to be taken care of. Please, keep doing what you're doing, just be exquisitely neutral about it. And I'll try to take a look at the article tonight. GaramondLethe 19:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Guru" here is meant entirely as a technical term, not a pejorative. Mostly, we should have articles about these people, and perhaps their specific movement if it goes beyond them; the recurring problems seem to be that (a) these articles are apparently largely created and maintained by followers, that (b) there is a tendency to assume that everything related to the group or its head is notable, and that (c) attempts to make neutral articles out of them and prune down the size of the tree attracts a wave of followers whom, one has to suspect, are marshalled through off-site canvassing. I wouldn't have a problem with any of this except that typically they show no understanding of standards for writing this material or determining notability. "Outbreak" was probably unfortunate; "overrun" is sadly accurate. It would be useful if they could write as knowledgeable but neutral insiders, but this never seems to be the case. Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

...and now I need some advice on going forward with this stuff. All of the Sant Mat articles seem to be heavily owned by one Italian editor who is plainly an adherent and appears to be attached to the ashram I brought up first. As seems inevitably the case for these groups, he doesn't seem to get the concept of secondary sourcing at all. And this is hardly the only problem case: the only articles in Category:New religious movements that take a sober approach are those where the leader/founder got into some sort of Western world legal trouble, and those go overboard the other way. Movements that never left India have the worst articles because (a) the English is typically awful, (b) if they had legal/political problems the articles are torn apart, and (c) there are never any sources other than the leader's writings. This only barely within our purview in the first place. I'm trying to avoid getting confrontational, but I don't know what else we can do to impose some discipline on this mess. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Madeleine Duncan Brown and JFK conspiracy allegations

I've re-written Madeleine Duncan Brown to comply with Wikipedia standards regarding reliable sources. In my opinion, it may be OK to use "claim" in certain circumstances and I think this is one of them. Still, someone should probably check my work with WP:CLAIM in mind. Thanks! Location (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A HUGE Time saver!

There is a website at http://www.verifiedfacts.org/ that generates a new conspiracy theory every time you refresh the page. No longer will Wikipedia editors have to spend long hours developing new fringe theories. With this new tool you can easily create hundreds every day! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The truth is out there! - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is... (for a variable value of "truth" and an undefined distance for "out there") Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic news. Thanks for sharing! Hans Adler 20:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: "The Truth About Fringe theories noticeboard and Watergate" I knew it! Location (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Transfer factor

It seems the article Transfer factor has become a magnet for pseudoscience claims, fueled by the economic interest of snake-oil salesmen. There was great interest and serious research into the topic before 1985 but later it became an abandoned theory. I have added the article in Category:Pseudoscience and started the discussion here: Talk:Transfer factor#Pseudoscience. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Intrasomatic model

A new user (probably Peake himself) has created this article Intrasomatic model. It is a non-notable pseudoscientific idea of Anthony Peake. (I searched for Peake, and noticed his article on wikipedia was deleted last year for being non-notable). Peake is not a scientist, but a paranormal author who has written a crazy book claiming that after death people live their lives over similar to the film groundhog day or the Truman Show in a virtual reality. Note how the Intrasomatic model has no valid references apart from his own self-published book. The same user has also copied the "model" onto the Out-of-body experience article, and has also attempted to put it on others. I think that the article is suitable to be deleted as it is non-notable, or a redirect. Fodor Fan (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not presume that it was "Peake himself"; I "copied" it into the other categories at the request of Wikipedia editors themselves, to address an Orphan citation. Here I followed instructions only to bring suspicion onto the author.Tutweiler (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"His books regarding binary mind theory have been published internationally and verified by researchers such as acclaimed author Colin Wilson and Bruce Greyson of The Journal of Near Death Studies." nuff said, I think this article would pass for a quick afd. Fodor Fan (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A search for "Intrasomatic model" reveals no internet hits apart from the wikipedia article, it may well be a case of original research. Fodor Fan (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If someone can submit it for afd that would be helpful and we can vote, I do not know how to do that. Fodor Fan (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrasomatic model is available for comment. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Ayers

I'm wondering if someone can take a look at Bradley Ayers and give me some idea of whether or not it is possible to make this into a credible Wikipedia article. This is yet another subject whose claim to fame is contained within his or her allegations of having seen or heard something that sheds light on who really assassinated JFK or RFK. Primary source material available at maryferrell.org suggests that the claim of working for the CIA is real, however, his actual role and claim of knowing who the assassins of JFK and RFK might have been are only backed up by his own books and the usual sources promoting fringe theories (i.e. they are unreliable). I cannot even find a reliable source reiterating the allegations. Thanks. Location (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any demonstration of notability on the page, and would recommend AfD. a13ean (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I just slapped a WP:N tag on this article. It's very weakly sourced, full of the kind of biographical details that are mostly irrelevant to the core of his nobility: A bunch of unsubstantiated claims which have never been subject to any serious scrutiny. I'd support an AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Cord Meyer

If someone has an extra minute or two, please review the last couple edits to Cord Meyer and let me know in Talk:Cord Meyer if I have summarized the source(s) properly. Thanks! Location (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

More allegations of allegations in Talk:Cord Meyer. Thanks! Location (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory

I came across this funny article that presents a remote fringe theory in the words of the theory's proponents, but never actually points out that no serious historian buys it. I really wanted to divide the article into sections (one for each quotation) and add the sentence "However, this view has not achieved mainstream accepts among scholars of either Jewish or Japanese history." to the intro, but...

I don't actually have a source by a credible historian that even acknowledges this viewpoint, so I can't actually provide a source for that statement. Could someone with more expertise in this area take a look at it? Thanks!

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(The above has also been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC) )

Forgot: It was also mentioned that someone with access to JStor (I don't) might have a look at [33], which apparently mentions one of the "theory"'s main proponents. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read the article and looked at the sources?

I have ensured that the dubiousness and utter fallaciousnness of the so-called theory based on Old Testament mythology has been brought to the fore with sources by "credible historians". The source by Parfitt was published in 2003, and it is probably the preeiminent source on the topic.

Why would you present an obscure, inaccesible journal article (Stanford Lyman?) source while ignoring prominent sources?

Why are you starting this apparently pointless thread with a link to an inacessible journal article?

I don't mean to not WP:AGF, but the entirety of the content on the basis of which you have started this thread would appear to be dubious, raising a question with respect to your competence.--Ubikwit (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I always AGF. In fact, I judge articles like this on their merits, and don't generally check the history before posting on noticeboards like this. Therefore, I didn't know about your history with the page. The fact is that at the time I saw the article, it had one inline citation of a mainstream-ish Japanese history source, which was used for the almost-invisible statement "They had little impact in Japan". The article did, however, include numerous non-English works under "Additional reading" that definitely gave the impression that there is something in the Nihon Shoki that supports this theory. It is, however, ultimately a fringe theory, and I can safely say having read Aston's complete translation of the Nihon Shoki that there is nothing in there about Jews -- it was compiled in 720 (CE), over a millennium before the Japanese had any contact with Judaism. Additionally, my above reference to an article I haven't read was a request to another user who doesn't have to pay to read it to check if there is anything worthwhile in there. This is a completely legitimate request, and in fact comes not from me but from User:Cckerberos.[34] elvenscout742 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The central problem with the article is that it was mainly a bunch of quotations strung together, but the content was generally OK. I think that note at the top about expanding from the Japanese version should go. The Jap version seems to be presenting 'evidence' for the theory (so far as I can tell, from my fluent skills in google-translated Japanese!). I've tried to minimise the direct quoting and to link together the ideas. Essentially we seem to have several separate ideas. One is the ultra-fringe "Lost Tribes" argument which dates back to the 17th century (when it was more mainstream) and then pops up with eccentrics in the 19th-20th centuries. Another is the more "rational" idea that some sub-group of the Japanese population may have originated from Jewish immigrants. These are, of course, different. The Lost Tribes are by definition, not "Jews", since Jews derive from Judah, the main tribe that was not lost. I'm not sure whether it's worth being pedantic about the distinction between "Israelites" and "Jews" in this instance, but we should be clear about the difference between the Lost Tribe model and the more plausible (though still fringy) migrating Jews model. I've done my best to bring that out. Paul B (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:WEIGHT mean we have to point out that no serious scholars of Japanese history take any variants of this theory seriously? I am only loosely familiar with the Jewish history (Israelite history?) behind this, but my understanding is that the historical consensus there is that the Ten Tribes are gone and never coming back: they ceased to be as a distinct cultural entity after 720. (I'm getting that mostly from Yale's open university lecture series on the Hebrew Bible on YouTube.) My problem (and the problem raised on WPJ) is that while Jewish historians have given some attention to all of these hypotheses and carefully examined the evidence, Japanese historians don't even care about this theory because it is just that ridiculous. This means that we can't locate reliable sources that specifically state "No mainstream Japanese historians take this theory seriously". elvenscout742 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it, since the Ten Tribes were never "Jews" isn't the use of the word "Jew" in the article somewhat questionable? I do really like how the article has been cleaned up, though: at least now it doesn't give the impression of promoting the theory. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the title would still be technically correct since Jews and other Israelites all had a common ancestor (Jacob), so if Japs were Israelites they'd have the same common ancestor. The problem with theories that no-one takes seriously, is that it's often difficult to find anyone who even mentions the fact that they don't take them seriously. And even if they do, they don't go into detail, so it's difficult to fill up an article with equal weight if all anyone says is "what a load of baloney". Inevitably the theory itself will get more detailed coverage. I think the fact that we have repeated quotations from Pavitt and Shillony saying things like "ludicrous", "totally groundless" and "fantasy" should be enough. That's pretty unequivocal. Mind, you, given changes in word-use, I worry slightly about "fantastic chain of reasoning". Someone might think that means it's a really fantastic, like, awesome, idea, dude. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well... If one goes back far enough in the DNA chain, the Jews/Israelites and the Japanese actually do have common ancestry (all humans do). But, of course, that isn't what the article is actually about.

The key here is to separate theories that were widely accepted (or at least considered plausible) in historic times, from scholarship as we know it today. In historic eras, European scholarship took seriously the idea that there existed a group of people descended from the "lost tribes" of Israel. It was not a "fringe" theory... back then (No more so than the accepted observation that the earth is at the center of the universe, and that the sun orbits the earth). Today we know better. It is OK to discuss historical theories... as long as we make the historical context clear. Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding as to how widespread this theory was in historic times. No serious historian who knew anything about Japan ever took this theory seriously. In the seventeenth century even the most educated Europeans knew next-to-nothing about Japan, and even today the "evidence" presented in the theory seems to be based on a one-way reading of history and culture, i.e. comparing actually Hebrew words to there Japanese "cognates", even though said cognates don't actually exist, and so on. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The "theory" doesn't get a full articulation until McLeod in the 18th century. It was an utter fabrication paralleling other such precedents such as that relating to the indigenous peoples in the British colonies that became the United States. I'd suggest reading Parfitt's book. On p. 139 of his book Shillony writes that, "No serious historian has ever endorsed the theory that the Japanese are descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel...".--Ubikwit (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You see, though, I, like said serious historians, simply don't care enough about the "theory" to go reading books about it: I only care about actual Japanese history. And it should be noted that until yesterday the article did not say anything like that. The closest it came to that was when it quoted Shillony saying that one particular anecdote was "ludicrous" and "totally groundless". The article may have been intended as a sarcastic critique of the theory, assuming that only sensible people read Wikipedia, but sarcasm is what Uncyclopedia is for. On Wikipedia, articles on fringe theories should, like ancient astronauts, state in the intro that "the idea ... is not taken seriously by most academics, and has received little or no credible attention in peer reviewed studies". The current article's stating that "DNA evidence excludes this possibility" is good enough. (I know the previous version also said this, but buried halfway down the article and underneath four quotations.) elvenscout742 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. The quotes from Parfitt in the lead are meant to dispel any type of credence and discount the "theory" from the start so as to prevent any of the proponent editors from trying to promote the theory. If you check the history, you'll see that one editor actually removed the "ludicrous" quote attibuting it to me and claiming it was a non-nuetral POV. Like the British israelism article, there are proponents trolling that article and others related to the Ten Lost Tribes theory.

I have not posted the above-quoted sentence from the Shilolny book, which in its entirety reads, "No serious historian has ever endorsed the theory that the Japanese are descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, but the legend refuses to die", but that could be included in the article if necessary, for future reference. Parffit refers to the theory as a myth, basically. See the related quotes from his book in hte lead of the Ten Lost Tribes article.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Progressive utilization theory

Hello all,
I'm concerned that the Progressive utilization theory article may be host to some fringey content. Any chance of a second opinion? For instance, I recently tried removing some unsourced stuff about criminology and economics, which may or may not be compatible with what's written by the author of the "Progressive utilization theory", but it's definitely not a mainstream view of criminology & economics. PROUT is pretty wide-ranging so there's other stuff which appears to conflict with the mainstream of other fields... Would any of the FT:N stalwarts care to have a look? bobrayner (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of related articles, like Microvitum in a Nutshell and Kaosikii dance &c. I just removed some content from the latter - because we need a MEDRS for claims that a dance is a panacea for many diseases, keeps the glandular system well balanced &c - but there are plenty of other articles out there... bobrayner (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Massive problems with the article. There seems to be a proponent, whose books are cited, WP:OWN ing it. It is far too long and strays way beyond what is notable. A dire shortage of independent commentary. What a pity. Most of the views aren't way outside the mainstream. In economics, proposing co-operatives is quite commonplace, and even the most utopian proposals are not necessarily fringe in the pseudoscience sense. Of course you can use the proponents to set out what the movement advocates, but then the article needs to use independent sources. A Reception section is needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The main article has recently been protected. Meanwhile there's a lot of stuff linked from {{Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar}}. bobrayner (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have commented in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#Opinions from uninvolved editors. Location (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For those who might interested in a resolution to the problems voiced above, please see Talk:Progressive utilization theory#Proposal to replace current content. Thanks! Location (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

An alternative proposal has been offered at Talk:Progressive utilization theory#Proposal to integrate the secondary material collected by Location into the current article. Location (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ananda Marga

It looks as though we have a huge problem here. Searching for progressive utilization theory (apparently usually abbreviated as PROUT) led me quickly to discussion of Ananda Marga. Here's a typical reference [35] which identifies the two as more or less a single thing and identifies it as a political as well as spiritual movement. It also has some unsavory history. There aare more like this but my impression is that both articles are heavily owned by adherents. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW there's a whole long chapter in Violence and New Religious Movements (ed James R. Lewis, OUP, 2011) on this movement including a lot of material on PROUT. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an in-house produced infomercial, not an encyclopedia article. Alas they are likely to fight to death over it.... I will tag it as a PR piece, but not holding my breath.... That is all I can do really.... History2007 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of terrorism on Ananda Marga appear frequently in almost all independent secondary and tertiary sources. Currently the only paragraph on this is hidden away as a note in the Chronology table. I tried to add a paragraph on Ananda Marga's political history that led to terrorism based on reliable independent sources which included James R. Lewis.[36] My edits were reverted as "yellow journalism" and "vandalism by a clearly prejudiced person". I didn't have much of an appetite for edit war, so I simply left the page. I am glad bobrayner has taken deeper interest into this. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; I've started some cleanup work on the Ananda Marga article although it will be a long task (all help gratefully welcomed). First priority was pseudomedical stuff - the article had lots of content like this with no WP:MEDRS in sight.

A lot of these articles appear to be well-sourced at first glance but often the stuff inside the ref tags is just more content, not an actual source. bobrayner (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean they may have dressed it up to look good? No... people would not do that .. would they? .... History2007 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Shabda Cayanika (an article about a book by Sarkar) is a good example: Just look how long and detailed the references section is! It cites chapter 1 of the book, chapter 2, and so on. It even cites the website selling the book. Impressively comprehensive sourcing! bobrayner (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That one needs an 800 number too. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know anything about this group but I read over the piece and noticed that they are using three different transliteration methods for Sanskrit terminology within the same article. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to be the center of the whole thing and really is what should be concentrated on. I've found several different directories of modern/Hindu cults which talk about it beyond just including it in a list. There's a political component which the current article is completely ignoring and which makes the group/movement notable beyond the religious/cultic arena. I don't know that we need to apply some WP:TNT but working from the sources I've found would produce content which would hardly intersect with the current content at all, other than a few names. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ananda Sutram

The article Ananda Sutram is also part of the complex of articles involved in this dispute. It would be helpful if more editors expressed views on it as well. Buddhipriya (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at hammering it into something more resembling an outside, NPOV description. The second paragraph I unfortunately cannot do much with, in large part because it reads to me as (if I may be impolite about it) woo-woo jargon stream-of-consciousness. I think there's probably an argument for deletion or redirection as this seems to be yet another text of interest only within the believer community. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

On further reflection I've merged it into Ananda Marga since it seems to have no notability except as a text of the movement. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. (It was worth trying...) bobrayner (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AfDs

There are some AfDs on related articles:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohumanism in a Nutshell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discourses on PROUT
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namah Shivaya Shantaya
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabda Cayanika

Your insights would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadly there's some disagreement over sourcing on these articles, but particularly Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3). (Although this is now more of a sourcing issue than a fringe issue). As always, comments from uninvolved editors would be very welcome. bobrayner (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/I discussion

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Progressive utilization theory. Mangoe (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Current AfDs

I think there are some more AfDs open. Has anybody got a current list? bobrayner (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm keeping this page up to date. Here are the current open AfDs.

• PROUT in a Nutshell (AfD) redirected
• The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism (AfD))
• Prabhat Samgiita (AfD)
• Subhasita Samgraha (AfD) (deleted)
• Ananda Vacanamrtam (AfD) (redirected)
• Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2) (AfD)
• Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) (AfD)
• A Guide to Human Conduct (AfD)

GaramondLethe 00:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work! bobrayner (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's nothing like I've ever had to deal with before.... GaramondLethe 01:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• To the Patriots AfD
• Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies (AfD)

GaramondLethe 03:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The last batch has been put up for AfD. Details here. Garamond Lethet
c 00:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dwarka

New editor (started as an IP) trying to add fringe material to this article (which is a problem from time to time so could use more watchers). Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Duly watchlisted. There doesn't seem to be any trouble at Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Cambay; maybe the awkward title keeps some readers away? bobrayner (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies for missing this. I'm sure you are right. These editors just search for Dwarka or Dvarka normally. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bat Creek inscription redux

Hu McCulluch, one of the contributors to the literature on this has been editing the article. I've been glancing at popups of diffs from time to time but not the totality of his changes, even now. A few minutes ago I deleted two paragraphs he added, one sourced to Scott Wolter's website and the other to an article of Hu's published in the fringe journal Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts. We've discussed related material before.[37] A few more eyes reviewing this would be useful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Particularly on the talk page now after I removed something sourced to Scott Wolter. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Exopolitics

This was a dab page, someone's turned it into an article stub. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like just a definition. Not sure how Wikipedia normally handles articles that are just definitions. Location (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I see a bunch of different references to the idea but I'm not doing so well finding anything outside of fringey, self-published books. I'm somewhat inclined to do an AFD on the article as well as on the various author articles. Mangoe (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn’t have such articles at all: that’s what Wiktionary is for.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Overunity

Overunity seems like just a content fork of perpetual motion and currently includes fringey phrases like

• The term [overunity] fails to do justice to the endeavors of some who would prefer a different term to describe what they are working on.
• There may be many different yet unknown sources of energy in the Universe.
• What is required to attain a paradigm shift is an "open mind" and a willingness to accept new discoveries and new ideas
• Other sources of information about "Over-unity" can be found at the user's forum

Also 89.160.124.74 remove the existing POV, no footnotes, and fringe theory templates without discussion, while adding that Over-unity should not be mixed up specifically with "Perpetual Motion". Same IP has also changed Over-unity from a redirect of Perpetual motion to a redirect of Overunity.--Atlantima (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Over-unity and Overunity both redirect to Perpetual motion now. If the IP editor tries it again, report it at WP:AIAV, which will most likely result in the redirects being semi-protected. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Eteocretan language

Could anyone help out on Eteocretan language? I don't want an edit war with a user who is intent on adding his pet interpretation of this linguistics topic. I feel I have been on Wikipedia long enough to spot poor sourcing/original research, so I reverted to the last good version. I have been re-reverted too many times. Abductive (reasoning) 23:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN is the right place to go with this. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it will need to go to a full DRN. But before that, people here can try to help clarify the issues. The article as it was at the end of 2012 was in a pretty poor state, not very informative, no secondary sources. User:WeepingElf has added material largely from a secondary source, Yves Duhoux. On the face of it, these edits are an improvement. You call it a "pet interpretation", but it is Duhoux's interpretation, not User:WeepingElf's interpretation.

If Duhoux is correctly represented here, he limits the definition of "Eteocretan" to the language of the Dreros and Praesos inscriptions, written in alphabetic characters; he uses "Minoan" for the language of the Linear A inscriptions. He suggests that the two languages may be closely related, in the manner of Old English to modern English, but it isn't certain. This seems to be a normal scholarly approach, not a fringe one.

It would be really useful to add more secondary sources, so that we can see whether recent scholars are following Duhoux or not. Even if Duhoux's approach is a minority one, it would still be worth mentioning.

Editors of both points of view should work together to improve the article. As it is written at the moment, it is an essay in favour of Duhoux's view, which is not very encyclopedic. I did learn a lot from reading it, though. I saw that User:AnonMoos has edited the article before; he's very knowledgeable and would be a useful person to approach. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The only fringe here was clearly the "last good version" to which Abductive reverted.

The first sentence of Cyrus H. Gordon (1975), "The Decipherment of Minoan and Eteocretan": "Two categories of non-Crete inscriptions from Crete, known as Minoan and Eteocretan, are from different periods." [38] This is precisely the distinction which the article has been missing all the time and which WeepingElf has thankfully introduced now. Just like we would have trouble communicating with an English person from 1000 years ago, the most we can hope for is that Minoan and Eteocretan were somewhat mutually comprehensible. Conflating languages in this way when they have distinct transmission histories (in this case distinct alphabets and extant material separated by a millennium) is typical for crackpots pushing nationalist POVs, although it also occurred in older genuine scholarship. Someone should have caught this problem much earlier.

The necessity of this distinction is so obvious that of course it entered the scholarly mainstream. For example, consider this guest post by Donald Ringe on a linguistics post: The linguistic diversity of aboriginal Europe. In it he lists the securely attested pre-Roman languages, distinguishing between:

"2. The language of the Linear A script, uninterpretable but clearly neither IE nor Semitic (Packard 1974), sometimes called “Minoan”."

"3. The language of some uninterpretable inscriptions in the Greek alphabet from eastern Crete (Guarducci 1942:137-42), sometimes called “Eteocretan”."

There doesn't seem to be much published research on Eteocretan, but excluding today's experts on the basis that they are contradicting the long-standing unsourced trash that Wikipedia was distributing is not going to help with the sourcing situation. Hans Adler 11:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see anybody improving the article. I had to take out some improper inline links, but left WeepingElf's interpretation largely alone. Abductive (reasoning) 07:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

DNA Consultants

You may wonder why I'm calling this fringe when you look at the article. There's nothing obviously fringe there, or in the article of the founder, Donald Panther-Yates. But a look at their blog tells a very different story. The entry "Giants with Double-Rowed Teeth, Flattened Heads and Six Fingers"[39] is clearly fringe, and Yates is bringing out a new book The Cherokee Anomaly: How DNA, Ancient Alphabets and Religion Explain America's Largest Indian Nation, published by McFarland & Co. next year, with an introductory note by Cyclone Covey, foreword by Richard Mack Bettis. It "uncovers the Jewish and Eastern Mediterranean ancestry of the Cherokee and reveals that they originally spoke Greek before adopting the Iroquoian language of their Haudenosaunee allies while the two nations dwelt together in the Ohio Valley."[40]. See also its own website[41] and sadly, Betti's forward,[42], full of misinformation. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just, wow. The name dna consultants sounds familiar. Is this one of the sources the IP hopper at Melungeon keeps insisting on using to add fringe material to the article? I haven't looked at the article and de-watchlisted the talk page after several months of "I didn't hear that" and competence issues from the IP(That article needs a lot more eyes on it, sorry to say I gave up after 6 months of what seemed like a one on one struggle against an anonymous true-believing SPA). If this website is being used as a cite in that or any other article, the material should be either re-cited to reliable non-fringe references or removed from the articles entirely. Heiro 22:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sad indeed.Ubikwit (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Creationist IP

184.153.187.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been adding creationist arguments to articles and talk pages regularly since September 2012. Can someone please have a look at this? I'm too tired. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This IP certainly has an unhelpful attitude, but each of the talk page comments I looked at actually brought out a genuine problem with the content of the article -- I have replied to the most recent few. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yea just look a bit deeper, many of them are clearly violating WP:NOTFORUM, I issued a series of warnings for each I found and stopped at level 4, his last warning. There's more but we'll see if he violates WP:NOTFORUM again, then maybe a little ban might be appropriate. His other "helpful" comments are generally not in compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE, since he's promoting a EXTREME fringe view for science articles. It's clear by his wording and phrasing in these comments what his agenda is. — raekyt 17:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually sort of agree with this comment. The ENCODE project has gotten a lot of public flack because its critics seem to have had rather large platforms. There are also concerns about the collusion and embargoing of data by publishers. But I don't get the sense that the assertion "junk DNA is a big oversimplification and likely to be at least sort of wrong" would be opposed by many in the sciences. This has nothing to do with her other contributions though. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 17:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Then what about these comments:

Oh hrafn, [...] You are a rabid fanatical darwinist trolling every article related to this subject. That much is clear. You've proven that you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near these types of articles.[43]

Perhaps WP policy or at least the interpretation of editors such as Dave Souza, or Hrafn, need to be reevaluated if multiple posters are issuing complaints that they can not simply learn what the actual article subject is about before being bombarded with religiously motivated anti-ID propaganda.[44]

Yes, Congratulations Wikipedia, on painting every single entity that is skeptical of stochastic Darwinian mutations as an explanation for biodiversity, as part of a vast religious conspiracy to destroy science. You truly do a great service in the spirit of open debate along the pursuit of knowledge.[45]]

You've got to love the selective skepticism of atheists.[46]

-Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Stem cell educator real treatment or tinfoil hat?

Stem cell educator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Is anyone aware if this is an actual device/potential therapy or something equivalent to tinfoil hats? One of the previous "sources" was to a clinic that does "stem cell therapy" for everything from allergies to MS to alzheimers by subQ injections and so I have my doubts. But could use some expert's opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on this paper (Zhao et al., BMC Medicine 2012, 10:3) and a few other google searches I'd say the technique is real, cited a moderate amount of times (16 for that paper), but so far limited to that one research group. It's legit enough that you could ask for more details at WP:MED and know you weren't wasting their time. Garamond Lethet
c 03:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to bring this to WT:MED, just for the extra eyes, but I can tell you what they're going to say already. This article relies too much on primary sources. None of the references there are review papers or meta-analyses. See WP:MEDRS. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 03:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Poison presses?

I posted on the talk page of WP:FRINGE, but i'm not sure whether that discussion properly belongs here or there. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific as to the what, here and there for those of us who are insufficiently caffeinated? Thanks. Ah, you mean the discussion here. Probably best to keep the conversation on one page, and since you started it there that's where I'll reply. Garamond Lethet
c 21:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Dunn and the "Electric Power Plant in the Pyramids of Giza"

Christopher Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Noticed something on a Social Media today about the Pyramids of Giza producing clean electric energy. Stopped by to check out the article on Christopher Dunn the main proponent of the hypothesis. Dunn seems to have self published "The Spiritual Technology of Ancient Egypt: Sacred Science and the Mystery of Consciousness" and a documentary on the "The Giza Power Plant" both fall well within the WP:FRINGE category. Currently the article presents the information largely without verifiable or reliable sources needed to establish notability for individuals. A similar article was apparently deleted through the AFD process Christopher Dunn (engineer) as Dougweller (talk · contribs) noted on the talk page in 2009. It is worth noting as he is cited on the List of Egyptian pyramids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as if he is reputable source. I hope users of this board can remedy the problems with this article, for I simply dont have the time. Systems Theorist (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides, everyone knows that the Ancient Egyptians got their nuclear power plant and orbital spacecraft technology from homo erectus, right? Wait, what? That's not what happened? I read it on the Internet so it must be true... --Guy Macon (talk)

1950s Marxists prefer an incomprehensible introduction to Socialism

Please see Talk:Socialism#Removal of technical tag. Just because there are an abundance of Marxist sources claiming that Socialism is the historical stepping stone to communism, does that make it any less of a fringe view when every country calling itself socialist today is a mixed capitalist economy with a welfare state? Neo Poz (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Marxist definition of Socialism is a notable one and should be mentioned in the article. And in the lead? Probably, because a reader may have come across a mention of, say Hungary, as "a socialist country". Unfortunately, with articles on major political concepts, the definitions themselves are inevitably politicised. It just goes with the territory. Try and unpick it using very good sources, e.g. postgraduate textbooks on political science. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning‬

A preponderance of contemporary academic sources state the cause of the mass poisoning was ergotism. Someone is insisting the academic sources can't be used and instead the incident must be attributed to "an unknown psychoactive drug", with a fringe theory blaming a secret CIA MK ULTRA program taking up most of the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped by and will keep an eye on it. Garamond Lethet
c 04:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have asked about one of the apparent ur-sources (which makes appearances elsewhere) at the RSN. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The links to that book run throughout the MKULTRA associated stuff. I have just linkified a few references to the author of the aforementioned ur-source (The Day of St. Anthony's Fire, by John G. Fuller). These pages that reference the book tend to take it at face value as a bit of legitimate research, rather than as the fringe stuff it almost certainly is, given the author's other output. This might have the unfortunate effect of stirring the pot a bit. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 16:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Also found here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about hoax categories

At Talk:Bat Creek inscription an editor has raised an issue about the article being in the categories Archaeological Forgeries, Hoaxes in the United States, and 19th Century Hoaxes. He argues that this violates NPOV and that the categories should have descriptions, which they indeed lack. He also suggests a new category, "Artifacts of disputed authenticity". My problem is that almost all archaeological hoaxes, or at least those in the US, have adherents who argue they are genuine (this is probably true of most hoaxes). This is clearly a fringe issue and covers more than one article. In this specific case current mainstream opinion is that this is a hoax. The main arguments that it is not come from the editor himself, who is an economist. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the best sources are divided (ie. some experts in the field think that a discovery is a hoax and some think it's genuine) then simply categorising it as a hoax would present neutrality problems. However, we can't remove legitimate well-evidenced categories just because somebody, somewhere has a fringe position that disagrees. Otherwise we'd have to empty a swathe of categories like Category:Conspiracy theories even though each article in the category may have good sources supporting that categorisation. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to approach this by asking what categories are for. They are there to help editors to find information on a topic. Some years ago I had a dispute with an editor who was removing the category "Wiccan people" from the article on Dorothy Clutterbuck on the grounds that she was a Christian. Clutterbuck is only notable for her alleged connection to the founding of Wicca, so removing the category would have undermined the very purpose of categories. It should be in the category because it is widely thought to be a hoax. Of course, we could create a sub-category called "alleged hoaxes" or some such, or we could devise a discaimer-like form of words to go in such categories saying that it includes works generally or widely believed to be hoaxes. The problem with an "alleged hoax" category is that many objects generally believed to be authentic have been claimed to be hoaxes/forgeries at some time or other, including the Nefertiti bust and the Mona Lisa. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wording along the lines of "Alleged hoaxes" just gives us the same problem in reverse. bobrayner (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally I prefer simpler titles, hoaxes could included alleged hoaxes, with a disclaimer, but there are always going to be disputes about categories - which is silly because I doubt anyone's opinions are influenced by an obscure list at the bottom of an article. They are a navigation tool. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor who started the hoax discussion doesn't seem to want to participate here, saying that the decision should be made on the article's talk page and that since there is disagreement over whether it was a hoax (as of course there almost always is) that it shouldn't be called a hoax. The only other participant there besides me is Til, who also does not believe that it was a hoax. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

He's raised it at WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mark Lane (author)

"Conspiracy theorist" or not "conspiracy theorist"? That is the question in Mark Lane (author). Location (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Pont-Saint-Esprit

Resolved

Does this qualify as WP:FRINGE or maybe just a case of WP:DUE, as marked? I am not familiar enough with the literature to tell. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was intended as a precursor to a similar experiment scheduled to take place in the New York City subway system, and that a subsequent uncontrolled MKULTRA experiment involved the emission of LSD and other substances from the tailpipes of CIA vehicles as they drove through New York City. Albarelli uncovered considerable evidence that the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was an MKNAOMI project code-named Project SPAN ("Pont" translates to "bridge" or "span"), and that Project SPAN involved the contamination of food supplies and the aerosolized spraying of a potent LSD mixture in Pont-Saint-Esprit." Wow, that's conclusive then! I think this is waaaay too undue. But then again, I could be mastermining the Cover Up Operation. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, the entire section should be moved to Project MKUltra. Even then, it would need to be given less weight. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The book cited has already been discussed onb the Frank Olsen talk page. User:The Bushranger commented, quoting the publisher's website: "TrineDay is a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key “defect”: a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America’s corporate “culture." Other TrineDay-published books include America’s Secret Establishment and The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America. - this is hardly what one would call a well-established, reputable publishing house, rather one on the WP:FRINGE." Paul B (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. Does the fact that I found this by looking at the contribs list of a user I have had some difficult encounters with qualify this as WP:HOUNDING? I have not notified any of the users active on that page because of this. Should I turn myself in on some other noticeboard? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of non-fringe discussion of this possibly fringey idea, mostly because of a pretty questionable article in the Telegraph. I don't see removing it, personally. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's overwhelming the Pont-Saint-Esprit article at the moment with WP:WEIGHT. I'd be inclined to move the bulk of it to Project MKUltra and leave a short summary and a pointer link. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've cut it down significantly. However, I expect cries or outrage from the creator of the section User:Apostle12, who is evidenntly a great believer in evil, all-powerful conspiracies covered up by agents of The Man (quote from Apostle12: "One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that freedom of the press in the United States is a carefully preserved illusion. If a story strikes too close to home as the Franklin article certainly did, those involved in telling it will be marginalized. This applies to all media, including Wikipedia."). The section was ridiculously long, demanded citations for criticisms of the LSD theory for statements that were clearly cited and presented clearly misrepresented "evidence" as fact cirted to the totally unreliable TrineDay publication. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems there is a whole article on this incident, 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning, so really the section in the article on the town could be cut much more, with content moved to this one. Paul B (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I moved the 1951 mass poisoning content to 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning, leaving a summary and pointer. I also cleaned up the WP:GEVAL problems at the target article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

William C. Rader‎ doctor giving stem cell treatments

Resolved

William C. Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Additional eyes requested. Thanks.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Telepathy

A user Belayed Reasons has been adding some fringe theories to the telepathy article. Hes also been deleting stuff from other references and adding things in which are not in the text. Does anyone know how to revert all of his edits in one go? He is making a mess of some of the article. Fodor Fan (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie - is Christ Myth Theory a conspiracy theory?

The opening paragraph reads:

"Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 documentary film by Peter Joseph. It asserts a number of conspiracy theory-based ideas, including the Christ myth theory"

It seems a little odd to lump Christ Myth Theory (which seeks to explain the text of the new-testament in terms of mythology). I imagine that many non-Christians believe Jesus to be a non-historical figure. I think this is unfair to Christ Myth Theory which is a legitimate area of study, i.e. trying to apply the principles of mythology to the New-Testament era. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In most versions it's not a conspiracy theory, no, but this seems to be a case of poor phrasing more than anything else. But believing Jesus is "non-historical" is pretty much a fringe theory. You don't have to believe that Muhammad or the Buddha didn't exist to be be non-Buddhist or non-Muslim. The existence of Jesus is not why people who reject Christianity do so. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't really say much about Muhammad or Buddha, however I feel that you might be drawing false parallels. Christ Myth Theory might be considered a fringe theory from the perspective of mainstream Christian scholarship which usually presumes Christ's divinity and the accuracy of the Gospels. In any case, the question here is whether it's reasonable to characterize Christ Myth Theory as a kind of conspiracy theory. At most I think we can say that Zeitgeist presents this theory as if it were a conspiracy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed. it is considered fringe from the perspective of mainstream scholarship per se. You don't have to believe he was divine or that the gospels are accurate to believe he existed, any more than you have to believe Muhammad was divinely inspired and the hadith are accurate to believe he existed. Of course it is not a conspiracy theory, except in rare manifestations, but really that's just a problem of phrasing, probably because someone tacked it on the end of the sentence. Paul B (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Christ Myth is fringe in general. I would agree with Paul that it's not a conspiracy. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely it depends what you mean by non-historical. Does any serious historian, not acting in their capacity as a Christian, think that we have any significant, definitive information about the life of Christ based on the few, oral tradition texts recorded centuries later, about him we have? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how Christ Myth Theory can be considered WP:FRINGE There are no artifacts supporting a historical Jesus. No contemporary writing mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came much later. There isn't even reliable evidence that Nazareth was inhabited at the time of Jesus. It seems clear that it is a minority theory but not a fringe theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether a theory is considered "Fringe" has nothing to do with truth, facts, evidence, etc.... it has to do with acceptance. If only a few people accept a theory, then it is properly classed as being a "Fringe theory". Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If there is zero contemporary evidence for something and pretty much every scholar agrees that there is zero contemporary evidence for it (which is certainly true in this case), then we have our answer on the question of acceptance. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite... because despite the lack of evidence, a large number of academics (not to mention the population at large) really do accept that Jesus was a historical figure. Sometimes acceptance has nothing to do with evidence (or even logic). Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This depends on how WP:FRINGE establishes fringiness. From WP:FRINGE: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." So it's clear that fringiness is a scholarly classification. At face value, archeology and history are probably the most relevant topics. I know that there are a lot of scholars researching this topic, and while the evidence may not be definitive, I don't think we can apply WP:FRINGE in an area where ongoing research is occurring. I think we would need a high quality secondary source which makes the case that this ongoing archaeological research is not legitimate. I think this is a case where we might say "the jury is still out", and that definitive claims in either direction should not be included. aprock (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing Jesus_and_archaeology, there appears to be a lack of discussion of evidence for a historical Jesus. Reviewing Jesus#Ancient_sources_and_archeology, it looks like this section has been curated in a not necessarily WP:NPOV manner. Personally, I'm not going to touch that with a 10 foot pole. aprock (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No one rationally expects to find "archaeological evidence" of Jesus. It would be vastly unlikely that physical evidence of such an obscure person's life would be found. So I've no idea why archeology has suddenly been brought up. Paul B (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the above strikes the right balance. Alas, I also am not willing to edit articles where I know that every attempt to introduce peer-reviewed science will be fought tooth and nail by religious zealots. What we can do is to make sure that the fringe theories noticeboard does not in any way support them. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not simply about religioous zealots--though they are a continual force to be reckoned with--but about history per se. The lack of "archaelogical evidence" is a a questionable factor to cite regarding the existence of an individual. The reference article contains the following paragraph in the lead

Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the hypothesis that a historical Jesus figure never existed is supported only by a very small minority of modern scholars. Bart Ehrman has stated that now virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and Robert M. Price agrees that this denial perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. Myth theorist G. A. Wells has also softened his stance on the non-existence issue. Van Voorst and separately Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

--Ubikwit (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that biblical scholars accept it despite a total lack of any actual evidence one way or the other, but classical historians? Not a single person named in the paragraph above is a classical historian or even qualified as a reliable source on what classical historians believe. In addition, one name (George Albert Wells) does not appear to hold the position the paragraph above says he holds, and another (Michael Grant) has been dead for nearly ten years. We try not to rely on deceased sources because new data since they died might have changed their opinion. The statement that "the hypothesis that a historical Jesus figure never existed is supported only by a very small minority of modern scholars." is not supported by any reliable third-party source, and given the total lack of contemporary evidence, is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to follow classical historians, but is this a question that any of them are interested in? There are so many other questions about society, economics and politics to preoccupy them. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the statement "Bart Ehrman has stated that now virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" This implies that there is a possibility that the "virtually all scholars of antiquity agree" is correct when, in fact, it is utter bollocks. Here is what Richard Carrier, who is a real expert in ancient history, said about it: [[47]]. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Carrier is about as unbaissed as the most extreme Christian fundamentalist. He's essentially a reverse fundamentalist. It's frankly absurd to portray his view as in any way normative among classical scholars. It never ceases to amaze me that editors who claim to represent a secular and rational point of view wish to endorse something so irrational as Christ Myth theory. But I guess that's one reason why we have this board. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Very odd read here - correct me if I am wrong - the question posed and replies are arguing a mute point from what I can see. The movie asserts a number of conspiracy theories including Christ myth theories. Are you saying the movie does not talk about this - sounds like you disagree with what is presented in the movie?Moxy (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The original point was that a fringe theory isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory, so it should be reworded slightly. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Still dont understand. I see what your saying - but who cares - the movie discusses a correlation between Christ Myth as a conspiracy theory. You all are arguing about the concept itself not the movies content that the lead is about. I am clearly lost here as to whats going on - I guess - and should never have posted my comment in the first place. Sorry pls all move on ...Moxy (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your question contains an assumption that is almost certainly false. When you write "The movie asserts a number of conspiracy theories including Christ myth theories", you are assuming that the Christ myth theory is a conspiracy theory. It is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said I did - the movie does - that's the point. It looks like you guys are debating about a point of view in the movie if its right or wrong.Moxy (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The movie most certainly does not portray Christ Myth theory as a conspiracy theory. It advocates for CHT, while presenting orthodox Christianity as a part of a conspiracy (or set of conspiracies). Paul B (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• People are looking at the wrong article about whether Jesus existed. This is the correct article: Historicity of Jesus. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As has been suggested above, the phrasing of the lead for the Zeitgeist article is probably in need of revision.

It would seem to have been established that the historicity of Jesus is broadly accepted by scholars--both biblical and classical.

The other point seems to relate to the descriptions of Jesus's life, and how a number of passages are mythologized in the bible. The original Christ Myth Theory does address such aspects in the framework of discontent with the church following the Enlightenment and "the growing emphasis on rationalism" Christ_Myth_Theory#Beginnings. The movie seems to be focused drawing correlations between other myths (e.g., Egyptian mythology) and the New Testament; i.e., the movie would appear to be focused on occult type themes, not scholarship. To what degree does the background of the deist questioning church authority in the development of the early theory merit being referred to as a "conspiracy theory"?--Ubikwit (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: It would seem to have been established that the historicity of Jesus is broadly accepted by scholars--both biblical and classical", please name one classical scholar who says that the historicity of Jesus is broadly accepted by classical scholars. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I pulled the name Michael Grant of the Historicity of Jesus article.Ubikwit (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll add Philip Rousseau, Associate Prof. of History, UAuckland; based on his "Christianity" entry in The Oxford Classical Dictionary (pp 325-328). Garamond Lethet
c 10:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Graeme Clarke, a classical historian and archaeologist, was quoted in a newspaper article as saying "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." So there's another classical scholar who says that Jesus' historicity is uncontroversial among ancient historians. He makes another important point: the evidence that establishes that Jesus was a real person is documentary evidence, i.e., written texts. This is far from unusual in ancient history--the main evidence for most historical events and persons is what was written about them in antiquity. Physical evidence (e.g. inscriptions) is always nice to have, but most of it has been lost. Many editors here seem to be unfamiliar with how classical historians reconstruct the past, so it's important to emphasize this--ancient historians consider textual sources, such as the historical narratives written byThucydides, Herodotus, and Tacitus, and literary sources such as the poetry of Solon and Tyrtaeus, to be major sources of evidence for ancient history. If you're trying to reconstruct the early history of Christianity, including the life of Jesus, that means the New Testament is a major source of evidence. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

But surely the question is not whether someone named Jesus existed in Palestine in the first century A.D., which is sort of the same as asking whether someone named John existed in the Victorian period in Britain. It's whether there's any good historical evidence for any specific details of his life, when all you have are texts written much later. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the relevant issue is Historicity_of_Jesus#Basic_historical_facts: The reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus along with his life story has been the subject of wide ranging debate among scholars, with no scholarly consensus.[31] In a review of the state of research Amy-Jill Levine stated that "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" and that all portraits of Jesus are subject to criticism by some group of scholars.[31]

Honestly, I'm hesitant at best to accept any one person's assertion that everyone agrees about certain facts about Jesus; I'm pretty sure that given the high interest in this by Christians that there's bound to be a mild echo chamber effect that will allow you to find someone willing to state as universal agreement any specific fact, and if you combine only the lines saying that specific facts have universal agreement, can easily give the impression that huge swaths of information have near-universal agreement. The problem is that the Christ myth idea doesn't seem to require denying that someone named Jesus existed, just that we don't necessarily know anything particularly significant about him with certainty- and for that, well, see first quote, which the article goes on to state there's only two points in Jesus' life with near-universal agreement: his baptism and his crucifixion. That's consistent with many definitions of Christ myth, which seems to suffer more from being a horrible term that people constantly misdefine, than from being particularly fringeAdam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No-one is saying there is agreement about specific facts. What is being said is that there is agreement that he existed. We could equally say that "no single picture of Mohammed has convinced all, or even most scholars", or even "no single picture of Hitler has convinced all, or even most scholars". The fact that scholars may disagree about his specific aims, motivations and beliefs is not the same as saying that they don't agree he existed, just as they agree that Mohammed and Hitler existed. The first semntence of your first reply is a straw man. It's not his name that's important, it's his position as founder of the movement that evolved into Christianity. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If I might quote the introduction of Christ myth: "Another variant holds that there was a person called Jesus, but almost all teachings and miracles attributed to him were either invented or symbolic references." - that's the third sentence of the lead, and is well within the historical mainstream, from what I can tell. Now, obviously, there are variants outside the mainstream, also listed there, but it does seem we're jumping to the really out there fringe part of a spectrum of views, and using that to discredit more mainstream ones. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That last view is not at all within the historical mainstream, at least not as far as I am aware. Of course secular writers will tend not to believe the miracles really happened - though they might concede that some of the faith healing is based on real experiences, and some of the other events were perhaps exaggerations of actual incidents. But what's at issue is the claim that a real person had a group of followers, preached the "kingdom of god" and got arrested and executed. There's nothing remotely "mythic" about that story. It's far more implausible to believe it was somehow all made up shortly after events that never occurred with surviving witnesses of events that never occurred. Paul B (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

[Unindent] From "Historicity of Jesus" (reference numbers removed):

“ While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity, most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. ”

That's clarified later.

“ The reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus along with his life story has been the subject of wide ranging debate among scholars, with no scholarly consensus.[31] In a review of the state of research Amy-Jill Levine stated that "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" and that all portraits of Jesus are subject to criticism by some group of scholars.

However, regardless of the scholarly disagreements on the reconstruction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be two historically certain facts about him.

”

So it would seem that little, if any of the Gospel account is considered certain. The article goes on to list a few more facts that have some degree of agreement amongst scholars, but it's not a particularly long list: "Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. He called disciples. He had a controversy at the Temple. Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem." and "Jesus was a Galilean. His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea. After his death his disciples continued. Some of his disciples were persecuted."

So... I'm not convinced that there's such universal agreement about the life of Jesus as would justify calling anything but the "Christ didn't exist at all" variant of Christ myth theory fringe. Given that Christ myth theory also encompasses "there was a person called Jesus, but almost all teachings and miracles attributed to him were either invented or symbolic references." - and that the teachings and miracles are not part of the things listed as part of the historical facts with general agreement in historians, that seems to be pretty much mainstream.

The problem we have, as Wikipedia, is that we're looking at a term everyone thinks they understand, but which is actually incredibly vague. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is not that the term is vague, but that the article is poorly written. If you look at Bart Ehrman's recent book, or the treatments of this idea on websites like those of Richard Carrier, James McGrath, or R. Joseph Hoffman, it's clear that the Christ Myth Theory is the "Christ didn't exist at all" idea. Secondary sources are quite clear about what the theory is, and who held it. The vagueness comes in when Wikipedia editors start generating prose. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I took a long look at Richard Carrier's writing, and he really doesn't espouse the "Christ didn't exist at all" idea. Instead he espouses the "There is zero contemporary evidence that Christ existed at all" idea. This is a subtle but important difference. For one thing, his version is easily falsifiable; just provide a single piece of contemporary evidence that Christ existed. It also avoids the impossible task of proving a negative. --Guy Macon (talk)

Frankly, I don't consider any of these views fringe. They merely happen not to be academically fashionable for the last few decades. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are, of course, referring to the unbridled epidemic of hysteria in the social sciences over the past several decades. /:+」--Ubikwit (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Instead he espouses the 'There is zero contemporary evidence that Christ existed at all' idea." That's not an "idea" in any meaningful sense of the word. That's just a satement of almost wholly irrelevant fact. In other words, it's a straw man. It is virtually impossible to imagine that exactly contemporrary ebidence would exist. Even for major figures like Julius Caesar (and you don't get more major than him) it's virtually impossible to find contemporary evidence. The nearest you usually get is is coins and statues, and even they are not easily datable. Obviously they did not make Jesus coins and put up Jesus statues in his lifetime. So this is the epitome of a straw man argument. It's sad to see people who claim to be defenders of rational thinking resorting to such dismal arguments. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Even for major figures like Julius Caesar ... it's virtually impossible to find contemporary evidence." I would think his personal memoirs would qualify as contemporary, wouldn't you? aprock (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that's exactly the point. That kind of evidence that does not count as contemporary to CMT theorists. There are no manuscripts from his lifetime, only copies written centuries later. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We have coins minted during Gaius Julius Caesar's lifetime with his portrait on them. There are statues, monuments, buildings and canals and roads bearing Gaius Julius Caesar's name and/or likeness, all of which have been dated by multiple methods to his lifetime. No artifacts with Jesus' name or image on them from his lifetime exist.

We have (copies of copies of) words written by Gaius Julius Caesar, and when we do archaeological digs at the places he records he camped, we find evidence of a 2,000-year-old Roman military encampment of the same size and type as described. We have letters he wrote and that others wrote to him, often including both sides of the conversation. We have many other contemporary accounts that mention him, including multiple Roman government documents.

We have no copies from Jesus' lifetime of anything he wrote, anything anyone wrote to him, or anything anyone wrote about him. All we have are documents written long after his time, many of which are from a source that claims to have never met him other than in a vision. Sallust, Cicero, and Catullus all wrote about Caesar during his lifetime. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The authentic letters of Paul were written beginning in the 50s (according to most datings, anyway)--that's within 25 years of the conventional date of Jesus' death. That doesn't seem like "long after his time" to me. Furthermore, Paul's letters refer to a trip he took to Jerusalem, during which he met many people who knew Jesus personally, including Jesus' brother James. (Mythicists downplay the evidence of Paul in a number of ways, including proposing much later dates for his letters, arguing that his reference to Jesus' brother James as "the brother of the lord" was a conventional way of referring to members of the early Christian sect, or even arguing that Paul was not a historical person.) The four canonical Gospels are dated from 70-100, so within living memory of Jesus--but of course it's conventionally thought that the Gospels preserve traditions passed down orally from Jesus' lifetime.

Obviously Caesar's life is better documented, with contemporary sources (we even have some letters he wrote, as well as the Gallic Wars), but that's what we would expect from one of the most prominent politicians of a time when Roman politics is extraordinarily well documented (but I'd guess that some of the prominent figures of the early Republic are really poorly documented). Or, look at the documentation for figures like Solon, Pythagoras, or Themistocles. For Pythagoras there are no contemporary sources and much of what is said about him in later sources is clearly fantastical--yet his basic historicity has never been questioned (as far as I am aware). For Solon, there are no contemporary accounts, later accounts are from centuries after his life and heavily colored by legend, not to mention the ideological conflicts of 5th and 4th century Athens. Solon wrote poetry, but it's only preserved in much later sources--Aristotle is the earliest, I believe. Again, that's centuries later than Solon is thought to have lived--but it's generally thought to be authentic, and to shed light Solon himself did and thought—but it's nothing at all like a historical account. So again, the documentary sources for Solon come from centuries after his death, yet his historicity goes unquestioned. (See also Cylon of Athens, Epimenides.) For Themistocles, I believe there may be some inscriptions from his own day (e.g., the disputed Decree of Themistocles), but for anything like a full account of his life you have to wait until Herodotus, writing in the 430s BC or later--20 or more years after Themistocles died. Again, though, his historicity isn't questioned despite the lack of contemporary sources.

So I think this discussion is exaggerating the time between Jesus' life and the literary sources about him. It's a smaller gap of time than there is for many prominent figures in the ancient world, and one of the sources--Paul--says that he met Jesus' followers and relatives. This is stronger evidence than you often see for ancient historical figures. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments on Pythagoras are well made. It could very well be that both he and Jesus were real men, but that their lives were quite different from the writings that survive to this day. aprock (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Guy did you even read what I wrote: "Obviously they did not make Jesus coins and put up Jesus statues in his lifetime." In fact there is only one single statue of Caesar that may date from his lifetime. Coins are - as I said - pretty much all that can be reliably dated. And even they only survive because they were produced in vast numbers. No-one can rationally expect Jesus coins. My point about Caesar was that we have no documents from his lifetime. His writings were copied by hand and passed down in a manuscript tradition. We have no proof that they are authentic. The earliest extant texts certainly do not date from his lifetime. Indeed their authenticity has een questioned. Look, we have our very own Caesar Myth theorists It's essentially no different from the passing down of the sayings of Jesus. Paul B (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

...Except for the zero contemporary evidence part. And no, I do not believe that any serious scholar (or any Wikipedia page, for that matter) presents the existence of any other historic figures as a fact despite zero contemporary evidence. Instead we handle it like this: Historical basis for King Arthur --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that many serious scholars take the existence of Cylon of Athens as a historical figure as a fact, despite no contemporary evidence, and no mention at all until Herodotus, writing almost two centuries after Cylon. As I've already said, the situation is the same for many other ancient figures...

By the way, there is at least one person who's argued that Jesus was Caesar—[48]. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There are in fact uncountable figures from that period concerning whom we have no contemporary evidence, only references in later historical literature. I gave Caesar as an example because he was the most famous person in the world! And even in his case next to nothing that is literally contemporary exists. Find contemporary evidence for Boudica, Caratacus, Julius Sabinus, Gamaliel, Hillel the Elder.... Paul B (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The idea that there was never such a person as Jesus at all is definitely WP:FRINGE but I would not call it a conspiracy theory, as defined on conspiracy theory"an important social, political, or economic event as being caused or covered up by a covert group or organization....it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events." Smeat75 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Question... is there just one single Christ Myth Theory... or are there multiple (sub-variant) theories that are being lumped together under that banner? From what I can gather, the reality is the latter. If so, I would agree that most of the sub-variants of the Christ Myth Theory do not involve a claim of conspiracy (and so should not be called a "conspiracy theory")... However, it may be that the particular sub-variant presented in Zeitgeist: The Movie does involve a claim of conspiracy, and if so then it would be appropriate to describe the particular sub-variant of the theory presented in the movie using that term... but we would also need to distance that sub-variant from other (non-conspiracy) versions of the theory. (note... I have not seen the movie, so I do not know whether it presents its claims in the context of conspiracy or not... I am just saying that IF it does, the term might be appropriate.) Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The article says that "The work of Acharya S, author of The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, was used extensively in Part I of the movie. She also acted as consultant for Part I of the movie." and the Acharya S page says "She was also attacked by ... atheist activist and fellow Christ mythicist Richard Carrier." I missed that before. Clearly what the movie is talking about is the theory put forth by Acharya S and not the theory put forth by Richard Carrier. And, seeing that Acharya S used "Conspiracy" in her book title, is it really a stretch to say that

"Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 documentary film by Peter Joseph. It asserts a number of conspiracy theory-based ideas, including the Christ myth theory"?

How about this as a compromise:

"Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 documentary film by Peter Joseph. It asserts a number of conspiracy theory-based ideas, including Acharya S's Christ myth theory"?

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The confusion here is in the wording. What does it mean to say that "Christ myth theory" is a conspiracy theory? Some of the wilder proponents assert that the Catholic church knew that Jesus did not exist, or made him up as part of some masterplan to control humanity. It should not be difficult to phrase it so that identifies the 'theory' that there was a conspiracy to create or exploit a mythic redeemer called "jesus". Paul B (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Paul above. Honestly, I haven't seen this much activity about this topic since Bruce. There is no single "Christ myth theory", which more or less that page supports, but rather a numerous group of individual theories regarding the possible mythic nature/nonexistence of Jesus, or Christ, or whatever. Therefore, that specific phrase and link should probably be removed. Some of the various theories which have been put forward probably do qualify as "conspiracy theories," but considering there does not seem to be any sort of individual specific "Christ myth theory" to which all these theorists subscribe, just remove the phrase and the link and add some alternate phrasing. Alternatively, maybe changing the phrasing quoted above to something like "Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 documentary film by Peter Joseph. It asserts a number of conspiracy theory-based ideas, including the theory that Jesus was not a real person" and/or "...that the Jesus of history was not the Jesus of Christianity" or whatever other more specific phrasing would both deal with the content of the movie and avoid the use of the problematic phrase "Christ myth theory". John Carter (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be an acceptable compromise - the idea is to emphasize that Zeitgeist gives a very fringe treatment of something that is approximately similar to Christ Myth Theory. I do not think that somebody like Robert M. Price would recognize his kind of scholarship in the Zeitgeist movie. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)