Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Talk:Robert Gallo

Something truly odd is going on at Talk:Robert Gallo, and more eyes would be useful. 70.4.91.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made some... interesting edits which necessitated administrative deletion due to personal attacks, attempted "outing", etc (deleted contribs here for viewers with the sysop bit). The article was semi-protected as a result; this user registered an account, RspnsblMn (talk · contribs), and while waiting for the autoconfirmed threshold to expire has been engaging in a bit of curious discussion on the talk page. More eyes requested. MastCell Talk 04:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy's a budding wikilawywer in the making, I see. Talkpage tendentiousness is at least fairly harmless but I'll keep my eye on it. Moreschi (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Skinwalker is wondering what lower-tier law school taught RspnsblMn to write like that. I've got most AIDS-related pages watchlisted, so I'll observe too, but this is likely to be addressed best by WP:RBI. Skinwalker (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis

The article's a mess and I'm trying to add references and remove some of the soapboxing. I'm in the middle of a discussion about someone named Nikas. Now, before this happened, Nikas himself seems to have started his own article with the username SuperAtlantis (the name of his old website it seems as that's the name on the pdf recently uploaded here, now deleted). See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Superatlantis. Which probably explains why his new website lists Wikipedia as one of the places his work has been published. See his new website Atlantis in Malta. Now, ignoring what has happened before, my question is whether Nikas should be included in the Location Hypotheses article. He is a New Yorker who has gotten an Albanian newspaper to write about this ideas. His web page says he has been published in Mysteries Magazine number 15 and links to the magazine's website, but the website doesn't mention his article and has its own internal search feature which didn't turn up a Nikas or an article on Malta. A web search turns up his participation on a couple of web forums and that's about all, except for a web page by another Atlantis researcher, Georgeos Díaz-Montexano. I don't think this is enough but the person who added a section on him, Italianboy101, disagrees. He isn't going to push it but to be fair and clear in my own mind I thought I'd bring it here. Notable enough or not? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend not to think of Location hypotheses of Atlantis as a real article, but more as a honeypot to keep Atlantis from getting bloated with news of the "latest discovery". If you want to restrict the article to notable theories, Nikas should go, along with anything that hasn't been reported in third-party sources. Anyone want to guess how many theories about Atlantis are self-published? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. If there isn't the requisite third-party source, it ain't notable. And the range for guessing is how many million? John Carter (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree... and I think it is in line with WP:FRINGE, which requires that any particular theory be discussed in a serious manner by mainstream sources (even if it is simply to disparage it). Many of the theories mentioned in this article have not recieved that required level of notice by the mainstream (or, if they have, the article makes no mention of it.) Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

T&A and blood

Arrive in Japan, get into an earnest conversation with somebody, and it's not unlikely that you'll soon be asked about your blood type. Momentary scare: Does this person have premonitions involving a bulldozer or chainsaw? Or are you conversing with a vampire? But no: a huge percentage of right-thinking Japanese folk subscribe to this variety of horseshit. The percentage seems particularly high among admirers of cheesecake models (guradoru), about most of whom, let's face it, there really isn't much to say. In the same spirit, hundreds if not thousands of earnest en:Wikipedia articles about these people announce their blood type (example).

I don't usually hang around the cheesecake/porn articles much, but on occasion I've encountered the credulous retailing of blood "information" and have remarked on it. It's only today that I noticed this old discussion among porn connoisseurs, the reliability of factoids about blood is the main issue, and it seems to be taken for granted that blood type is noteworthy "information". A related conversation continues at the foot of that page and is still in progress; again, it's mostly about "reliability". While I have my own, strong opinions on the reliability of the "facts" making up starlets' PR bios, these opinions are pretty irrelevant to fringe theories, so I'll spare you them. What concerns me, and might concern you, is that those editors concerned with this stuff seem to be coalescing around a position that if more than a tiny number of people are demonstrably interested in a given piece of "reliably sourced information", it's encyclopedic. Now, I'll grant that many people are demonstrably interested (and that blood type isn't sourced any less reliably than date and place of birth, etc etc). However, I see any decision that infoboxes should cater for blood type as pandering to and reinforcing pseudoscience. Cheesecake/porn starlets articles aren't of concern to most people (and as far as I can recall I've only ever tinkered with one), but it's a simple step from these to articles on singers and so forth, non-Japanese starlets, etc.

Does this square with your notion of "encyclopedia"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at the sources, while the theory may be a load of horseshit (as you put it) and pseudoscience, it is widely held in Japan... and the theory is discussed in reliable mainstream sources (some supportive, others dismissive). In other words the theory meets the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia that is stated in WP:Fringe. As to the issue of including blood type in an infobox on articles on porn stars... I don't think it really matters, so long as the information can be reliably sourced. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, weirdly enough, it's pretty much standard in Japanese-language sources. (Not that I watch a lot of Japanese porn, it's terrible, but anime and manga tend to give their characters's blood types, too.) <eleland/talkedits> 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

why porn? The article as far as I can see doesn't mention porn, just women's magazines, media celebrities and manga characters. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, I'm not objecting to the article about the pseudoscience. I also wouldn't object to mention of it in articles on people who have made a big deal on it. ("She has caused surprise [cite][cite][cite] by her declaration [cite] that she has type B blood") The objection is to the inclusion of blood type as a field in a template, and the implication that blood type is somehow significant.
No, there's nothing specific to cheesecake or porn about this stuff. Even fully clothed Japan is indeed suffused with this batty idea. The phonebook software in my Casio cellphone (incidentally, a macho-looking waterproof model marketed for guys) has a field for blood type for everybody: my boss, my sister, the shop that develops my film. (Also, when I type in a date for a birthday, it helpfully adds the person's [western style] star sign.) Large numbers of people of course ignore all of this. However, yes, it is indeed a frequently occurring feature in the potted bios of celebs and others in "popular culture". Whether this is because the consumers of "popular culture" are gullible, because its producers are gullible, or just because there's not much else to say about these people, I don't claim to know. I've no reason to think that the claims are true, I've got no reason to think that it matters if they're true or untrue, I haven't seen that any intelligent person is interested ("She really turns me on, she's got Type O"), I wonder why en:WP is implying significance to this. If it does write it up for Japanese porn stars I see no reason why it shouldn't do so for Japanese singers. If some dimwit Japanese TV reporters then ask visiting foreign celebs about their blood and they manage to answer with a straight face, then perhaps this "sourced information" too will be solemnly added to this Cosmo-pedia. Not my idea of encyclopedic, but perhaps I'm "elitist". -- Hoary (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't have a problem with it. Yes, it's silly, but the very idea of having thousands of articles on Japanese pop tarts and AV idols is equally silly. These figures are notable almost solely in Japanese culture, and in Japanese culture blood type is apparently important.
However, as part of our ongoing crypto-POV-pushing campaign (/sarcasm,) I suggest that we change all the wikilinks on these articles from blood type or blood to Blood types in Japanese popular culture. We might save a few souls enlighten a few intellects, no? <eleland/talkedits> 03:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Blood type is factual information. A person behaving in a particular way because of their blood type is horse shit. I'm not keen on blood type being included. IT'S THE THIN END OF A SLIPPERY WEDGE . . . people could well start adding western astrology signs to info boxes. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Blood type is indeed factual information. But I think that here it's only factual in a slightly odd, Wikipedia way. Obviously cheesecake/porn bios have to have the age right to the nearest decade, the height right to the nearest ten centimetres, or so, etc.; but I've no reason to think that most of the "facts" are, well, factual. In particular, those about blood, which (I hope!) we don't see and which anyway all looks the same. Which scenario seems more likely to you? (A) Q: "What's your blood type?" A: "X." Q: "Ah yes, X. I'll write that down." (B) Q: "You kind of look type-Y-ish. Shall we put you down as 'Y'?" A: "Yeah, sure." -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hexapus

Somebody keep an eye on this article, please. I just fixed it up - someone was trying to push his personal theory that this malformed octopus is really a new species called "Hexapus," using a cheeky column in the Daily Telegraph as his source. There was a taxobox and everything - ugh. <eleland/talkedits> 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

okidoki Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughtform

My BS-meter just keeled over and died. I don't know where to even begin describing this mass of free-flowing random-association mega-verbiage. Check this out:


And this is only a typical example of what this fellow has been producing with gay abandon. Woo has nothing on this stuff. rudra (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mostly joking, but is there an appropriate template analogous to the {{in-universe}} tag for fiction? This article appears to contain a vast amount of straight up WP:OR, Synthesis, and gross abuse of block quotes. I am kinda leaning towards aggressive razing, but the sources and ideas need to be checked first. Amusingly, there apparently at some point were separate articles for Thoughtform, Thought-form, and Tulpa (all now redirect to first). -Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 11:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Dollars to donuts, it's all WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, typical pop-Buddhist New Age blather. The "style" is interesting, though. A casual look could easily fool you into thinking that the article is "well-sourced" -- all those footnotes and references, oh my! -- but the tricks there are to "reference" isolated words or phrases (where the reference will have the word or phrase, but not the gist of the sentence or passage in the article), or to "reference" propositions to entire books (conveniently leaving out things like page numbers). For example, here's an old version of a page by another contributor of the same ilk, and here is what you can expect if you um, mess, with the article. rudra (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked who the main contributor is yet, but I can make a very good guess. And if it is who I think it is, we haven't a chance of having a comprehensible discussion with him. Relata refero (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As I thought. Relata refero (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a pity that the graffiti aspect of vandalism isn't extended to include things like truckloads of pseudo-esoteric bullshit. rudra (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Just revert it all, IMO; it's basically incoherent. --Haemo (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thoughtform is key to Dzogchen, a spiritual and religous tradition. Ignorance IS palpable.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 02:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So IS bullshit. rudra (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I get the distinct impression that this is a much more serious issue, or we are being played here. Check out this reply to my complaint that it is incoherent:
    • The key to your opinion is "suspect". It is commendable that ignorance is owned, rather than projected. Wisdom is hard won, gnosis is the fruit of grace. If you require clarification read through the entire article a few times, read all the wikilinks, contemplate the contents, then read the article a few more times. Informed, then your opinion would or may be of value and useful in iterating this article. This article is incomprehensible to a shallow grazer. It is 'covering' the principal interior mystery of a mystery tradition, the content of which has yet to enter onto the catwalk of the Ivory Tower of the World Stage in the mode of protracted scholarship. If you do not have the karmic vision and proclivity condusive to cognition, it is impenetrable. Mysteries and secrets, as thoughtform, have a way of keeping themselves. Though primordially clear, pure and luminous as the 'resonant crystal matrix' of Indra's Net, Dzogchen is a vast indeterminate field.
Ah
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 01:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
What Relata said. rudra (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
What do we do? I can't tell what's going on at all. It's like I fell and woke up in a world where everyone speaks Japanese and is constantly on peyote. --Haemo (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
My first instinct was to WP:CSD#G1 it. But maybe a proper AfD is in order. Eldereft thinks that there may be a legit kernel -- on tulpa -- but digging that out from under the mountain of crap won't be easy. rudra (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the kind of article that makes me want to abuse my admin powers, and unilaterally delete. I guess I just don't have the right karmic vision... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Here be dragons *hehehehe*.B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Rather than cackling, could you help us rewrite this so I don't require an advanced degree in Shambalan mysticism to figure out what it's saying? --Haemo (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the point. It isn't saying anything. Meaningful, that is. No degrees required. rudra (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Conze (1980: p.12) states:

For the last two thousand years Buddhism has mainly flourished in rice-growing countries and little elsewhere. In addition, and that is much harder to explain, it has spread only in those countries which had previously had a cult of Serpents or Dragons, and never made headway in those parts of the world which view the killing of dragons as a meritorious deed or blame serpents for mankind's ills.[1]

Oh, and BTW, "the mind boggles" was purely artful! B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with making it coherent? --Haemo (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, that dragons prefer incoherence. rudra (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article seems unlikely to improve, so I've proposed its deletion through the {{prod}} template. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you state "It reads more like a personal, mystical essay than an encyclopedia article.", and the author states "I wrote this article from my own realization. Now I am finding scholarship and citation to authenticate", soooo... --Haemo (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That really should be a valid reason to speedy delete, don't you think? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Add:
Others, that may have been snatched from innocent stub-hood:
He's prolific, if anything. rudra (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You know more about this stuff. All I have is a BS detector, and the ability to parse English. I'm trying to see if we saved something from this by rewriting it and asking for refs. --Haemo (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That should be enough: if it looks dodgy, it most probably is. The generic problem is that Tibetan Buddhism (the common denominator here) is obscure. There isn't much in the way of truly legitimate material in English on it, certainly minuscule compared to the reams of twaddle you'll find even outside WP (e.g. go to Barnes and Noble and you'll find shelves of stuff selling you "Instant Karma, the Shambala way" or whatever), the result of TB having been swallowed whole by the New Age movement, with "native" charlatans piling in for good measure. My rule of thumb would be to apply WP:RS very strictly: everything needs to go back to peer-reviewed stuff in reputed academic journals or tertiary sources. rudra (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So what happens now? This is clearly all original research and so banned by Wikipedia, right? Can the bit about it being part of a series on Tibetan Buddhism be removed now (the series list doesn't include it or rather them? Should all of these be proposed for deletion?--Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay, last night, I tried a test wherein I would rewrite the first paragraph in more understandable terms, and asked them politely to work with other editors to fix the article. Instead, the user continued adding OR to the article [1] (don't be fooled by the citation; it doesn't come close to supporting the contention) and was summarily reverted with the comment "restoring technical terminology and tags". I don't know what to do; this editor does not want to work with other people, is unresponsive to requests for citation, and appears to have made a vast walled garden of woo-woo on Wikipedia. I'm reverting back to the version which requests citations, but this is untenable. --Haemo (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

An alternative approach might be to undo the redirect at Tulpa and use that as the core of a proper article, and the target of an eventual merge from Thoughtform (more accurately, with what can be salvaged from it). Whether the result should be titled "Tulpa" or "Thoughtform" can be discussed separately. Here is Tulpa before B9HH's efforts. This is the combo diff of subsequent changes up to the redirect: the changes seem mostly in the popular culture sections. Such sections are trivia magnets and will have to be overhauled, of course. Meanwhile, there isn't much on tulpa per se. rudra (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That must be the best approach. If it is a concept in Tibetan Buddhism then there must be some sources that mention it. I have left a message on the Buddhism Wikiproject talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Meanwhile, I've undone the redirect and removed the duplicate material in Thoughtform. Unfortunately, it really looks like "Thoughtform" would be the better title. "Tulpa" itself doesn't seem to be a Tibetan word; rather it seems to have been coined by Alexandra David-Neel, possibly as her rendering of a similar Tibetan word or phrase. The word then took on a life of its own in woo-woo and New Age circles, where David-Neel not surprisingly is big cheese. So the "literature" on tulpa itself is undoubtedly quite dodgy and WP:OR-ish. The real question is to what extent it actually is associated with something in Tibetan Buddhism. rudra (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the (scrutable) material on tulpa to Tulpa, and resurrected what used to be an article on a book, Thought Forms (whose material had been copied over). What's left at Thoughtform is, as far as I can tell, blogorrhic blather from beginning to end. Maybe there's usable stuff in there on "thoughtform", but it might be better to write such an article from scratch. rudra (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made an appeal for assistance on the WikiProject Buddhism talk page. I've had an eye on some of these articles for a while. I think that some of these are depicting non-standard translations of actual Sanskrit or Tibetan Buddhist terminology as the norm, and then elaborating on them with a combination of personal research and new-age content; there are pages that says something is "Buddhist", and then turns around later and says that it was first articulated by theosophists. I'm not familiar enough with Tibetan terminology to be terribly helpful here, but additional input from someone who knows a bit more about scholarship of Tibetan Buddhism would be very helpful. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Missed that Itsmejudith already posted this to the WikiProject page- that's actually how I got here. I added a request for some investigation to the Talk:Buddhism page- it gets used for this sort of thing quite a bit, and is more frequently checked than the project page. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood

A new (?) editor has recently been attempting to add a chunk of original research and material sourced from blogs (or just unsourced material) to this article about a fairly fringey Middle Eastern conspiracy theory ([2]). I've attempted to explain the policy requirements at Talk:Pallywood#Relevant Updates,Slanted Interpretations, Lack of Neutrality. Grateful if somone could review my comments and let me know if there's anything I've missed. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bates method

Bates method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article is suffering from severe NPOV as well as some OR problems, and has for a long time. Article needs a sentence-by-sentence, section-by-section, review to identify everything that is original research, promotional, or otherwise unsupported by independent sources. I recommend identifying problematic sections and sentences first, rather than just gutting the article, to give the regular editors there some realization what it means to follow NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've written a section-by-section summary of what I think needs being done: Talk:Bates_method#Suggested_cleanup_per_WP:NPOV.2C_WP:FRINGE.2C_and_WP:OR. We really could use some help here. --Ronz (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Golden plates

Resolved

This is an alledged sacred book in the Mormon religion. About a month ago I initiated the process of trying to make clear on the article that there is practically no evidence of these books and that many claims about them and in them are disputed.

The page has moved an inch in the right direction, however, the page spends paragraph after paragrah about how they were found, a physical description of them!, etc., and one sentence which mentions that they may not even exist.

Any help would be appreciated... and there has been A LOT of talking about his for 2 weeks.... so maybe skim a bit and jump in.

btw, not sure if this is the right place for this concern. Sethie (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a word: if this article passed FA-review, I'm sure that its unlikely to be overtly fringe-y. There does seem to be a shortage of "out-universe" sources on that page, but I think what you really want is WP:RfC. Relata refero (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
of course these plates didn't physically exist, this is a topic of religious belief. We don't go and label Golden Fleece as fringecruft because that never existed? It's mythology. At worst, slap it with {{in-universe}}. dab (𒁳) 15:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think an in-universe tag would be NPOV, given that there is debate about whether the plates are fictional or not.... and that sums up the entire problem with the page.
I personally don't know how it passed FA review without addressing this issue. Sethie (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Presently, nobody believes in Greek mythology, thus I'm not sure if comparision with the Golden Fleece is right. Unlike belief in Zeus, millions still believe in the Golden Plates. There's definitively a double standard if compared to the excellent skeptical articles about Scientology in Wikipedia. Why this is so? Both are religions born on American soil. One religion is basically debunked in the wiki while the other one is respected. Can anyone of you explain this to me? —Cesar Tort 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
that depends on what you mean by "belief". This is all about religious belief and has nothing to do with "belief" as in plausibility. 100s of millions of people religiously believe Jesus was raised from the dead, but only a few crackpots attempt to reconstruct the physical process of resurrection as some sort of nuclear reaction emitting X-Ray or what have you. Religion is about faith, not facts. It is pointless to say that a {{in-universe}} tag would be "pov": amboxes are not part of an article's content (subject to content policy), they point out issues with an article's content. dab (𒁳) 17:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the proper annalogy is to look at the article on the Ten Commandments... even though the only evidence that these actually exited in physical form comes from a religious source, we can talk about them in terms of religious belief... without resorting to "in-universe" tags. The key is to phrase any discussion of the Mormon Golden Plates in terms of religious belief and not in terms of "fact". The simple addition of "It is believed that..." or "According to Mormon tradition..." should solve any issues here. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Reading the article, I think it conveys reasonably well that while Mormons may well believe in these plates, nobody else does because there's no evidence they existed. I don't see much of a problem here, sorry. Moreschi (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all for your feedback. By the grace of God :) the article made a huge leap towards covering the issues I had.... I have also begun to edit stylistically to move it away from fact and towards "Mormon tradition believes that." The challenge will be, of course to not say this in EVERY SINGLE sentence! Sethie (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created the {{in-religion-universe}} template, to allow the same issue to be stated, while avoiding calling the subject matter of articles "fiction". Clinkophonist (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Adaptogen

From Adaptogen:

The word adaptogen is used by herbalists...

...

Very simply, adaptogens are nontoxic in normal doses, produce a nonspecific defensive response to stress, and have a normalizing influence on the body. They normalize the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis). As defined, adaptogens constitute a new class of natural, homeostatic metabolic regulators.

This same term is used on other articles, as an actual medical or scientific term:

i.e. Indian gooseberry

From a Western perspective, the fruit is considered to be an adaptogen, helping the body cope and adapt to various physiological stressors, helping to balance the neuroendocrine system and enhance immunity.

Woo? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it can be said to be a "medical" term... but it is definitely being talked about... it gets tons of hits on Google. Seems to be an accepted term on the alternative medicine circuit. Is this a "cureallozine"!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)
The article should make clear that it's a term used largely in alternative medicine; the 81 PubMed hits for "adaptogen" focus nearly entirely on herbal products and are published in the less... conventional side of the medical literature. The claim in the article that they "constitute a new class of natural, homeostatic metabolic regulators" is sourced to a book published by Healing Arts Press, a smallish alternative-medicine publishing firm, and should certainly be a bit more qualified. MastCell Talk 19:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of what I figured. It seems to be a scientific term, but not with a lot of research to support it. However, lots of quacks and non-scientists have taken the term up apparently, as a banner to push silly "herbal remedies". One company actually uses the term, adaptogenol for one of their silly potions, yes, like a cureallozine. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ONE: The Movie

ONE: The Movie needs a cleanup and may well-deserve a close eye as its popularity increases. Vassyana (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

it reads like an ad, and lacks third party sources.
looking into it, this does seem like an interesting, bona fide "grass-roots" production, although clearly somehow resonating with the topic of "Integral theory" (which has come up on this board before). dab (𒁳) 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's viral spreading (non-pejorative) in much the same way BLEEP did and in some circles is being heralded as the Next Big BLEEP. Vassyana (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
but "BLEEP" was so much crackpottery by belated quantum mystics. This does feature Deepak Chopra, which doesn't bode well I grant you, but it also has bona fide spiritualists, and is ostensibly about spirituality, not thinly veiled New Agey pseudoscientific blather. Be that as it may, the movie does appear notable, but the current article is unacceptable, reading like a press release. dab (𒁳) 07:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have looked it over and the version I am looking at looks fine to me. If anyone has specific problems, I would be open to hear them.

It does lack sources.... and.... well it doesn't make any extraordinary claims, so I am fine to leave it be. Hohohahaha (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Energy therapies spamming

I just got through vetting Quantum-Touch. What a trip! I may not have done the best job, but there is a ton of other energy therapies that need to be run through the NPOV/anti-advert ringer. Things to keep in mind: all claims of benefits must be removed since the claims cannot be reliably sourced, all claims of mechanism must be framed as opposed to reality.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Energy therapies - ok, that's fairly extensive. Worth going through to see how much needs cleanup. Moreschi (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Carantania

This arrived on my talk page today. Curious dispute concerning nationalism, fringyness, bad sourcing, the lot. Needs some more eyes. Moreschi (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also affecting Slovenia and Slovenians by the looks of things. The main claim appears to be that there was a "Slovenian" state in 595 AD. Also pushing the theory that the Adriatic Veneti were in fact Slavs. --Folantin (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Aye, and that the Slovenians were indigenous to the Eastern Alps. See also Marcos G. Tusar (talk · contribs). Looks like an equivalent form of OIT has arrived - just this time for Slovenia. Moreschi (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, see Slavic settlement of Eastern Alps. The standard theory that the Slavs migrated into the area is being contested on the basis of information from a Geocities site. The chief promoter of the "Venetic theory" is one Dr. Jožko Šavli who is an economist not a historian [3]. --Folantin (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
ahem, pure South Slavic national mysticism. I've been there and bought the T-Shirt several times over. dab (𒁳) 12:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the affected pages are:
--Folantin (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up Slavic settlement of Eastern Alps and Carantania, and made Venetic theory a redirect to a section at Protochronism where I inserted a reference to the idea as a list entry. Note that this seems to be overlapping with a (bona fide) dispute whether Slavic arrival in Slovenia should be dated to the 7th or already to the 6th century. I have no opinion of this. It will need to be looked into if there is positive evidence for 6th century arrival. If there isn't, well, we cannot expect to determine the exact year the first Slav set foot in Slovenia, mid 6th to early 7th century sounds about right. dab (𒁳) 12:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

it appears[4] that Carantania as a "Slavic principality" was established in the mid 7th century, while it is of course plausible that Slavic settlement had been ongoing since the mid or late 6th century. Compared to the "Venetic theory", this is just a detail that needs a source. Samo will also need to be looked at in this context. dab (𒁳) 13:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see some other people found this topic. I didn't know about the existence of this page otherwise I would pop in earlier. I'd be happy if someone could keep an eye on those articles in the future also, I am fed up with all the theories and the debate was going unproductive. --Tone 13:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Energy therapy

Energy therapy and related articles need some people to help do some things:

  1. Get better secondary, independent sources. Right now these articles are mainly sourced from unreliable true-believers.
  2. Make sure the lack of scientific evidence for mechanisms/efficacy is explicitly and prominently stated in the article.
  3. Remove any content that goes into excessive details about claimed benefits as such benefits cannot be verified.

Please note the following articles especially:

There are some single-purpose accounts guarding these articles carefully, so watch out!

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already been at work on electromagnetic therapy, adding some references from the Cochrane Library and the American Cancer Society. For the energy medicine article, this recent series of articles in the Seattle Times should be referenced more heavily as a reliable secondary source. In general, for articles on alternative medicine as it applies to cancer at least, useful secondary-source material can be found on the websites of the American Cancer Society, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (among others). The latter two have sections devoted to reviewing the scientific evidence (such as it is) on many alternative treatments for cancer. MastCell Talk 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've placed the two company-related articles up for deletion on notability and sourcing concerns: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum-Touch (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aura-Soma. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Syriacs-Assyrians-Aramaeans-younameit

This is gradually straying into fringe territory. It is a bit difficult to grasp, bear with me: There is an Aramaic-speaking Christian ethnic group in the Middle East who cannot agree on how they want to call themselves. We discuss this at Names of Syriac Christians. For some reason, the name is really important, don't ask me. Predictably, this results in rows over which title the article on Wikipedia should have. Currently it is at Assyrian people, which isn't a bad choice, but neither is it uncontroversial. There are at present 47 redirects(!) to this page. I have tried to outline the problem at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Syriac). Now, instead of finding some acceptable consensus for the article title, people start creating fork articles under their preferred title all over the place. Presently, Syriac-Aramean people. The article is defended hook and crook based on simple obstinacy and revert-warring, in spite of the fact that this particular name does not generate one single google hit. See Talk:Syriac-Aramean_people#Sources.The fringy part, apart from blatant disregard for WP:RS comes with the constant recourse to identification of the group with either the Aramaeans (14th to 10th century BC petty kingdoms of the Levant) or the Neo-Assyrian Empire (10th to 7th century BC Mesopotamia). We even have an article on the latter, Assyrianism. That is, the naming dispute is constantly wrapped up in childish national mysticism that makes addressing the actual issues near impossible (identification literally means they keep saying they "are" the ancient (a) Aramaeans, not Assyrians / (b) Assyrians, not Aramaeans. It is beyond me how you can claim to "be" a sketchily know group from remote antiquity). I am tired of trying to deal with this alone. Some more eyes and brains would be appreciated. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, the largest groups of the Assyrian diaspora are found in the US, Sweden and Germany. This means that this problem is found mostly on en-, sv- and de-wiki. sv-wiki has opted for a "slashed" title (as has the US census): sv:Assyrier/syrianer. de-wiki has opted for a transliteration of the Aramaic term for "Syrian", de:Suryoye (as it happens, "Syrian" is the one uncontroversial name, but of course ambiguous wrt the Syrian Arab Republic). Enforcing NPOV will probably result in a similar solution on en-wiki. dab (𒁳) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I love this redirect: Jewish Muslim Christians ! Abecedare (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
oh dear, this is a leftover of pagemove vandalism it seems. I'm speedying that :) dab (𒁳) 08:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
de-wiki has opted for a transliteration of the Aramaic term for "Syrian", de:Suryoye - no dab they have created a page for both groups (see at the bottum of the page.) Anyways, I have made my case repeadly on dab's talk page and the Assyrian people's talk page. The group is unamisously known as Assyrian in the English Language, per book search, per scholar search, per and most recent, European Union [[5]] Chaldean (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
at de-wiki, the article corresponding to our Assyrian people is at de:Suryoye. Their de:Assyrer (Gegenwart) and de:Aramäer (Gegenwart) taken together correspond to our Names of Syriac Christians, although de:Assyrer (Gegenwart) is de-facto a pov fork of de:Suryoye. de-wiki finds it no easier to combat irrational nationalist editors than we do. dab (𒁳) 13:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

this is madness. Chaldean (talk · contribs) is revert warring like there was no tomorrow, with no sign of even an inkling of WP:CITE basic common sense. Any help please? I would prefer to have intelligent people handle this. The alternative will be some passing apparatchik admin locking everything down for a week, after which the circus will start over. dab (𒁳) 14:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See this is why [[6]] I cant work with you.
This is the version I am aiming for - he really thinks he owns the page.
I simply ask for sources for his edits, but he counters me with accusing me breaking randum wiki rules and using strong language from letting anyone participating. His edits are simply wrong. I dont know how else to say it. If you cant source something, what right does it give you to add such contreversial statement?
Once again, when I ask sources from him, he responds with this [[7]]. Not the first time. You should see how he has embarrased me before with his strong language. Its like he doesnt want to work together. He has to have it his way. Chaldean (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And he goes on [[8]]. When will he cite his edits? I am waiting. Chaldean (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have asked for sources on dab's talk page as well and he continues to ignore me. When can I revert dab's first sentence edit. Chaldean (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, WestAssyrian (talk · contribs) has jumped in. This account appears to be a revert-Dbachmann-only SPA, and I've got a feeling I've seen him before, too. This wouldn't be Nochi (talk · contribs) returning, would it? Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, user Nochi is the exact opposite of WestAssyrian. User Nochi promoted Aramean identity, where as WestAssyrian promoted what his user name says. Chaldean (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Pyramid

A user there is insisting that this be kept in the article: A Great Pyramid feasibility study relating to the quarrying of the stone was performed in 1978 by Technical Director Merle Booker of the Indiana Limestone Institute of America. Consisting of 33 quarries, the Institute is considered by many architects to be one of the world’s leading authorities on limestone. Using modern equipment, the study concludes:“Utilizing the entire Indiana Limestone industry’s facilities as they now stand [for 33 quarries], and figuring on tripling present average production, it would take approximately 27 years to quarry, fabricate and ship the total requirements.” Booker points out the time study assumes sufficient quantities of railroad cars would be available without delay or downtime during this 27 year period and does not factor in the increasing costs of completing the work.pgs. 104-105, 5/5/2000, Richard Noone, 1982 Three rivers Press, New York ISBN 0-609-80067-1

My problem with this is that Richard Noone is fringe of fringe, the guy that promised 3 miles of Antarctic ice on 5/5/2000, and that he is the only source for this report (which is evidently photocopied in one of his books). The only references I can find to Merle Booker or the report are from Noone or from the Wikipedia article. I've removed this at least twice. The poster finally moved it to the alternative theories section, but as there is no way evidently of verifying the report and the source is dubious, does it belong on Wikipedia at all? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the claim comes from Noone who talks about Booker, but you are not sure if Booker ever actually wrote the study? Hmmm... At best, we should directly attribute this to Noone... as in: "According to author Richard Noone, a Great Pyramid feasibility study relating to the quarrying of the stone was performed in 1978 by Merle Booker, Technical Director of the Indiana Limestone Institute...etc." Have you thought about contacting the ILIA and asking them to confirm whether Booker was their Technical Director in 1978, and if he actually wrote this study? Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am that "user". Like you are a user. I moved the article to the alternative section for the time being to allow further discussion. I do not defend Noone's more controversial ideas, yet regardless this should not discount his book as a source in this matter because he provides the original signed document on company letterhead which is allowed by Wikipedia as an acceptable reference. It is because Noone choose to reprint this letter that we do not have to take his word for it, we can take Booker's. Dougweller is suggesting essentially that Noone, because he is an "unreliable" alternative writer, like they all are, made Booker up as a fictional character and forged the photocopy of Booker's original correspondence. This is "nonsense" as he likes to say. The studies findings are not "according to Noone", it is according to Booker at the request of Noone. It's not like he is repeating a phone conversation and is engaging in heresay; he's reprinted an original letter from a qualified expert which speaks for itself, something that Dougweller hasn't even actually read. Noone commissioned Booker to do a 3rd party study and wisely choose an expert in such things-the technical director of the Indiana Limestone Institute. Now who would be more credible to speak about what it takes to move limestone blocks: an Egyptologist or the technical director of the Indiana Limestone Institute? Regardless, Noone's only involvement is that he asked the question and printed the findings verbatim in his book and we must take Booker's statement by itself because as it is presented in it's unaltered state. The I.L.I website is:http://www.iliai.com/. Their contact info is: Indiana Limestone Institute of America, Inc. 400 Stone City Bank Bldg. Bedford, Indiana 47421 Phone: 812-275-4426 FAX: 812-279-8682. I will contact Jim Owens to verify Booker's employment and if possible his participation in this study and post my correspondence. If I am able to only verify his existence I will leave it in the alternative section. If I can verify the study I will move it back to the main article. thanos5150

Based solely on what I've read here, I'm leaning towards "doesn't belong at all." --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is my impression that the text on the study reported in Civil Engineering Magazine has been just rewritten to denigrate it, while the alleged Booker study has no details, only conclusions -- and if that's all that's in Noone, again that's a reason it shouldn't be there. The footnotes are now an unreadable mess also.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact evidently the alleged Booker feasibility study is apparently just a photocopy of a letter in one of Noone's books.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Doug-help me out here, I need a break from all this typing. Your killin me. All of the negative assumptions made so far are by people who have not read Noone's book or even seen it. Just because you can't find corroboration in a Google search means nothing. That's what books are for. Regardless, I have corresponded with Jim Owens, a representative of ILI, and confirmed Bookers existence and former employment as technical director. I don't think its appropriate for me to copy and paste a private e-mail in a public forum, but will basically tell you what it said. Owens said Booker was way before his time (nearly 30 years ago) but that Booker was employed as the Institutes's Technical director, but without going through the archives he couldn't give exact dates of employment. He said while he could not confirm or deny Booker's report (being nearly 30 years old), it was his opinion if it were signed and on company letterhead it was likely genuine. He did point out that that every 4-5 years for as long as he can remember rumors have popped up about the Institute building a replica of the Great Pyramid or working to restore it, neither of which he says are true. He didn't elaborate further, but it seems obvious this is a result of misinformation concerning Booker's report in 1978. I think that this sufficiently proves Booker is a real person and was employed at ILI as technical director and that Noone's correspondence is genuine. Regardless, because the original report cannot be reproduced by ILI then I can concede the reference should remain in the alternative section. It also should be noted that Noone provides photo copies or transcripts of all the technical correspondence in his book.
As far as Booker's qualifications go-who would be more qualified to speak of the requirements of quarrying and moving stone using modern equipment: the technical director of ILI or an Egytologist? In fact, if an Egytologist were to want such data it would stand to reason they would go to someone exactly like Booker. People may disagree with Noone's theories, but there is no reason to doubt his correspondence with Booker not to mention Booker's qualifications or actual existence. I can understand the argument of where to put it, but to exclude it all together seems more like a witch hunt than responsible skepticism.
Booker's report: I am not going to retype the whole letter but will give you the basics. This study was only for the purpose of determining how much stone would be required and how long it would take for ILI to quarry, fabricate and ship enough stone to fill and cover the volume of the Great Pyramid using modern equipment and stone from ILI facilities. It has nothing to do with how Egyptians would have done it, which is really irrelevant in this case, but what makes the finding even more stunning. Booker used a base of 755'-9" X 755'-9" with side slope of 51 degrees-51'-14.3" and figured on hollows from the chambers and passage ways. All exterior and interior blocks were based on a size of 12.0' X 8.0' X 5.0'. Based on these measurements a volume is apparently derived in which Booker says approximately 264,216 rectangular core blocks would be required plus 12,723 exterior sloped blocks with very precise joint surfaces. The quantity of blocks required would equal 131,467,940 cubic feet of quarried finished stone. What Booker and his associates have obviously done is calculate a volume from base and slope and estimate a uniform block size to fill and cover it taking into account known hollow spaces and computed a total estimate of stone required factoring in the time to fabricate each block and transport it. Not build it, not level the site or anything else associated with construction-just quarrying, dressing and moving the stone which is their only field of expertise. The letter does not go into more detail, but given truck and rail car capacity and known production outputs which Booker feels is required to triple, he estimates it would require 27 years using 1978 technology to complete the task.
Given the large average size of the block they used, this is obviously an extremely conservative # of blocks compared to what is accepted. And it still would take them 27yrs. I will ad some of this information for better context, but the reference itself is valid and needs to stay. The alternative section is fine.
As far as the edit on the civil engineering report goes, that is exactly what they said word for word. If their own words degenerate the study then that is their own fault, but to their credit they were responsible enough to say such things. As it is written in the Wiki article it sounds like a pretty open and shut case, but by their own admission that couldn't be farther from the truth. They again and again make general assumptions that may not even actual apply and even have factual errors such as the stones in the Kings Chamber being only 20 tons. The study is clear that many assumptions are made and in the end it is still unknown exactly how it was built. These guys are saying that without the use of iron, wheel or pulley, the Egyptians possessed unknown means and/or methods comparable to modern day construction techniques using laser technology no less and to mention this is degenerate? Seems degenerate not to mention it to me.thanos5150
OK, it is nice to know that Booker was a real person, and that he was probably Technical Director at the time Noone says he was. So the question becomes: did he actually write the study and if so what did it say? Noone says he did, and we have Noone's account of what it said. Unfortunately Noone does not have the best reputation... he is considered a psuedoscientific and pseudohistorical fringe source. Because of this, we can not simply accept what he says about the study as fact. We either need to cite the actual study, or clearly attribute the material to Noone. Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So, did you not actually read what I wrote or just not understand it? ILM has confirmed Booker was technical director at this general time. It is their opinion that the document is real. Noone provides a photo of the original signed and dated document on company letterhead along with photo's of several other authorities he corresponded with. For the umpteenth time-the actual study is cited, not Noone. It is not Noone's opinion or interpretation, it is verbatim what was written by Booker taken directly from the photo. If any individual here requires any more proof, regardless of just plain common sense, then the onus is on YOU to go read the book as well as prove Noone to be a liar and a forger of this document. Until you can do this, this is a real verified document worthy of reference. As far as I am concerned this matter is closed.thanos5150

My view is that unless we can:

  • Find a reliable source that confirms that the study exists, and that it says what Booker quotes, and
  • Verify that the original study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, or at least in a publication with a reputation for editorial control (and not, say, an ILIAI newsletter)

the content does not belong on wikipedia. Note that ILIAI is a trade association, which publishes some how-to manuals for architects, contractors, masons etc, and promotes Indiana's limestone industry; and is not an academic or research institute. So we need to exercise extra caution as per WP:REDFLAG. Abecedare (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this reference is in the alternative section and references the author's book. At this point it does not matter. For example:in the alternative section to reference Graham Hancock's ideas Hancock's book is the only reference required. As far as the validity of Booker's letter I am quite sure it would be very easy to prove it is real in a court of law.thanos5150
I can sympathy with thanos5150 to some extent, I have information I'd love to add to articles but policy says I can't (eg something that proves a book wrong, but doesn't mention the book). And a sci-fi article up for deletion I like, but I can't vote keep as I know it breaks guidelines.
I think he just doesn't understand yet the various policies and guidelines you are expected to follow. I know I don't. I do have another problem with him I don't think he understands about his edits and deletions of my edits. For instance, I've deleted a couple of times the bit after the date (and I'll add that the reference for that is I think bad and needs replacing, which I can do):

The generally accepted estimated date of its completion is c. 2560 BC. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/khufustory.html though this date contradicts [[Great Pyramid of Giza#Dating evidence|radiocarbon dating evidence, it is loosely supported by a lack of archaeological findings for the existence prior to the fourth dynasty of a civilization with sufficient population or technical ability in the area.

First, the radiocarbon dating part. Radiocarbon dating needs to be interpreted. First it needs calibrating, but that's not my gripe. Even after calibrating it always needs interpreting. It's true the dates don't match up, in fact the dates are scattered so much you need an explanation. The explanation given by the authors of the report is that the builders had a problem getting fresh wood and had to use what they called 'settlement debris', ie stuff left over from the past (and dead wood lasts a long time in the desert). So the wood used in building the pyramid comes from trees cut at a wide variety of dates -- and as they were finishing up at the top, they ended up using older and older wood for their mortar which gives a reasonable explanation for something thanos5150, quoting Schoch, finds puzzling, that there are older dates at the top.
Secondly, the 'loosely supported' bit is a fringe claim, like the claims Egyptian civilization developed almost out of nothing. Egyptologists have a number of reasons for the dating of the GP, and that one doesn't feature very high (and is 'loosely supported' acceptable.
The study has clearly interpreted the data and does not dispute the findings itself, the only problem they have is that it does not match up with their timeline which is lacking on it's own merit anyways. The dates given in the 1995 study are calibrated dates. The result is the "old wood" theory" which is completely ridiculous if you think about it just as a matter of common sense, and is ultimately nothing more than a desperate attempt to confuse the issue and save face. There is no doubt I am sure the Egyptians used old wood, this is common through out history even today, but the quantities that would have been required did not exist at that time. If you only take the time period from Saquarra to the Great Pyramid you have a society of what Egyptologist's say to have been a million people or more all relying on this "old wood" for approximately 100 years. This is only for arguments sake as it is clear this "old wood" would have been used in great quantities for various purposes for at least several hundred years prior. But only within this time frame, between daily life and construction of several staggeringly large monuments, literally thousands of tons of this old wood would have been used which is not even closely supported by the geological record. Even if these vast forests of dead wood did exists, it would have been one of the most bizarre landscapes on earth.
Just think about the amount of rollers used to move the blocks alone just for the Great Pyramid. There are 2-2.4 million blocks which most Egyptologists agree rollers must have been used in some fashion. How many rollers would be required? Keep in mind they have a limited life from being continuously crushed under tons of lime stone and each block would at least require 4-6 rollers of a reasonable length and circumference. Scrub brush will not do-mature trees are required. The total would most certainly be in the millions. It also would have required a massive stock pile of constant reserves to replace the ones that were crushed as well as keep the construction process going. Also, mortar was used in the casing stones which is known to have been refined with heat and would have required massive amounts of wood by itself. Egytologists say wooden scaffolding was likely used also requiring massive amounts of wood. If you only take the Great Pyramid alone, literally forests of old wood would have been required as it is accepted new growth forests did not exist in 2500B.C..
As far as the older wood being used at the top as compared to the bottom to explain the dating discrepancy of the G.P., this notion is easily dismissed. The problem with this logic is that given that the Great Pyramid was built before the 2nd and 3rd pyramid, this theory is only valid if the wood found in the latter 2 pyramids, not to mention even later constructions, were older or at least as old as that found in the Great Pyramid or earlier structures, which they are not. As wood resources dry up, even older wood is used, or at least all that is left is old wood, so it is only logical that this progression of older and older wood would get more severe as time went on, but this is clearly not the case and actually the exact opposite. If the oldest wood was found at the top of the GP then this trend would continue at the bottom of the 2nd pyramid and so on until the supply was exhausted. The samples taken from Menkuare's pyramid and later structures are much closer to the accepted dates than those found in earlier structures. Also, this study did not use only "old wood" for it's results, it used short lived materials as well, meaning things from the time, that all dated earlier though more closely to what is accepted. It could be argued they used up all the wood and used "new wood", but there is no new wood. Well, then maybe they imported it, but there is no evidence they did on an industrial scale and as they had no wheel for transport if they did would have required fleets of barges traveling hundreds of miles with a constant flow of wood. What we have here is hard science which is gladly accepted as valid in any other situation, but the only reason it is not is because it does not agree with accepted dogma. Not once, but twice has this dating given older dates. Instead of some wild story about how the Egyptians used thousands of tons of old wood, which there is no reason to believe was available in such quantities and is contradicted by the studies own findings, why not just call a spade a spade? The world will not end if the Pyramids are admittedly older than what is accepted. I believe in this instance occam's razor applies-accepted dating is wrong and the structure was built at a time when their was sufficient new growth wood to support its construction.thanos5150
Related to his edits, when I deleted an obsolete comment by Schoch about the data not being published, and provided a link to the new report which provides a huge amount of data, he cut out my comment "The full data of the study was published in the journal Radiocarbon in 2001 and are available on the net" although he did leave the reference. I don't know, is that reasonable?
After removing the outdated reference your comment is not required-the reference speaks for itself.thanos5150
To give him credit, some of his edits I like and we agreed on cutting out one very fringe statement from an unverifiable source. But others I think are too POV (and he thinks the same about me, so...)--Doug Weller (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand to the best of my ability, but my statement above is true-being it is in the alternative section and references Noone, the point is moot. Get over it. I have a problem with you-you have imposed your POV on the entire article. You do not edit anything, all you do is delete. You pick and choose what you want to delete based on your POV and hide behind Wiki "rules" to justify yourself. Technically, you make your point as far as the rules are concerned, but your motives are clear. You are not doing this in the best interest of the article, reader, or even subject material; you are doing it to further your own beliefs and prejudices. Not to mention you haven't even read any of the work you discredit relying solely on the opinions of others. You may be exactly right in many cases but if you haven't even read it yourself who are you to judge either way? And the professional skeptics you rely on-who peer reviews what they say? thanos5150
Gee, thanks, ad hominems and mind-reading. I'm trying to improve the article and make it factual. That includes accurate reporting of appropriate (according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines) alternative viewpoints. In fact I have contributed some new stuff and hope to do more, but yes, I found a bit of nonsense and POV and OR (like the mathematical calculations you (I think) added) and removed them. You have no idea what I have read although I admit to not having read Schoch's book or Noone's. And I am bound by the rules too, you know.

I also do not appreciate the insult about professional skeptics, by whom I presume you mean archaeologists Egyptologists. Would you please name them? I do have some prejudices. I think that things should be properly referenced, that context should be clear, that statements telling the reader why Khufu's pyramid is date the way it is should be accurate and references instead of just someone's opinion. The problem I have with the Booker study is the source. It's a shame it was never published, but because it is only in Noone's book so far as I can tell (and I know some Egyptologists) it's never been commented on by anyone who knows anything about the pyramid. I admit I don't trust Noone. I think he is in it for the money and anyone who would play on people's fears the way he did with his 'planetary alignment' scare is capable of anything. He may be telling the truth here, in fact I would guess he is (although I don't know if he gave Booker guidelines that might have affected his report). If you can convince people there is a way to include the Booker stuff I'm happy with it, it is just another guesstimate in the end with different inputs. Now, can we please stop the name-calling (but I really do want to know who the professional skeptics are) please?--Doug Weller (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug. Its getting old repeating myself so I do not mean to take it out on you. We have both agreed we have different view points illustrated by our edits so I am satisfied to leave it at that. I agree, all sources must be properly referenced. The Booker report as I have said should be left where it is in the alternative section, because there Noone's reference is acceptable. I suppose a statement should be added to the effect "According to Richard Noone, he corresponded with Booker, blah, blah". I have only read Noone's book and know nothing of the man, but reading the book I do not think his aim was to profit by scaring me into buying it. I think Noone's biggest mistaken was being bold enough to put an actual date on it. Not wise. Can't say I agreed with Noone on some particular points, but in principle the idea of crustal displacement and pole shifts is sound in which Einstien agreed. To apply it to the present day with global warming, to think a major displacement of weight on the earth's surface from the poles to the equator from melting would not potentially have a devastating structural effect on the earth, or that this could not have happened at least once if not several times in the past, is wishful thinking in my opinion. We should only be so lucky. We know the poles have flipped several times, the only question is why.
As far as professional skeptics go, how about Doug Weller who's website is devoted to the skeptical review of alternative theories though admits he has not actually read any of the books himself? The problem is this: Egytologists are the only ones "qualified" to speak of anything regarding Egypt. Anyone else whose ideas do not support the Egyptological view by default is engaging in psuedoscience or psuedohistory. Not very democratic I would say. The scientific method should allow for the inclusion or at least rational debate of all credible ideas regardless of their origin, but in Egyptology this is not the case. We are not talking about language, economics, art, and the like which is the only area of expertise an Egyptologist has-we are talking about engineering, structural architecture, geology, mathematics, physics as it relates to the moving of stone, carbon dating, astronomy-these things have nothing to do with Egytology and yet has everything to do with the monuments of Egypt (and elsewhere). And yet it is the unqualified Egyptologist that is the only authority on such matters? Do you not see a problem here? Egyptologists rely on grants and funding from public or private sources. How long would someones career last if they disagreed with fundamental dogma? Not long. And by the same token, the Egyptologist is fully indoctrinated to the only acceptable thought so probably does not to think reassess the data or have an independent thought.thanos5150
The relavant policy statement here is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You are essentially trying to use Noone's book as a convenience link to the study... but Noone's book is not a reliable source for that. Unless we see the actual study (as opposed to a photograph of something that Noone says is the study), we can not make statements of fact about it. All we know for sure (and can verify) is that Noone says the photograph is of the study. We can talk about what the photograph in Noone's book shows, but we can not talk about the actual study based upon the photograph. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar, thank you for your edits. I don't think thanos5150 quite grasps the point though, that we don't have evidence beyond the photograph that allows us to assert what he has in his new edit.
thanos5150, I have a number of books in my library by people like Sitchin, Lomas & Knight, etc. that I've bought and read. I just don't have the Noone and Schoch books (which aren't available in my local library and I didn't feel like buying them). --Doug Weller (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So, apparently no one actually reads what I write. Didn't I say something earlier to this effect before Blueboar's edits? I edited his edits to a more coherent form, but do I get any credit? Noooo. It's always Blueboar did this, Blueboar did that. But, yeah, I get it. I got it before. It makes me laugh like a school girl to reduce this to having to say "the photograph says". That is a hoot. Regardless, I am confident the reader can make up their own minds.thanos5150#

This is getting beyond a joke. Thanos5150 is now adding things to footnotes, in this case "How does this reference verify what it actually says?" He repeadly removed the bit in parentheses from this sentence "As a result, given Egyptologists have ascribed the pyramid to Khufu (for a number of reasons including graffiti including his name in areas only accessible during construction),", he insists on calling Manetho's Aegyptica revisionist even though I and one other person have asked for references which he won't give, he's added (as a Wiki link for some reason) "(note:it has been independently verified for this article that Booker was employed at I.L.I as technical director during this time frame and in their opinion the document is likely genuine)". He has a bit of a record for doing this elsewhere, eg his attempt to rewrite the article Pseudoarchaeology from his POV. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoarchaeology&diff=next&oldid=36004873--Doug Weller (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Epsilonism

ok, I've just come across a miniature walled garden centering around Epsilonism (conspiracy theory). Crazy stuff, this: all Jews are evil and Greeks are superior types possessed of better DNA due to their descent from aliens who visited Earth a way back on a flying visit from Sirius. The problem with most of this is that the people involved simply don't look to be notable except in Epsilonism terms. Result: Ioannis Fourakis, Anestis Keramidas and Angelos Sakketos have all been prodded, though you may think that redirection is more appropriate, as all these chaps essentially appear to be acolytes of Dimosthenis Liakopoulos, who definitely is notable. At the moment this looks to be under control but it would be nice if some people put Category:Epsilonism on their watchlists, as this issue will probably come back at periodic intervals. Other articles of potentially dubious notability that are tangentially related to this are Texe Marrs (not a Greek nationalist, just a crackpot), Nikos Konstantinidis (Greek nationalist, conspiracy theorist), Leonidas Georgiades (Greek nationalist) and also possibly Anastasis Theodoridis. Curiously, most of this lot are from Thessaloniki. Thoughts as to what to do with these? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've come across these before. They are so cranky as to be actually harmless (for our purposes). Some merging/redirecting may be in order. dab (𒁳) 10:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No one takes the so called "Epsilonists" seriously since they are either (1) obviously insane (Fourakis, Konstandinis, Keramidas) or booksellers out for a quick buck (Liakopoulos, Adonis). Actually Adonis is the exception since he (a) avoids obviously nutty stuff like aliens and the Epsilon bullcrap and (b) he has unfortunately been elected to parliament with the far right party. Apart from him allmost all google references to these people are from WP so I don't really see what purpose they serve in the English language WP. Epsilonism too is only featured in English language WP, all the other hits refer to a fictional creed from (of all things) GTA San Andreas. That is another fictional creed from that admits to be sci-fi. Bang to rights on Thessalonica btwXenovatis (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Paging Dr. Boubouleix?

This post reminded me of our old friend. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. --Folantin (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Blocked indefinitely, he either stops losing his password to his existing accounts or doesn't edit at all. Moreschi (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Boubouleix is already indef banned so he doesn't get to edit at all even as a sock [9]. I believe his likely impersonators are also indef banned so the same applies to them. --Folantin (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I'd forgotten that. Good point. Moreschi (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to confirm those other blocks [10] and [11]. --Folantin (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action.  :) --Elonka 20:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"TROUDUCUL"? O_o -- vulgaire plaisanterie indeed... I think I actually resent le crétin des Alpes dab (𒁳) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess this explains the 2 emails I just received from him. I don't think he grasps how Wikipedia works at all.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so it was him... I bet he's beginning to understand a bit about Google rankings for unusual names like Boubouleix. --Folantin (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, my curiosity has gotten the better of me. Can you tell us why he emailed you? Kafka Liz (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This character is a riot. The prototypical vitriolic Frenchman as if sprung out of a Monty Python sketch. dab (𒁳) 15:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberry!" I wonder if the good doctor is really just John Cleese trolling incognito on the Internet. --Folantin (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Orthomolecular medicine

See Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Request for comment on the attribution of criticism in the lead. All comments would be welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Very welcome indeed. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hittites

Goldenhawk 0 looks as though he may be back in the persona of "IndoHistorian". He has added a lot of stuff to the Hittites page, which seems to be designed to demonstrate that the Hittites were "yellow". It has been partly cleaned up by another editor, but still seems very bizarre. Paul B (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Goldenhawk 0 et al are undoubtedly the latest avatars of User:Maleabroad, who was a persistent sockpupeteer editing (or rather POV pushing) on various Hinduism/Buddhism related articles. If it helps, take a look at this subpage that we had created about a year back to keep track of his latest socks; although be aware that the page was last updated in May 2007. Abecedare (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I remember Maleabroad well. If that is so, his interests and obsessions have evolved somewhat. Paul B (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The main change is that he has started adding refs, although I wouldn't take any information he adds at face value. He still is interested in Sacred Cow and Decline of Buddhism in India (earlier he used Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu and Zoroastrianism and Hinduism to push the same POV). But all editing similarities asides, here are the damning links [12], [13] and [14] (note the date of the two wiki edits). I assume you recall that Maleabraod = Brown Hindu = PrimeDirectives. QED Abecedare (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good sock-spotting. checkuser gave us confirmed: couple of new accounts blocked indef. Moreschi (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Medak Pocket

Apparently this battle between Canadian UN peacekeepers and Croatian army forces never happened. Nope, it was all made up — Western media, the UN, the Hague, we all just made it up. We know this for sure, because lots of websites that end in .hr tell us so. *Sigh*... the Plague spreads... <eleland/talkedits> 16:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I doubt if those .hr sites fit the bill. --Folantin (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sunscreen

This whole article has been hijacked and completely re-written (in extremely poor English) by individuals claiming that sunscreen causes melanoma. The scientific consensus is that it prevents it. The article as it existed before the hijack was much more informative and objective and better written than the polemic that has replaced it. I think it would be better to revert the whole article to an earlier version. Suitsyou (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that recent research in the last few years has demonstrated that some of the chemicals in the newer sunscreens are less safe than we had previously thought, and that the old-fashioned physical barrier sunscreens (with groundup zinc or titanium, for example) might be safer therefore. I have seen a few WP:RS to this effect. --Filll (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Ok I just looked at the article. What was reasonably balanced before is now a mess. And you are right, the English is horrible. Can we just revert back and start over, and then fight these characters who want to create a massive bias? It just reads like a polemic or diatribe now.--Filll (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is clearly POV. Probably easiest to revert and start over, obviously including all aspects of the safety issue.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is this would probably lead to a reversion war with the individuals who have hijacked the article. They're constantly removing the disputed factual accuracy tag so I'm sure they would just revert the article back to their version. I agree that reversion to an earlier version is the best option but I'm not sure what the right course of action is in the event of a reversion war. Suitsyou (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first thing is we have to collect a substantial number of people interested in NPOV and balance in the sunscreen article. Then, we force them to discuss their POV on the talk page by using up their WP:3RR, and blocking them if they violate 3RR. Then we dismiss their arguments and explain NPOV. If they argue tendentiously, we block them for violating WP:TE. If they are repetitious, we blank their comments or usefy them. And eventually, we will have made headway. It is ugly, but that is all I know how to do. There are other approaches of course, using mediation etc. But I am not experienced in those.--Filll (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

we can't have "individuals" hijack articles and rewrite them according to their own agenda, particularly in broken English. Revert to the last sane version. Force these "individuals" to make some sort of coherent argument on a talkpage and see if they have anything to say that can be translated into a well-phrased, well-referenced addition. dab (𒁳) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

They are pretty fierce. This is going to take a huge amount of effort and show of force, unfortunately. We could use some help.--Filll (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen Clinic and Daniel G. Amen

=) Someone [[15]] has been removing criticism and trying to make these articles promotional... and low and behold, it is someone from..... drumroll...... the Amen Clinic!

Any help patrolling or dealing with this appreciated. Hohohahaha (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mahāmada

While I admire the work that went behind this article, it really needs attention from some informed and sceptical editors. Abecedare (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the exact content is also repeated at Mahāmad. I'll redirect. Abecedare (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

oh dear. Classic WP:SYN fringecruft. I mean,

"In the 20th book of Atharvaveda Hymn 127 Some Suktas (chapters) are known as Kuntap Sukta. Kuntap means the consumer of misery and troubles. Thus meaning the message of peace and safety and if translated in Arabic means Islam."

..."Kuntapa" means "peace". "Islam" means "peace". Therefore, the Atharvaveda prophesies Islam. Any questions? You also got to love the way the "References" are stashed at the end of the article without rhyme or reason in 31 consecutive footnotes of, let's say, heterogenous nature. Unsurprisingly, this turns out to be blogcruft. [16] [17] [18]. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Any article referring to Bhavishya Purana, Nostradamus and the ilk, needs impeccable academic sourcing; because an online search, or books published by 'independent'-publishers, can yield just about any prophecy one wants attributed to these sources. The Bhavishya Purana article has an interesting quote by A. K. Ramanujan on this phenomenon, taking it as (tongue-in-cheek) evidence of the Puranas being an "open-system". Abecedare (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Note --> Article is still going through edits. and Actual photos from Vedas and Context from Vedas as well as Puranas will be put in as References and Literature. You can help by improving article .
Comment - A. K. Ramanujan is just a writer who in describes personal view of some Puranas. Mahamad is in Puranas and Vedas etc ... If you want to research please goto websites that provide information on the Holy Books that were mentioned in article. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, the Ramanujan quoote is taken from Doniger, Wendy (editor) (1993). Purāṇa Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in Hindu and Jaina Texts. Albany, New York: State University of New York. ISBN 0-7914-1382-9. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help), and is not some random entry on a website/blog.Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the consensus of scholarship considers the "prophecies", for example in the Bhavishya Purana, to post-date the events they discuss. Vassyana (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The blogcruft is rather old, actually, and can be ultimately traced back to the ramblings of Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi. Blooming nonsense from beginning to end. rudra (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Actual photos from Vedas" -- what is this even supposed to mean? This is, of course, blooming nonsense. The question is, is it notable. It's some sort of "the Vedas predicted Islam" hoax. Can we establish it as a notable hoax? In this case, we could keep the article (appropriately rewritten of course). Otherwise, put it on AfD. dab (𒁳) 14:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be notable. The basic history is that Muhammad was "predicted" in the Bhavishya Purana (probably in the 19th C, perhaps a little earlier) as a destructive force. Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, an Ahmadiya dawagandist, reinterpreted the derogatory passage as an affirmation of Islam, not that anyone would notice or care. That is, until the invention of the blog. rudra (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
ok, it redirects to Bhavishya_Purana#Pratisargaparvan now. I was wondering why a Sanskrit text should portray Muhammad in a positive light. Could you add the detail on the Ahmadiya re-interpretation to the entry perhaps? dab (𒁳) 17:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It should not be Redirected because we already mentioned that Real Photos from Bhavishya Purana, Kalki Avatar, All Vedas that hold information about Mahamad will be added as Refs and Information. We are getting all Holy Books that contain information about Mahamad. and add Real Photos from them. If the article gets redirected to Bhavishya Purana it doesnt make sense to Kalki Avtar, or Atharaveda, Rigveda and all vedas that mention Mahamad. So thats why Redirect is not needed either you put it on AfD or wait untill information from Vedas are provided. --99.238.149.85 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you going to put it up on AfD than AfD al links then inform DWhiskaZ or you can wait untill information from Vedas are posted.--99.238.149.85 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear IP/DWhiskaZ, if you have access to manuscripts of Bhavishya Purana pre-dating the 6th/7th century that mention Muhammad, you should definitely get that published in an academic journal and announce the monumental finding to the world ... but not through wikipedia.
The redirect to Bhavishya Purana is a good idea till actual scholarly secondary sources on the topic are found that establish Mahāmada is notable, even as a fringe belief. Abecedare (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD isn't needed. There's a squib on Mahamada in Bhavishya Purana: just the factoid should be enough. As for "Muhammad/Islam in the Vedas" whatnot, please desist. There are no reliable sources here. All you'll find in blogspace is dawagandists and fringe Hindu loonies, who have diametrically opposite views on these "predictions" or "anticipations" or what have you. Note also that AH Vidyarthi's "translations" are uniformly bogus, for understandable reasons. rudra (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside: We can add this to the article:

Mahāmada was one of the hottest topics on wikipedia on March 28th, 2008. [19]

... it is as well referenced as anything else in that article :-) Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While I heartily agree with everything that has been said thus far in favor of whipping this thing back into Bhavishya Purana, I have one point of purely formal concern: The fact that the author included claims connecting 'Mahāmada' with texts other than the Bhavishya (i.e. the Veda Samhitas) - and supposedly with the support of (admittedly suspect) literature - might require us to first expose the true nature of these claims before a merge or even deletion is fully justified. If "real" literature pops up in the discussion - which, I believe, will at best document this as a phenomenon in Islamic/Hindu exegesis of Vedic literature - then 'Mahāmada' might well deserve to survive as a stub or be incorperated elsewhere. But maybe I'm being too lenient... Aryaman (☼) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, no one has really bothered to debunk AH Vidyarthi's "research" and "translations", which are at the root of all these supposed claims. Believe it or not, I actually spent a day researching this some five years ago, prompted by a thread on a web forum (now, sadly, defunct, taking my post with it into electronic oblivion). I recall one classic mistranslation (of RV.8.6.10, where Vidyarthi read the name "Ahmed" in aham id dhi pituh...) which was the essence of his technique: isolate some words, especially those suggestive of Islamic cognates, and concoct a translation stringing them together without regard to the actual Sanskrit. He wrote an entire book full of stuff like this. rudra (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that Vidyarthi's book does not qualify as a reliable source, but I found a reference that may be relevant:

Purohit, Teena (2007) 'READING GLOBAL ISLAM THROUGH MESSIANIC RENEWAL IN DASAVATĀR', Sikh Formations, 3:2, p. 151 - 167, Routledge

The paper, which I have only skimmed, discusses and analyzes various instances in which Muhammad (sometimes spelled as "Mahāmada") is considered an avatar of Brahma, Vishnu etc in Ismaili, Sufi and some interpretations of Hindu literature. This gives us some material to write up an encyclopedic entry on the subject, but I am not sure that Mahāmada would be the right title for the page. Any ideas on how to proceed ? If needed, I can email a copy of the paper since it is not freely accessible. Abecedare (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic hermeneutics of Hindu texts? Gah! rudra (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm stabbing in the dark here: Tafsir? I don't know if Tafsir is sub specie aeternitatis performed only upon the Qur'an, or if the term can also cover interpretations of other "books" (i.e. the Bible, the Vedas, etc.). Aryaman (☼) 20:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Theoretically (i.e. literally) it could, but not in practice, as it has long since become a technical word, to the exclusion of its generic meaning, and could very well be deemed blasphemous in some quarters if not applied to readings of the Quran. (In fact, translations of the Quran to other languages are also called tafsir out of politeness, if not piety also. Pickthal titled his work "an Interpretation"!) rudra (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment According to my team at Universtiy of Toronto (Scarborough Campus) we have come up with the following statements

  • Mahamad is not only mentioned in Bahvishya Purana
  • Mahamad is also mentioned in RigVed, Atharvaveda, Kalki Avtar, Bhavishya Purana and Samaveda
  • Mahamad may also be mentioned in other vedas not mentioned above
  • Going through all these books will take time because books are really thick
  • Peronsal matters can be doubt with in Talk page of article

--DWhiskaZ (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please desist, unless you can find reliable sources and avoid synthesis (such as supposed "corroborations" in the Quran or whatever). In particular, note that anything attributable to AH Vidyarthi is known to be thoroughly unreliable, including the stuff you had copy-pasted from www.islam101.com. (And, one alleged "Ved Prakash Upadhai" (i.e. Upadhyay) is a complete cipher. He may not even exist.) rudra (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential merge target Since all the blog/web sources about Mahāmada being mentioned in the Puranas/Vedas etc eventually lead back to the books by A.H. Vidyarthi (see the 30+ links in the Mahāmada page), I think the article content should be merged with Abdul Haq Vidyarthi. In that article we can clearly state his views on Mohammad being prophecized in Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and Parsi literature with fewer concerns about WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I just ran across this. Not a WP:RS, obviously, but he seems to have done his homework. rudra (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

still at it. Ultimate Prophet (Pbuh) Foretold. I think a block may be appropriate at this point. dab (𒁳) 10:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

another possible merge target would be Prophecy#Ahmadiyya. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note Article was already trimed down and you already tried redirecting it to another Holy Book that also contains information about Mahamada. The article was created to post views from all Holy Books. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

the article doesn't contain anything of merit. Wikipedia isn't a blog. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

George Washington a Catholic?

There is apparently a Catholic urban legend going around that George Washington was baptized Roman Catholic on his deathbed by Leonard Neale, 2nd archbishop of Baltimore. The typical "reference" for this is to a pair of articles supposedly published in the "Denver Register" in the 1950s. Laura Scudder very graciously went to the Denver Public Library and discovered that these references appear to be spurious, as detailed here. We've managed to keep the material out of George Washington and religion, but User:Dwain has been diligent in keeping the material in Leonard Neale, now resorting to a new set of references referring to the National Catholic Register, something called "Information Magazine", and a book by Leonard Feeney of Feeneyite fame. I have no assurances that the NCR ref is legit, and the other two don't give page numbers or issue information or anything else sufficient to find the supposed passages.

There are two eyewitness accounts of Washington's death, and neither of them gives the slightest hint that any such thing happened. It would be nice if some others would take a look at this. I've tried remonstrating with Dwain, with negligible success. Mangoe (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If one could actually track down the NCR cite (1957? ouch...), I would judge it a reliable source. But in lieu of that, since there seems to be no more mainstream coverage of the incident, or even coverage of buzz about the incident, I would agree that the information is dubious at best. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to their website, The National Catholic Register was founded in 1927 as the national edition of the Denver Catholic Register. In other words, it was the same paper that we have already discounted under a different banner. I think it highly unlikely that the article appeared in the National edition and not the local one. I would say that it is up to Dwain to demonstrate otherwise. As for the other sources, we definitely need publication info to say they are reliable. I am also concerned that these sources are simply repeating the rumor without fact checking. As WP:V states: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This is certainly an exceptional claim... but I don't think any of these qualify as exceptional sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that the NCR is the real source of this, just as it has been made clear that "Denver Register" wasn't the immediate source earlier. This is a textbook case for WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, as I have no doubt that User:Dwain has never seen the actual documents he cites. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Baccyak4H, you are correct that NCR is a reliable source, I have located the original articles from The National Catholic Register. The opinion of these two that I am lying is insulting. Since I am only referencing a tradition that Leonard Neale baptized Washington on his deathbed and am not stating that the story is real or not but only that it exists and have sourced it I don't believe there should be such a controversy over this. Mangoe threatened me not to add it again earlier on my talk page and now even after I reworked the info, corrected a source and added more sources, Blueboar is deleting the information. The fact is there is a "story" and Leonard Neale was mentioned in it. I am not doing anything wrong. Dwain (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Dwaine, you are doing much more than just mentioning that there is a "story" about Leonard Neale. This is a rather exceptional "story" that also concerns one of the most prominent men in American History (George Washington). This "story" takes up two of the largest paragraphs in the article... which only has about ten paragraphs. So even if we were to include it, there is a question of WP:Undue Weight. Spending that amount of space on a "story" gives it a certain level of creadance. More importantly, if it is "just a story", we should not be including it in the first place. An encyclopedia should not repeat rumors and legends, especially rumors and legends about notable historic figures. Qualifying what is a rather extraordinary claim behind "There is a story that...", does not change the fact that it is extraordinary. We still need exceptionally reliable sources to repeat that story. Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... we definitely need a third party (preferably a neutral admin) to review this before it gets into futher edit warring. Dwain has already violated 3rr (I have warned him, but not taken any action) and has rejected any and all arguments that Mango and I have presented on the talk page. Any takers? Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Truthers at ArbCom

September 11 conspiracy theories and related issues have been taken to ArbCom. The case is currently at the Workshop stage, and a large part of the page is ArbCom looking at various implications of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. It might be useful for editors experienced in the area to keep an eye on the workshop page to make sure the poor little dears don't get confused and come down with an interpretation of policy that makes our life difficult. Relata refero (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching that page and related pages with some trepidation. I have contributed a tiny bit as well, but some was nuked because it got a truther upset. And I was given a nice threat of a block for upsetting the truther. By the way the WP:CIVIL police are on the hunt to make the word "truther" an uncivil slur and its use a blockable offense.--Filll (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

it is sadly true that the arbcom seems to be losing their footing in the purposes and realities of this project. Unlike other recurring problems which the community can route around, this is a real and upsetting danger, because the arbcom stands outside and above the wiki process. I don't know what can be done about it. There is no bad faith involved as far as I can see, just an increasing unwillingness to apply common sense. This is the "IRC admin" attitude: editors are peons, just slap them now and again to keep them in line. Content is for editors, we manage the 'pedia, we don't condescend to either read or write it. We've come a long way from "admins are janitors". dab (𒁳) 14:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

These days, admins remind me of playground supervisors who let the kids beat the hell out of each other, but come running in if one uses the word "fuck." <eleland/talkedits> 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Eleland, this comment should be framed and placed right at the top of the WP:AN/I page. I remember everyone shrugging and saying "RfA is broken" back in 2006. What we now experience are the long-term repercussions of that defect. I sometimes feel we need two classes of admins: those trusted with menial tasks like slapping vandals, and those trusted to have a grasp of encyclopedicity. Spend enough time vandal-slapping, and you develop the feeling that Wikipedia is about "the vandals vs. the admins", forgetting the actual encyclopedists that plod away between the fronts. dab (𒁳) 09:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Civility is the only policy enforced nowadays because it takes no effort or intelligence for any ignoramus "uninvolved admin" to interpret it. Apparently, Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopaedia but a finishing school for young ladies. I love the idea that banning the word "truther" will solve all our problems with bug-eyed, overcaffeinated conspiracy theorists. That's magic thinking at its finest. About a year ago, there was a move to purge Wikipedia talk pages of the "offensive" word "cruft". Of course, since that time not one of our articles has been afflicted by agglomerations of inane pop cultural trivia, so the method clearly works. --Folantin (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who these "uninvolved admins" are because I can' be bothered to follow these discussions, but it is getting worse. Since 2007, I have come across admins with astoundingly bad judgement that would have been unthinkable in 2005, and that's not even including the (still very rare) instances of actual bad faith. We have made "admins" of mere well-meaning vandal-slappers with no education or grasp of anything more complicated than the decision process required to figure that replacing a page with "penis penis" is vandalism. We've done that because we need these people to bear the brunt of the graffiti artists and bored highschoolers. But we should have made sure they would not get the impression that they "are" the encyclopedia or that they are "running things": this may end in despair. Moreschi et al. have seen the rainclouds and built an ark. It's a good thing the community is reasonably inert (I should know), but we absolutely need to counter the rampant anti-elitism. An encyclopedia is elitist. Not necessarily "elitist" in terms of who may contribute, but elitist in terms of what is required of editors, whoever they are. dab (𒁳) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Race and intelligence article

Some editors of this article have stated that it includes fringe theories. Do you believe that the article presents fringe theories and what in the article do you consider fringe? --Jagz (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on the neutrality and fringe elements of this article have already been built in an RFC - User:Slrubenstein and others have already gone into great detail on the talk page to explain the problems with this article. A lot of people's time and WP space has been given to this already--Cailil talk 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

::If I thought there was consensus of what the fringe elements of the article were I wouldn't have listed it on this Noticeboard. --Jagz (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, you are being told there is consensus, according to non-involved observers. Are you going to keep denying it even exists?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

::::I see a lot of mention of fringe in the RfC but they do not always specify exactly what they are referring to. The RfC was to answer whether people thought the article was neutral and the answer was no. I'm looking for the specifics of what fringe items need to be addressed. Also, the article looks headed for Mediation so there doesn't appear to be a lot of agreement. --Jagz (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You have had the article well analyzed[20][21][22][23] on the talk page already, Jagz. You have had an RFC. Outside opinion has been sought and given. Consensus has been established on the page. Now, considering your edit summary closing the RFC (today) saying " I think we have had enough replies, removed RfC templates" outside views are no longer being looked for. Coming here to "ask the other parent" is "antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works" and may be considered tendentious--Cailil talk 22:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Jagz is pushing a POV that has been discredited and is frankly Pseudoscience. Thank you Cailil for making this point. Jagz' tendentiousness is exhausting. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't worth all this abuse. --Jagz (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes: (1) The strikethrough of OrangeMarlin's comment was made by Jagz. Update: Jagz has undone the strikethrough of OM's comment. (2) I concur with Cailil on the remainder. I am not an administrator. Antelantalk 06:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

when something is truly controversial, there is nothing for us but to simply state that it is controversial, and put the best references we have alongside each other. I find it astounding how difficult this appears to be to understand for some people (Kosovo...) dab (𒁳) 09:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dossey sub-section on Efficacy of prayer

From Efficacy of prayer:

In his book Reinventing Medicine [23] Larry Dossey claims that there will be three eras of medicine, the first dealing with physical medicine (where patients take pills), the second with mind-body medicine (where the body treats itself through psychosomatic methods) and the third with eternity medicine in which patients are affected from a distance via intercessory prayer. As evidence, the book refers mostly to the same third party studies mentioned above, but suggests that they will be further strengthened by future studies.

Is this guy notable enough to warrant an entire sub-section?

His name pops up on QuackWatch several times. [24] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe... though I don't think that particular subsection would be the one. Hohohahaha (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Dossey gets plenty of hits within and without WP, but that paragraph belongs in his article (which probably should exist). Whatever else, it does not belong in the "Scientific and medical belief and skepticism" section. Faith healing has some pretty decent references for expanding on the idea of prayer as an alternative approach to healing. Energy medicine does not mention prayer specifically, but I seem to recall that some of those references should also be relevant at least as a starting point. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved

I think we need to take a look at these articles, especially the one on Universe reality, which has been tagged for lack of notability since last July. What concerns me is that the articles are primarily self-sourced to the book in question, or sourced to adhearants of this particular spiritual sect. There is very little in the way of independant secondary sources. I am not convinced that these are deletion candidates ... but they do have problems with meeting the inclusion criteria expressed in WP:Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. If there are reliable secondary sources for this, they need to be cited. If not it's another redirection + prod job. Otherwise this is no better than all the Trekkie-cruft we get that's referenced purely in terms of other Trekkie-cruft. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. Trekkie? Are you aiming to spark a religious war here? Trekker, please! :o) Guy (Help!) 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The down side for this is I personally only know of one independent book on the subject, by Martin Gardner, and the local library lost that a few years ago. IF anyone else has access to the book, that'd help a lot. Otherwise, I guess I can eventually try to find sourcing elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I found the Gardner book in my library maybe a year or two ago and used it to build up significant parts of the main article about the topic (The Urantia Book), it really is a helpful one. There was also Godtalk by Brad Gooch, who wrote about the Urantia movement from a journalistic/fact finding perspective, and which is also used as a significant source in the article. If you're curious about sources, there are actually a number of them there at the bottom of the article in the reference section. Wazronk (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of all the POV-forks that were slowly building a walled-garden of woo. Included were Universe reality, Thought Adjuster, Revelation (The Urantia Book)‎, and History and future of the world (The Urantia Book). They all now redirect to The Urantia Book. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I started a new article Urantia Foundation. Also, I removed a lot of spam links to this book. There are two Urantia-fans that are none-too-happy with me. People popping these things on their watchlists would be helpful. These "topics" should be covered in the article on the book: not in walled garden/POV-forks. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of straying into ad hominems in side discussions here about supposed "fans" that are "none-to-happy", how about actually sharing the NPOV issues you believe you're seeing so that articles can be improved, instead of blanking WP:V'd content at your whim the way you have been?
The issue for my part is that applying your personal interpretation of a wikipedia essay of all things as a reason for summary deletion of articles is contrary to wikipedia policy of WP:DELETE: "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page". And: "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input". Again, as I've mentioned in my edit summaries for the Thought Adjuster and other articles I've restored that you've wished to blank out without discussion for unelaborated POV concerns, air and address those concerns on the talk pages and work with editors on a WP:GOODFAITH basis. I will be happy to do so with you. If you believe the material is somehow against WP policy and needs to be reviewed in terms of possible deletion, that needs to be done using the full and typical deletion process. Blanking pages is for vandals. Wazronk (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur that blanking them isn't the solution. I suggest putting them all up for afd. None of them pass WP:N. Hohohahaha (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the "universe reality" article had an AfD closed barely more than two weeks ago after being tagged since last year as possibly not meeting WP:N (since the AfD has been renamed to "Cosmology (The Urantia Book)"). "Thought Adjuster" went through an AfD. The "History and future" article came about from WP:SS spin off from the main article about the book, no AfD on that yet. "Revelation" hasn't had an AfD either. The topic itself actually is WP:N -- the entirety of Gardner's book was his investigation into the "revelation" claim, and virtually everybody who has ever reviewed or evaluated the book inevitably has to discuss the situation that it purports to be a "revelation". The current form of the article is NPOV deficient though (to put it mildly) and is mainly an explication of the book's descriptions about what it means by "revelation". Wazronk (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And to point out what WP:N actually says should be done if there are notability concerns:
"If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
  • Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
  • Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag.
  • If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.
  • If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context.
  • If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
  • Use the {{prod}} tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after five days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
  • For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days."
AfD is the last step not the first. Wazronk (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a perfectly good article that could use your expertise for improvement: The Urantia Book which right now reads, well, like The Urantia Book in comprehensibility, and lacks the scope needed to justify these articles as content forks. Trying to incorporate in a summary style the basic ideas of each of the articles that now redirect to the book would help your case. As it is, there seems to me to be no rationale for allowing the filling of the vomitorium when the main course is so meager. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Oh what fun! WP:ANI#Repeated article blanking at Thought Adjuster and other articles. We need to have a seminar for administrators on WP:FRINGE policy. Few of them seem to get it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the fork articles and sub-topics be sent to AfD for discussion. The options include deletion, redirection to The Urantia Book, or retention. Any decision arrived at here will not be effectively implemented over dissent on the article talk pages or at WP:AN/I. AfD is the best forum to get more outside input on this. MastCell Talk 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so AfDed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Urantia Book related articles. What a pain in the ass Wikipedia politicking is! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Update -- The remaining articles are now The Urantia Book, Urantia Foundation, William S. Sadler, and Lena Sadler. Thought Adjuster is now redirected to the main article with a possibility of recreating it in the future while all other related articles are protected redirects to the main article. This resolves the issue outlined here, but please help in improving the remaining articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with paranormal original research

A number of articles have been redirected by myself as being original research. Two articles that have been mentioned at the Paranormal WikiProject are: Reality shift and Anomalous phenomenon. Please comment at their respective talkpages.ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles which have not yet come up on the paranormal radar screen but have also been redirected include:

Also, I tagged the Fortean Times article which reads right now as a Paen to this fringe publication. God we need help! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortean Times is a pop-weird-stuff magazine, based on the work of Charles Fort. I personally like the guy (he had a great satirical voice), but he literally chased fringe ideas for a living, chronicling thousands of strange ideas that popped up in scientific journals of the day, almost with a religious fevor, so what do you expect? : ) I'd be happy to help straighten the article out, but I didn't see any specific things you had objections to on the article's talk page. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I also commented about the redirect of Anomalous phenomena on it's talk page, but I support all the other redirects (all the other stuff is just psi stuff). --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is now consensus for the creation of the Anomaly (Forteana) article which retains the old history of the previous article. I believe that the redirect for anomalous phenomenon should be to anomaly, but others feel that since the links in the 'pedia to this article generally regard "paranormal" stuff, we should be careful. What we need to do is go through this list and disambiguate all the links and phrasing. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What the Bleep again

I know that people who have SA's respect frequent this board. I would like people to look here and comment on the situation (preferably here, not cluttering WTB's talk page worse than it is)..Kww (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Number 44 surely applies here. Moreschi (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
On the content, perhaps. On the issue of modifying a paragraph that was the result of three weeks of negotiation and presenting the modification as non-controversial to attempt to persuade an admin to edit a protected article, not so much.Kww (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

people on either side of the fence should obsess less over this sorry excuse for a documentary. However, if "a connection between quantum physics and consciousness through quantum mechanical means" is the result of several weeks' negotiations I don't know what to say. What does it even mean to "posit a connection between A and B through means of A"? dab (𒁳) 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot, I suspect. This is the opposite of what Kelly Martin calls "dartboard editing": this is manic-obsessive editing. It can produce just as much balls as dartboard editing, it would seem. There's no call for it, either. Ramtha School of Enlightenment and JZ Knight are both to in the lede. That's all your average reader will need. Moreschi (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
My exasperation poured itself out here. Maybe time to protect the damn talk page as well. Moreschi (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

DBachman, I wish you'd been a bit more careful about factual accuracy before you ridiculed a group of editors (half pro-science and half otherwise) who participated in this "three week negotiation." The lead that we worked so hard to agree on doesn't (and didn't on March 21) read "a connection between quantum physics and consciousness through quantum mechanical means," which of course would be ridiculous. The actual wording of the section is (and was): "What the Bleep Do We Know!? ... is a 2004 film, followed by an extended 2006 DVD release, which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative that posits a connection between quantum physics and consciousness. The film suggests that individual and group consciousness can influence the material world through quantum mechanical means." (in a sentence closely following, it's made clear that scientists don't agree with this suggestion). If you have a problem with what we've done, take it up on the talk page of Bleep, except I don't think there's anyone there any more; it appears we've all become so discouraged we've given up entirely, at least for the time being. Woonpton (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be more careful. Dbachmann was simply follwing the version recorded in the Talk page section to which User:Kww pointed. Paul B (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, I should have been more careful. When I attempted to restore the phrase, I pasted it into the wrong spot. Caused a bit of confusion in a few places.Kww (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, just wanted to set the record straight. Woonpton (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyria (Persian Province)

see here: we now get articles on non-existent Achaemenid provinces, for the purpose of, you guessed it, national mysticist coatracking (note the section on "survival" / "continuity"). Article should reside at Persian Mesopotamia or similar, if not split altogether into the articles on the actual provinces, Media (Persian province) and Babylonia (Persian province). --dab (𒁳) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If the province didn't exist then obviously we shouldn't have an article on it. --Folantin (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
it may be useful to do an article on the "History of Mesopotamia during Persian domination". This appears to be the intended scope. The appropriate title would then be Persian Mesopotamia or similar. The article presents some sort of soundbite of a "megasatrapy of Assyria". I've never heard of the term "megasatrapy". Neither has google. What is intended by this is "the two satrapies of Babylonia and Media taken together", but phrased by hook or crook so that you get "Assyria" in the title somehow. dab (𒁳) 10:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"it may be useful to do an article on the 'History of Mesopotamia during Persian domination'". That would certainly be possible. In fact, I once looked into that area of history. IIRC there were several revolts in Babylon against Persian rule, for example. --Folantin (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just at the British Museum at the Terracotta Army exhibition, and was looking at books in the bookshop and thinking I must get some on this era so I can help with it. I've looked at the bit about the revolt and can edit that later today with a reference.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at the pages you're allowed to view on Google books of the Cambridge History of Iran (Vol 2 )[25]. The relevant chapter is number 10: "The Babylonian Evidence of Achaemenian Rule in Mesopotamia". From reading this and a few other things, it seems a family of financiers called the Murašu and their archives are important for this era. But we don't have an article on them. --Folantin (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
General impression: (a) Babylonia was extremely important to the Persians; (b) we don't have much information about it. --Folantin (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I also see that Chaldean and Tourskin have created an article Fall of Harran which basically repeats the information in Harran -- leave, put up for deletion? What really gets me about the various articles they are creating or expanding, is that they simply don't care about references, citations, what have you, the articles they write are just plain substandard.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
There were Assyrians under the Persian Empire (possibly mixed up with the Syrians) but, as far as I can see, no "Assyria" as such (the Cambridge History of Iran says it's far from clear what "Athura" meant and views it as an ethnic not a regional designation). I'm not sure why we can't treat the region under the heading "Mesopotamia under the Persian Empire" (the Cambridge History has a chapter heading "The Babylonian Evidence of Achaemenian Rule in Mesopotamia") because there's not exactly a vast amount of information out there and adding Babylonia would give the page more substance. Maybe I'll get round to it one day. --Folantin (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

TM-Sidhi Program

The section above on technical analysis brought to my mind this body of new-age research (also including the random-number generator stuff--I haven't even looked to see if WP has a page on that) which operates the same way, using voodoo statistics to locate spurious patterns in what is essentially noise.

The article has a neutrality problem (someone else has also noticed and put a neutrality tag on the page). There is some criticism of the "research" but the criticism is subjected to a kind of smoke-screen rebuttal and the general impression left is that there's something wrong with the criticism rather than with the research. Even the fact that some of the research was awarded the IgNobel prize, is given a positive spin in the article. I don't have the time or energy to take this on, but it needs more "eyes" as the saying goes. Woonpton (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Safavids

Some so-far minor problems here with Altai Khan (talk · contribs) busy claiming the Safavids were "pure Turkic" (yes, I'm sorry to bore everyone with the Perso-Turkic stuff again, we've seen it all before, but then there is an awful lot of this bollocks). Apparently he has some other curious beliefs. Anyway, so far it's limited to talkpage tendentiousness, but it could turn nastier. The user may be a reincarnation of some IPs, at least one of which I blocked, who played silly buggers with this same page a while back, but then again he may not be. If not, he'll be in need of the Wikipedia Rehabilitation School for Clueless Prepubescent Nationalists. Moreschi (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole Iranian-Turkic brouhaha needs knocking on the head but I'm too tired to dig out the reliable sources at the moment ( maybe never given the inevitable endless wrangling it would involve). Basically, we have the ongoing spat between Persophones and speakers of Azeri (a Turkic language) in the modern Islamic Republic of Iran being back-projected into past centuries. There's also a confusion over the meaning of terms now and then. Our contemporary POV-pushers are obsessed with some allegedly scientific definition of ethnicity based on blood analysis. But in the time of the Safavids, "Turkic" and "Persian" have a cultural and linguistic meaning. From reading Jean-Paul Roux's Histoire de l'Iran et des Iraniens, the founder of the Safavid Empire, Shah Ismail, might possibly have been Kurdish (and therefore Iranian), but his culture and language were definitely Turkic and his power was based on the support of the Turkic Qizilbashes. Of course, some of the later Safavids distanced themselves from this. But that's by the by. Our friend Altai Khan, who believes the ancient Indo-Iranians, Iranians, Perrsians, Parthians, Achaemenids, Scythians were really Turkic, is a Pan-Turkist crank who should be dealt with quick-smart. --Folantin (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked Altai Khan indefinitely after the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Altai Khan. Turns out he's been trolling Safavids and its talk page with multiple IPs and accounts. Moreschi (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Megalithic geometry

This one is getting ridiculous. Deleted, recreated, another attempt at deletion which failed, which I think was a mistake. It is now both growing like Topsy and being used (I believe) to add 'salt line' fringe stuff to other articles such as Avebury and Ring of Brodgar. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Megalithic geometry (2nd nomination). I'm guessing that once the editor is finished with this article you will see bits of it all over the place.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm wrong about his intentions to exploit this, as he's said I can delete the stuff on the Avebury and Ring of Brodgar articles.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I redirected this nonsense to pseudoarchaeology. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Now see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 29#Megalithic geometry (closed). The SPA guarding this idea has made a complaint about my redirect of Megalithic yard. There have also been some untoward inclusions of these ideas at:

which I have reverted.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do I find the edits I made to megalithic yard? I need to reinstate these in the metrology article.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
All are still available here. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

5 celebrating men after the Sept 11 attacks

This is my first time in this Noticeboard, I hope I have come to the right place. There has been a dispute going on here on the inclusion of the incident reported by the New York Times, NYT says:

Sherri Evanina, a F.B.I. spokeswoman in Newark, said five men were detained late Tuesday after the van in which they were driving was stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford. She said witnesses had reported seeing the men celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center earlier in the day in Union City.

Other editors have objected to covering this incident in Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the base that this incident was reported by anonymous eye-witnesses. In my opinion, the incident is notable enough to be covered in the article. Imad marie (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the key issue here is the word "celebrating". The objection is not that the alleged witnesses are anonymous but that their impression of what the five men were doing is filtered through several layers before reaching the NYT reporter. Even in a first-hand report from the witnesses themselves (assuming they actually exist) one would have to wonder how they knew that the men were "celebrating", and presumably the reporter would have asked them that; when the reporter is merely reporting third- or fourth-hand an impression that alleged witnesses are alleged to have gathered from something they claim to have seen, that impression isn't reliably sourced and can't be reported as fact. And without a reliable source that it is a fact, it would be undue weight to report it at all in an article where every other incident is verifiable fact. -- Zsero (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that WP:RSN might be a better venue for this question. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this isn't the right noticeboard (this one is to report issues with Fringe Theories, which your question does not involve). As ScienceApologist states, this sort of question is best posted at WP:RSN (the Reliable Sources noticeboard)... but I will answer anyway. While the underlying facts may based on anonymous eye-weitness accounts, what we are reporting on is a statement by a spokesperson from the FBI, a statement quoted in the New York Times. In this case, The New York Times is the source, and it is considered a reliable source. So, there is no reason that is based on policy to omit it. It simply becomes a matter of editorial judgment... ie does it improve the article to mention it? That is something you will have to hash out on the article talk page and reach a consensus on. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually feel that fringe is the right place to examine this. I note that the FBI agent says they stopped 5 people for questioning because of eye witness claims. These 5 people are a source for the fringe theory which is based on the claims that had them stopped for questioning... I feel this is undue for the celebrations article considering the sources provided. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
However, noticing Imad's conviction that this case is important, I suggested the possibility of dispute resolution and this is why we're here. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, what is the theory that is being discussed, and why is it Fringe? Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
We are not having our dispute over WP:RS, everyone here agrees that NYT is a reliable reference. The reason I thought I would report the dispute here is that our dispute is about the theory (5 men were celebrating) which was not proved by an official, and whether this theory should be included in the article. Other editors have objected to the inclusion on the base that the eyewitnesses may have been mistaken about their judgment, and I think that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Imad marie (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Attribute it. Don't cite it as a fact. Say "According to the New York Times,..." blah, blah, blah.... This couches it as an opinion and avoids the question of whether it "actually" happened or not. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is pushing it to call this a "theory". It is more a difference of opinion over facts. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is yet more classic WP:UNDUE. I really don't think such trivial material has any place in the article, certainly not such a broad-brush article as this one. In one source the nationality of the men is not mentioned: in another virtually no evidence is provided they were "celebrating", ergo, no reason for this is to be in the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Moreschi (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We calling it theory because it was not seen by an official, eyewitnesses reported it. The entry that I am suggesting is: "according to NYT, so and so" and then "according to CounterPunch the men acknowledged that they were celebrating". Imad marie (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that there is in fact a genuine Fringe Theory behind all this, which is that Israel was involved in the 11-Sep-2001 attacks, or at least knew of them and failed to warn the USA. A key part of this theory is that these five Israelis were Mossad agents, and were celebrating the successful operation. Some of the web pages Imad has cited explicitly push this theory. Here, though, the object seems to be simply to distract attention from the firmly established facts about Arab celebrations, by insinuating that they were not the only ones. -- Zsero (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Now I get it. Well, if the source is too vauge, it's not all that useful for the article. Don't let the page serve as a coatrack or a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah... NOW we are dealing with WP:Fringe, and things take on a completely different tone (I wish you had mentioned this right from the start). In this context, the question becomes: did the NYT report that these five were Mossad agents etc? If not, then mentioning the Times report becomes a WP:SYN violation. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Not as such, because we're not talking about an attempt to explicitly include this theory in the article. The immediate object here seems to be simply to distract some attention from the Arab celebrations. The fringe theory is out there, though, and this piece of "evidence" is one of its key components, and that's what's behind many of the web sites that harp on this story. -- Zsero (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the information for this was gathered in the 9/11 conspiracy theories context. The motives for the men's celebration is unclear. But IMO, their motives are irrelevant to article's title, or it can be pointed out in the entry that their motives were vague. Imad marie (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
My position is that this material, considering the sources for this, fits into a "rumor mill"/"conspiracy theories" section on the main article on on a separate "rumor mill"/"conspiracy theories" article. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Good luck finding reliable independent sources identifying this as emanating from the rumour mill. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I wasn't really interested in the material, Imad was. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Baghdad Battery

Would someone please take a look at the discussion at the bottom of the Talk:Baghdad Battery page between User:Reddi and myself where he thinks a link to a UFO website with an article on non-existent Indian texts should not be deleted. I've never run into a self-professed 'inclusionist' before. He doesn't seem to think links need justifying if he thinks they are important. He's obviously also very possessive about the article. And doesn't like what he calls 'septics'. Thanks--Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

a true antiseptic, then :p dab (𒁳) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure he won't like our policies on reliable sources and external links either but tough luck. --Folantin (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I felt I needed backup as he is obviously a very experienced editor, especially compared to me! Tags all over his user page... Is that Inclusionist thing a big deal?--Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No. People can call themselves what they like but they still have to abide by Wikipedia policy. --Folantin (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I love that guy's userpage. That's the first time I've ever heard somebody claim that minority theories and idiosyncrasies generally are underplayed on Wikipedia! "Since skeptics (in particular, those who claim to be) and pseudoskeptics cannot accept factual writing, this forces honest contributors no platform in this project; those who are still willing to honestly contribute are attacked by the bias of these skeptics and pseudoskeptics. It only takes a few to believe something is wrong to prevent the completion of the proposed goal of Wikipedia. The proposal of Wikipedia of trying to gather what constitutes human knowledge about various subjects is besiged by those that deny and ignore facts and is in constant danger on Wikipedia. Let the reader beware of this and that the disclaimers are heeded." <eleland/talkedits> 23:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
complete failure to understand WP:UNDUE in so many words. I wonder what a pseudoskeptic is? Somebody who thinks they remain unconvinced but secretly are more credulous than they like to admit? strike that, I saw the link to Pseudoskepticism. It's a term from the Protoscience walled garden... dab (𒁳) 16:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
He's still at it by the way. I've left some remarks on his talk page but I haven't removed the link again (three reverts and all that). --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worse. After a series of insults on the Talk page after I removed a rubbish source, he's now added a section of 'World Wide Web sties that were used in the construction of this article.' and put that source back in it. Looking at the history, a clear case of WP:OWNERSHIP. Also, is AnswersinGenesis considered a reliable source for an external link not on itself? ThanksDoug Weller (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say AiG is a reliable source only for Creationist opinions, but the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard might be consulted. The link here was to content they were reprinting from Creation magazine, which clearly cannot be cited as a history source. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
He's still at it. I'd say some of the other external links need checking for reliability too. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis - COI?

Can someone please look at the recent edits by Atlantis-korrekt in the light of [26] and tell me what they think? Leave it or? And while I have someone's attention, what do I do when an IP user starts calling me a Nazi on my talk page as they have twice in the last few hours? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what to do with this. I removed some (perhaps unintentional?) links to problematic websites, but I have no way of evaluating the sources or content right now. The subject is definitely bordering on fringe, but it has captured the imagination of so many legitimate archeologists too, I'm not sure where to go with the evaluations. Please ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Gently remind the IP user of WP:NPA, WP:CIV. If problems persist, try further steps in dispute resolution. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ivor Catt

Hello,

Ivor Catt is both (a) an (apparently) well-respected VLSI engineer of the 70s and 80s, and also (b) a crackpot with very strange ideas about electromagnetism, and the standard crackpot level of sourcing: lots of Catt's own web pages, zero referreed publications, zero serious citations; Catt's web pages insist that his theory is much-discussed/important/controversial/censored-by-the-establishment, but noone verifiable seems to care. This is a pretty tough thing to describe in an article while maintaining RS, OR, NPOV, and FRINGE guidelines. I think the old article did a pretty good job, but an IP editor has begun restoring the extremely pro-Catt POV. I don't have time to deal; more eyes would be welcome. Bm gub (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind doing a bit, starting with formatting references and checking that they are the most appropriate to use. I don't have a science background at all but in some ways that may be OK as I can take a distance. Before any of that, though, are we absolutely sure that the subject is notable enough to have his own article?
As I remember, Ivor Catt had an important role in the Transputer project. I forget the exact job title, but for several years his name appeared regularly in mainstream publications, though it might take some digging to find the references now. He has written several books, of which a couple seem to have been published by respectable presses. He is almost certainly notable. Cardamon (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, his computer architecture work appears to be notable and there are both scholarly and popular articles to back that up. I do not suggest deleting the whole article---just separating the self-promotion claims from the encyclopedic ones. Bm gub (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting guy with strong and radical opinions on every issue! I have added a few sourced sections on his technological contribution (WSI), as well as his views on management and justice. The sections on his theories of electromagnetism and other scientists' opinion of his theories still needs to be referenced and cleaned up. Any help will be appreciated. Abecedare (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I ran into this on Talk:Cryptozoology -- someone saying anyone who doesn't believe in these things should go to the genesispark url. The article has a huge number of external links -- too many according to guidelines, and I have no idea yet what they are like. And recently placed on Talk:Dragon "Look at The "Kent Hovind" article. His website is www.drdino.com, another good one is www.evolution-facts.org." So, are links like that on talk pages ok? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Second thoughts. Obviously you have to be able to talk about links on talk pages, and blogs, etc. are probably ok there just for background? So when does something become spam?Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

when it's blatant spam, remove it. When it's part of a bona fide discussion, no problem. (WP:UCS). Also, the google ranking algorithm knows well to make a huge difference between Wikipedia article namespace and talkpage namespace. Nobody gains much by spamming talkpages. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
To my mind, a link becomes spam when it is placed in an article where it only has a tangential connection to the article's topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
When such links are used to promote the website and as advocacy, their presence should be questioned. If there is content that is relevant to the article, then specific quotes of that content, with the link, are another matter. -- Fyslee / talk 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Omar Khadr

I'd appreciate if a few of you would take a look at Omar Khadr when you have a chance, I'm trying to get some non-Canadian, non-American points-of-view on the subject (face it, both Canada and the US are heavily biased on this person), because we've got one editor who's claiming the article has serious NPOV discussions and is angry...

  • because we don't discuss the fact that his mother believes homosexuality is wrong due to her religion (so does pretty much every Christian priest, should we include that in the article of all priests, and more disturbingly, people who have priests in their family?)
  • that lawyers are "sleazy"
  • the completely WP:OR theory that Khadr might try to denounce his family as a criminal defense (he hasn't, so why should we invent defenses?)
  • that the phrase "is the son of an al-Qaeda financier" should be the opening sentence, even though the Ahmed Said Khadr article is quite clear that those are unproven allegations against Khadr, so his father's notoriety belongs in Omar's "Early life/family" section,not in the opening sentence.
  • He believes it is wrong to refer to the "the Canadian Khadr family" because "there are other families in Canada who probably have the same name". (Wow, the Kennedy family must be in trouble!)
  • we won't include the fact that his school in Canada has the Statement of Purpose which includes "family-oriented" which he believes means that al-Qaeda was allowed to influence the school
  • similiarly, argues that although the school is "accredited as an independent secondary school with the Ontario Ministry of Education", we should independently question that claim in the article.
  • "the attitudes presented are not consistent with social values presented to children in Canadian classrooms at the primary level." (one of the stranger complaints)
  • on a similar note, that we cannot identify Khadr as Canadian if he has anti-Western views
  • seems to be a young troll, of the kind who delights in speaking about "reasonable in a free and democratic society" and "provisions of the European Convertion on Human Rights" justify his trolling. Alternatingly claims to have a Masters Degree in whichever topic is being discussed, international law, even software engineering...great fun, these trolls.

Basically, we have some legitimate conversation ongoing about NPOV and trying to make sure the article conforms, but it's being made troublesome by a single editor who seems intent on using the article as a WP:COATRACK to rant about Muslims being neanderthals - and would appreciate a neutral look at the talk page. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Superrelativity

While this term is somtetimes used to denote extensions to relativity that could lead to a unified theory with quantum mechanics, the things mentioned in the article on Superrelativity are of a very questionable nature. It seems like the page is just a promotion for some pseudo-science theory. The page warrants a review and a note identifying it as a Fringe theory.

Has no real sources. Nominated for deletion. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mingrelians

Please have a look at the article Mingrelians. Recently there was an edit war between user:Dauernd vs. user:Kober and user:Iberieli over whether Mingrelians should be called a South Caucasian people or whether they should be called a subethnic group of Georgians. Now despite the troublesome history of user:Dauernd, I think he may have been in the right on this one in referring to Mingrelians as a South Caucasian people as I've never heard any group of people referred to as a subethnic group. Is there even such a thing as a subethnic group? Kober and Iberieli have added some sources however their sources say that Mingrelians have mostly forgotten their native tongue and consider themselves to be Georgians. That's really not quite the same as referring to them as a sub-ethnic group. The other thing to this that the Mingrelian language is mutually uninteligible with the Georgian language. Also, within Georgia, there are many other linguistic groups which can trace there roots there for centuries and have more in common with the Mingrelians and yet are not considered a subethnic group of Georgians. For example the Laz people in Georgia speak a language that is mutually inteligible with the Mingrelian language and yet Mingrelians are considered a subethnic group but the Laz are not. To me this sounds WP:FRINGE. Previous discussion can be seen here. Your thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk)01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your post contains so many inconsistencies that I first thought to refer you to some basic sources before challenging it. Now I’m going to assume that this is a result of your honest lack of information and not an intellectual consequence of a "divide et impera" policy which has been pursued in Georgia by its former imperial master for over 150 years.
1. What is a subethnic group?
"I've never heard any group of people referred to as a subethnic group" is not an argument. I think it is noteworthy to remind you that even the most conservative modern ethnolinguists don’t now consider a linguistic factor to be the sole determinant of an ethnic identity which is, by definition, a sum of many cultural and social traits including but in no ways limited to the primary tongue.
An increasing number of studies have been dedicated to subethnic differentiation within an ethnic group. Too bad I don't currently have Roland Breton’s excellent book on ethnolinguistic geography at hand. It includes a comprehensive review of subdivisions of ethnicity and explains why ethnic groups are not always homogeneous. However, a quick search through Google Books yields quite a few definitions of "a subethnic group". Here’s one of them:

Subethnic groups exist within dominant ethnic groups or along-side other subethnic groups of the same genera. Subethnic groups share a common culture and maintain a sense of cultural homogeneity, but they vary to the extent that one sub-group may be distinguished from another in some cultural traits. The nature of subethnic groups can be rather complicated. (Milton Kleg, 1993, Hate, Prejudice, and Racism, p. 40. SUNY Press, ISBN:079141535X)

2. Georgian ethnogenesis and subgroups
I was just wondering who are these "many other linguistic groups which can trace there roots there for centuries and have more in common with the Mingrelians and yet are not considered a subethnic group of Georgians". Can Pocopoco list them?
The present-day Georgian ethnos is composed of three main groups: 1) Georgians proper; 2) Mingrelians; 3) Svans. Their common autonym is "Kartveli" and exonym is "Georgian" or "Kartvelian". They speak three related, but still different languages which are the branches of the South Caucasian or Kartvelian family. The Georgian language has been a language of education and culture for all of these groups since the early Middle Ages, and Mignrelians and Svans are typically bilingual in Georgian as well as their own languages, Mingrelian and Svan respectively. The other language within this family, Laz, is spoken by the Laz people who mostly live in Turkey. They are linguistically more close to the Mingrelians, but unlike them, did not participate in the final stages of the Georgians' ethnic consolidation as they have been geographically and politically separated from their Georgian cousins for many centuries. Pictured is a simplified chart of the Georgian ethnogenesis which was in fact a very complex process lasting from remote antiquity through Middle Ages into the early Modern era. For a much more detailed discussion, see Toumanoff, Cyril (1967). Studies in Christian Caucasian History, pp. 50-58. Georgetown University Press; David Marshall Lang (1962), The Georgians, pp. 54-90. Frederich A. Praeger Publishers, New York; the first few chapters from William Edward David Allen (1932), A history of the Georgian people; Suny, Ronald Grigor (1994), The Making of the Georgian Nation, pp. 4-10. Indiana University Press, ISBN 0253209153.
Additional citations for Mingrelian and Svan identities:

The number of Mingrelian speakers is declining, and most Mingrelian speakers positively identify themselves as "Georgian" (Kartveli). Prof. Stephen F. Jones of Mount Holyoke College, "Mingrelians", in: David Levinson [ed., 1996], Encyclopedia of World Cultures, p. 262. University of Michigan Press, ISBN 0816118086. Online version.

The Georgian or Kartvelian nation comprises an impressively diverse set of local sub-ethnic communities, each with its characteristic traditions, cuisine, manners and dialect (or language). The Svans number about 40,000, most of whom inhabit... Prof. Kevin Tuite of Université de Montréal. The Meaning of Dæl. Symbolic and Spatial Associations of the South Caucasian Goddess of Game Animals. Université de Montréal website.

3. Political context
As it is well known, "what is only "subethnic" now can become the main politically relevant affiliation later, depending on changes in political context" (Donald L. Horowitz, 2000, Ethnic Groups in Conflict, p. 350. University of California Press, ISBN:0520227069). Therefore, the separateness of Georgian subgroups have always been promoted first in the Russian Empire, and then in early Soviet Union. Here’s a quote from the 1999 paper Towards a Soviet Order of Things: The 1926 Census and the Making of the Soviet Union by Prof. Francine Hirsch of the State University of New York referring to the opposition of Georgian intellectuals and even Communist elite (a bulk of which were, in fact, Mingrelians, and became victims of several purges such as the notorious Mingrelian Affair of 1952) to the 1926 census categories pushed for by Stalin:

The classification of the peoples of Transcaucasia was once again the most controversial topic of discussion. Georgian representatives from the Transcaucasian government complained that a number of peoples noted as separate nationalities on the official list were really tribes or religious sub-groups of the Georgian nation. They berated central authorities and experts for attempting "to break-up the Georgian nation," maintaining that the "false division" of the Georgians was reminiscent of tsarist colonial politics. The officials maintained that Adzhars were Georgians who had once been Moslems; they declared that the Soviet regime had created an Adzhar autonomous republic with the goal of promoting "Adzhar" separatism. They further argued that Mingrelian and Svan were regional names for Georgians from different localities. In fact, more than half of the people thought by ethnographers to be Mingrelians had registered themselves in the census as Georgians. Ethnographers wondered aloud whether census takers had engaged in foul play or if the results reflected the population's self-determination. The national-political stakes gave these discussions a high emotional pitch.

Most recently, the secessionist authorities in Georgia’s breakaway republic of Abkhazia have embarked on a propaganda campaign to promote separateness of Mingrelians from other Georgians. The reason is that the Mingrelian community forms the third (or perhaps even second) largest group in Abkhazia and remains overwhelmingly loyal to Georgia, thus posing a threat to the separatist regime. Even User:Pocopocopocopoco, who is a self-declared supporter of separatist movements, has once correctly noted this feature of Abkhaz political agenda.
I think the current definition of Mingrelians as a "subgroup of Georgians" is both justified and well-sourced. I failed to see any valid reason given by Pocopocopocopoco to dismiss it as a “fringe theory”. Thanks, KoberTalk 07:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


More References from Scholarly Book by Western Authors:

The Georgian ethnic group is made up of a whole series of subgroups — the Mountain Svans, Kartlians and the west Georgian Mingrelians

[2]

The Georgians, Mingrelians and Svans are related ethnically, within Georgia there existed strong sub-ethnic or regional identities, including Ajarian, Mingrelian, Svan, Imeretian, Kakhetia, etc

[3]

within Georgia there existed strong sub-ethnic or regional identities, Adjar, Mingrelian and Svan...

[4]

Mingrelians, a sub ethnic group of the Georgian people, live mostly on the back sea coast..

[5]

Mingrelia is the home of the Mingrelians, a tribe of Georgian people who speak Megruli...

[6]

Georgian sub ethnic groups such as Mingrelians and Svans are probably direct descendants of those Colchians of the Argonauts...

[7]

  1. ^ Conze, Edward (1980). A Short History of Buddhism. Museum Street, London, U.K.: George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd. ISBN 0 04 294109 1
  2. ^ Political Construction Sites: Nation-Building in Russia and the Post-Soviet World, Page 8 by Pål Kolstø
  3. ^ Ethnicity and Territory in the Former Soviet Union: Regions in Conflict, by James Hughes, Page 127
  4. ^ An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires, Page 471, by James Stuart Olson
  5. ^ The Georgians, David Marshall Lang, p 31
  6. ^ Georgia: A Sovereign Country in the Caucasus, by Roger Rossen, p 256
  7. ^ Georgian Language and Culture, by Howard Aronson, p 57
And there are plenty more, its just no point going on any further, this request was a hoax by an individual who has a strong bias. Iberieli (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's got me convinced. I don't really see a problem here. Moreschi (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have volumes and volumes of scholarly books on Caucasus and i can go on with references, however things like this really frustrates me, some people dont have any regards for other people's valuable time, thats all. Iberieli (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"Sub-ethnic group" sounds about right. Though they may have been more separate in the past, I'd say there's certainly been a convergence between the Georgians and Mingrelians over the past century. IIRC the process was accelerated by Lavrenti Beria (himself a Mingrelian) in the 1930s. --Folantin (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mingrelian intellectuals of the 19th and 20th centuries such as Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, Arnold Chikobava and others played a major role in that, but this does not mean that the sense of ethnic unity had not existed before. Mingrelian and Georgian educated classes used the term "All-Iverians" to denote their kinship before the 19th century.--KoberTalk 15:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ethnogenesis is a gradual process, and there can be meaningful disputes as to at what point an ethnic group forms out of / splits into several groups. I am glad we have a case of a "disputed subgroup" now to compare to the Assyrians/Syriacs debacle (which is ethno(de)genesis-in-progress indeed). dab (𒁳) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The same is true about Montenegrins. --KoberTalk 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Kober for the very informative post above. I think the issue of subethnicity was explained very nicely however why the seemingly arbitrary nature of inclusion to the Georgian ethnicity? According to The Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict, by Alexander Krylov:

All through the Soviet period the main goal of the Georgian leadership and of the Georgian nationalist movement as a whole was the creation of a consolidated Georgian nation in the shortest possible time. With Stalin in power, when the influence of the Georgian lobby in the Kremlin was at its greatest, this policy was carried out by repressive methods. Some peoples were deported from Georgia (Greeks, Kurds and Meskhetian Turks). Others, not even related to the Kartvelians, were declared part of the Georgian tribes and along with Svans and Megrelians were quickly assimilated.

More to come. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I presume the source of your citation is an anonymous user who once replaced the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict article with an obscure text of questionable quality. The source you provided is not a WP:RS, is based upon fringe theories and reads more like a political pamphlet than an academic article. Even it does not prove why Mingrelians should not be classified as an ethnic subgroup of Georgians.--KoberTalk 04:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The source is "The Security of the Caspian Sea Region" by Alexander Krylov edited by Gennady Chufrin published by Oxford University Press. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ita a typical Russian chauvinist blabber (pay attention to authors), no such assimilations were committed during after or since Stalin. Anyway, overwhelming majority of sources which were provided on top is enough to end this discussion. Iberieli (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Does a source become unreliable just because the authors have Russian names? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

More References, Case closed:

  1. Georgians speak the – related but mutually unintelligible – Mingrelian languageas ... The existence of other sub-ethnic groups such as the Mingrelians (Ethno-Federalism and Civic State-Building Policies. Perspectives on the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict - all 3 versions », by B Coppieters - Regional & Federal Studies, 2001)
  1. Nonetheless, within Georgia there existed strong sub-ethnic or regional identities,including Ajarian, Imeretian, Kakhetian, Mingrelian and Svan. (Multinationality, Regions and State-Building: The Failed Transition in Georgia - all 3 versions », by M D Toft - Regional & Federal Studies, 2001)
  1. The Svans and Mingrelians are regionally based Georgian groups (Democracy from Below? Interest Groups in Georgian Society, by SF Jones - Slavic Review, 2000 - JSTOR)
  1. Mingrelians, however, continue to identify themselves as Georgian. (The Georgian language state program and its implications Friedrich Kahn - Nationalities Papers, 1995)

etc.Iberieli (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:History of astrology

A user has posted at Talk:History of astrology in the section Outdated And Inaccurate who apparently wishes to rewrite the whole article to make Ancient Egypt the origin of astrology, while quoting the American Federation of Astrologists as saying it started in Babylonia. He's rounded up a series of what he thinks are facts to create what looks like a synthesis on which to base his argument for rewriting the article. Am I right in thinking it is basically OR? From everything serious I can find, astrology came to Egypt sometime in the first millennium bce with the Greeks. Ironically, I have been trying to fix some articles which discuss Egyptian astrology, getting rid of for instance claims for 4200 bce star charts (nonexistent), astrological pyramids, etc. The user, Big-dynamo, seems to have no history on Wikipedia (I've just noticed) so he may have no clue about Wikipedia policies - I'll add a note to him about where to find it. Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The origins of classical astrology lie in Iron Age Babylonia ("Chaldea"). Of course there some fragments hinting at an older (Bronze Age) history of people watching the stars, but that's without any sort of direct influence on later history. dab (𒁳) 10:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Aratta

This needs some attention. A whopping chunk of the article is devoted to unlikely-sounding "location hypotheses" relating to a place in Sumerian myth. There's a dispute between Sumerophile (talk · contribs) and Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) over this section. To complicate matters, I just blocked Sumerophile for 3RR only to realise he'd spent most of today reverting, you guessed it, the socks of our old friend Ararat arev (talk · contribs). I've unblocked him ASAP with apologies but the article still needs looking at, with undue weight in mind. Moreschi (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all of the peer-reviewed, scholarly literature on Aratta that can be reliable referenced, beginning with the original translator, Samuel Kramer, is devoted to "location hypotheses" - just as with other locations given geographical references only in Sumerian literature, like Dilmun and Meluhha, etc. Anyone who researches the topic can quite easily satisfy himself of this fact, so why should wikipedia attempt to present an editor's POV instead? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a clear case of "academic references only". If it's published academically, fair enough, however unlikely. If it is WP:SYN or armenianhighland.com blogcruft, remove on sight. dab (𒁳) 21:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It becomes more and more obvious to me as I look at ancient history articles that there is too much unreferenced or badly referenced (Discovery Channel, Nova, etc, let alone personal webpages) stuff. Academic references only unless there are notable alternative authors (such as in the case of some of the Egyption stuff like the Sphinx).--Doug Weller (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Another revert-war yesterday. I've protected the article for two weeks, but the talk page is still as fiery as ever. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Technical analysis

The stock market equivalent of tea-leaf reading, promoted par excellence by Wikipedia. "Critics say it's wrong, but look, here are some outlying studies!" 64.231.60.239 (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP's right. Anyone here ever seen a broker analysing charts? An astrologer with a star-map has nothing on the level of inexplicable confidence those chaps display. Off there to crack a few heads. Relata refero (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Done some rewording, added cites, made the mainstream opinion clear in the lead. Hopefully the manager of grandma's pension fund will read it and re-think giving several billion dollars of small investors' savings to a firm run by loopy chartists. Really, if there's one thing that the Mantanmoreland-Bagley-Weiss business should have taught us, its that POV-pushing is inevitable in articles related to theoretical finance. Relata refero (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The coverage of the efficient markets hypothesis is criminally poor — the synonym for it is the Hayek hypothesis, and he isn't even mentioned. --Haemo (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, the "theoretical background" section is unreadable. (I am not fond of thinking of EMH as the Hayek hypothesis, incidentally, partly because I was taught that the HH was a response to the Walrasian "socialist calculations" summarised in the Lange-Lerner Equations. And I bet that's a redlink too.) Relata refero (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, whaddya know. Someone wrote this. Never underestimate the Austrians. Relata refero (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Everything related to technical analysis in Wikipedia (and there is a bunch!) suffers from COI, self-interested point-of-view pushing. Since some people make money attracting customers to their "predictive services" they do not give up easily. Essentially much of it is spam. Glad to see RR and I agree on something, but I don't get the MBW reference or conclusion. Happy editing in any case. Smallbones (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I really liked your revision of the article, Relato, but wondered how long it would stay that way. It's being rapidly reverted to a more technical-analysis-friendly account. Woonpton (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, will watchlist. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks again

The discussion at September 11, 2001 attacks has really gone sideways and I plead for some more eyeballs there. The endless circular arguments are exhausting and wasting the time of otherwise good editors. The newest claims include:

That the US might not have been the target of the attacks, and/or the sources we have are not good enough to say the US was the intended target (UN, Al Qaida themselves etc).
That the lead must say violent destructive events in the Northeastern United States, which, by their similar nature and timing, have been presumed to be intentional and coordinated attacks. because (I suppose) the timing of the attacks might have been a coincidence or the attacks themselves accidental (presumed to be intentional and coordinated???) and that we can only refer to them as violent destructive events?!?
A user virtually guaranteeing a edit war if it's unprotected. If the article sucks, there's going to be an edit war. Unprotect it anyway

This topic is at Arbcom right now but I'm not sure if anything useful will com of it, but this endless time sink has to end sometime. It's an endless rope-a-dope that will only drive off the good editors. I haven't posted here before so if this is not the right place let me know and I'll wander off, maybe to WP:AN/I or something.

"the US might not have been the target of the attacks"... What, they were actually aiming for the Eiffel Tower and missed? (oops, sorry about that). Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's somewhat-good evidence that the US wasn't the only target; i.e. that the four attacks in the US were supposed to be followed a few hours later by two attacks in London and one each in New Delhi and Melbourne. -- Zsero (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well sure, but they didn't happen or nor were they even attempted. RxS (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by "attempted". One of the London hijackers (assuming the story is true) confessed in open court that he and his colleagues were already at the airport waiting to board their planes when they panicked and abandoned the plan. The court took this testimony as true, and sentenced him accordingly, but of course since he admitted it it wasn't tested by cross-examination or the adversarial process. He might have been delusional or fantasising, and the court would have no real way to find that out. -- Zsero (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, dear. Discretionary sanctions cannot come too soon, it seems. Hurry up and close the case, ArbCom! Moreschi (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
never ask the arbcom to hurry, they'll only deliver even more shoddy work than usual. Try to route around arbcom whenever possible. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

`

They're done. Discretionary sanctions in place. Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cryptids

When was the last time you looked at the cryptid articles at Wikipedia? Maybe you should. I looked at three today and they were all awful:

The last one was so bad, I put it up for deletion.

Please, help with tagging, editing, ANYTHING!

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was poking around them a while ago, and they're in pretty bad shape. Most have real trouble spelling out that the creature is a legendary or hypothetical monster — even more critical is the fact that they simply do not discriminate between different alleged "sightings" and their credibility. Criticism, or skepticism, is invariably ghettoized into a section at the end of the article. Yes, they're bad. And some, like the Thetis lake monster don't appear to be notable at all. --Haemo (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Many are in bad shape. For what it's worth, it looks like there isn't much management going on over there. That might be the problem. I'll try to do a little next time I get the chance in that regard, but I don't know when that'll be. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey... Don't diss Champy... Some of us have acutally seen Champ... no, really. It was late July, 1984... a dead calm evening on Lake Champlain, getting on near dusk, and these three large humps (about 1 to 2 feet high) rose out of the watter and snaked back and forth in the bay in front of my house for a good minute and a half. OK... sure, it could have been beavers or otters or something ... but it sure looked like Champ at the time. I was so excited by this I had to go in and open another six pack to celebrate! True story... I'm even listed as a "sighting" in a book by a respected paleo-marine-biosomethingorother... well, a published author at least. (And the author didn't even ask about how much beer I had been drinking that night. If he didn't think that was important, why should you? sheesh!) Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You were mentioned in a book? A real book! Surely that means you're Notable! Will you start the article or shall I? --Relata refero (disp.) 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, Given the typical path here at Wikipedia, I think I could probably expand myself to several articles... let's see... "Blueboar", "Criticisms of Blueboar", "Blueboar and (name your POV religious denomination)", "Scientific views of Blueboar", "Blueboar Conspiracy Theories".... etc.  :>) Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Blueboar in popular culture"? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 14:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
All moved subsequently to "Allegations of..". --Relata refero (disp.) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Cleaning up in progess. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Champ done. I have no idea what to do with the Congolese saurid, other than deleting the artist's impression as patently unencyclopaedic original research. I mean, a ten-thousand year old elephant-sized dinosaur, sure, I believe you. But that bilious shade of yellow?! Sorry, that needs a peer-reviewed source. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Barabbas

Has serious issues. The article is apparently hostage to fringe theories that Jesus and Barabbas were the same person or something like that (I didn't read all of it). --dab (𒁳) 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some clear OR - phrases like 'stands to reason', etc, with no references--Doug Weller (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Before. After. Although I've cut all the nonsense, the article really needs writing in accordance with better sources. Some space should be devoted to this idea that Jesus and Barabbas were one and the same, since it appears to be a popular idea among the hordes of those with new ideas about the Bible, but not two-thirds of the article. Moreschi (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thank you, gentlemen. A fringebuster barnstar to both of you :) dab (𒁳) 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Watchlisted in case the material comes back... --Relata refero (disp.) 13:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Behe

In this set of several edits, User:JohnJacobs User:Jacobsjohn - sorry! crafts a rant about the atheist conspiracy suppressing Intelligent design. He then editwars briefly: [27]


Today, he continues. Twice as an IP: [28] [29] and thrice as himself. [30] [31] [32]

Some quotes from his very special version:



And yet all his edit summaries say that he's removing POV. God help us all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page on the right version, probably a better option than blocking for now. Will add to my watchlist. Moreschi (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it stopped hm from Vandalising Michael Behe, though he did go on to vandalising User_talk:Shoemaker's Holiday with fake warnings. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, I wrote the wrong username as I was thinking of the song. I've corrected it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely needs attention, but not touching it myself, and I recommend that anyone who does takes great care. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Quarter days

Page is unsourced and contains unverified material about the Pagan year. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was looking at it earler and thought it was pretty poor. But not an interest of mine really, although on the Talk Page I've pointed out the modern quarter days.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at improving Quarter days but Cross-quarter days still carries a lot of unsourced speculation about the origins of calendars. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over edits made on Robert Bauval, Grahan Hancock, Great Sphinx of Giza, Giza pyramid complex and Giza pyramid complex articles

In December last year, a user Creigs1707 added material to thy above articles on his own research.[33] This was subsequently removed by myself and others -- another users's edit summary read "rm uncritical (self?)-promotion of a source, per WP:NOR and WP:COI)". Creighton has now emailed me and when he isn't calling me a Nazi he says he is going to post them again- and if removed, again and again and again. I have explained that he can't reference his own site and he replied that he has been published on Graham Hancock's website and Atlantis Rising Magazine (issue 65), Alternate Perceptions Magazine (issue 113). I the forthcoming edition of the book "You Are Still Being Lied To" and Nexus Magazine. Nexus is probably acceptable as a source, but I'm not sure about the others. Or about how it works when an editor is writing about his own ideas. Any comments would be of help when he decides to restore his edits, and I won't be around a lot after Friday for over a week. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 Apr 2008

Nexus is not acceptable as a source for articles on archaeology. I'll have a look at the other situations too. thanks for raising this. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure a "suppressed news" magazine is acceptable as a source on anything. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Watchlisted. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that an editor would normally be permanently banned if shown to have called another editor a "Nazi" in an email? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Doubt it. WP:NPA doesn't say anything about off-wiki attacks, for good reason - its a slippery slope. Even if the attack was on-wiki a first offence wouldn't get you a ban, I think. (Besides, depending on whom you listen to, WP:CIVIL is under constant assault or WP:CIVIL is being over-aggressively policed, so I just keep out of it.) --Relata refero (disp.) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If the email was sent using the Wikipedia email function, a temporary block, yes - if the editor knew about the relevant policies. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a Wikipedia email function? Anyway, he didn't use it. I don't know when he plans to reinstate his edits, he didn't say but he's been emailing me all day (partially about another issue). I'm not bothered at the Nazi bit.Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replies. At any rate, it's not very nice, and the editor seems to need some very patient explanations about WP policies and customary forms of address. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, on the plus side, these things are like fringier than fringe, so I'm not super-concerned. --Haemo (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What, You Are Still Being Lied To doesn't sound mainstream?
The Great Pyramid of Giza article looks a lot cleaner of fringy speculation than I remember, mainly thanks to User:Secisek's decision to move construction theories to a daughter article. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree abou the GP article. User:Secisek was a great help. When I first read it a month or so ago, User:Thanos5150 had heavily over some time rewritten it, adding some OR as well, so all the mainstream stuff was written in 'doubting' manner with lots of Schoch thrown in. He got fed up with my changes and calling him on some of the fringe stuff and left, which made it easier for some good work to be put into it. I still want to put some stuff in about the exploration. I've got the resources but am going to the States to visit family, so that will have to wait.Doug Weller (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa

Is addition of claims about Armia Krajowa committing attrocities against non-Polish population and collaborating with the Nazis resulting in non-neutral lead with undue/fringe claims? Comments appreciated here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm examining this. First, the comparison one editor makes showing the Wehrmacht and the Red Army have no criticism in their article leads is a good one.
Second, I've examined the source [34] supposedly backing the following claim in the article lead: "The Armia Krajowa having at times cooperated with the Nazi forces against the Soviets,[reference to source inserted here] and due to its ties with the Polish government in exile, was viewed by the Soviet Union as an antagonistic force, which led to increasing conflict between AK and Soviet forces both during and after the war". The source shows this is back-to-front: "“Stankevich’s reference to the colloboration of the underground, specifically the AK with the Germans, is not entirely without foundation. Pressed by the Soviet partisans, the Germans in the Nowogródek and Wilno areas offered AK units a deal that some of them simply could not refuse: arms and provisions in exchange for antipartisan warfare against the Soviets. Moreover, as we shall see shortly, at this time the Soviet partisans were under orders to liquidate the AK forces. These were, therefore, purely tactical, short-term arrangements and did not constitute the type of ideological collaboration evidenced in the Vichy régime or in Quisling’s Norway.” In other words, some units of the Polish AK in Belorussia accepted supplies from the Germans because the Soviets were already trying to liquidate them. As the linked source says: "...the local AK commanders in Belorussia considered, with good reason, both Germany and the Soviet Union as the enemy". It's also clear that it is undue weight to refer to these "purely tactical, short-term arrangements" by a few units in Belorussia, which were condemned by the AK's central command, in the lead of a general Wikipedia article on the AK. --Folantin (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition to that - judging from Anthony Beevor's excellent book Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Stalin was obsessed with wiping out Armia Krajowa, despite its status as an Allied Force. Members of AK arrested by the NKVD were given the choice of either a Siberian gulag or the Red Army. The Warsaw Revolt that the AK had launched against the Germans was described as a "criminal act of anti-Soviet policy". Beria called the AK "fascist", and such unjustified terminology was used to justify very harsh measures against AK soldiers. Under such circumstances, very occasional instances of AK soldiers collaborating with the Germans are a) understandable, and b) not worthy of a place in the lede. Moreschi (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is the right forum for this, but anyway.
The comparison between the Wehrmacht and the AK doesn't quite stand up; like all partisan forces, the AK's relations with civilians are more central to their story than is the case for regular armies like the Wehrmacht.
The point about collaboration is also interesting, but forgive me if my POV-meter goes off when I hear quotes in an article like "the honor of AK as a whole is beyond reproach". I note the quality of the references suddenly deteriorates just around that point, as well.
Not that there's much that can be done there. Given that all our Eastern Europe articles appear to be composed of people defending Wikipedia from the looming Soviet menace, its a pretty hopeless case. My long, patient and quite fruitless discussions over at Denial of the Holodomor, also known as the worst case of synthesis sourced to community newsletters on Wikipedia, has certainly demonstrated that. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"all our Eastern Europe articles appear to be composed of people defending Wikipedia from the looming Soviet menace". Well, if you're going to generalise from your experience on the Denial of the Holodomor article, I could certainly generalise from my experience editing Central/Eastern European pages and say that certain of the Russian nationalist/Soviet nostalgic editors are some of the worst POV-pushers around. Or maybe we should assume good faith and put it down to ignorance. For instance, we had a History of Russia Featured Article with three sizeable paragraphs about post-Soviet Russia and not one mention of Chechnya. Also, we have people still pushing (in the 21st century) the idea that the Nazis were responsible for the Katyn massacre (now that is WP:FRINGE). Ivan the Terrible was a nice guy, the Democratic Republic of Georgia never existed, Lenin gave votes to women (to vote for whom?) etc. etc. I suspect something of the kind is going on here too, although statements such as "the honor of AK as a whole is beyond reproach" are hardly "encyclopaedic". These cases are best treated on an individual basis. --Folantin (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I never generalise :). The truth is, however, that the Georgia article says "the dream existed briefly" or something when referring to the DRG, that the Katyn article doesn't have any "Nazis did it" stuff in it that I can see, and so on. Seems to me the problem in terms of article outcomes isn't Soviet nostalgists. (Naturally, since I'm not looking at the inner workings of how those articles get there, I shouldnt assume there aren't any around, just that they're being justifiably ignored.)
I see your point about Russian nationalists and Chechnya, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the tendency to write history while emphasising the Noble Suffering of the Nation. Problematic all over (see Revolt of 1857, our incomparable coverage of all aspects of 1920s Palestine and the like), but reaching truly absurd levels in EE articles. Of course, another section where unless there are wholesale topic bans, no form of order will ever be restored. Amnesties and this lacklustre enforcement doesn't seem to be cutting it. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"Seems to me the problem in terms of article outcomes isn't Soviet nostalgists". I wouldn't be too sure about that. I simply gave up on the History of Russia and Russia articles. I'm amazed the former got FA status without any mention of Chechnya and was allowed to remain that way for years (or maybe I shouldn't be given my experience of the GA and FA processes). There's a major problem with WP:RS too: a lot of the Russian editors seem to think they can source all their stuff from 19th century Russian history books.
We have a problem with "travelling circuses" in which editors of one nationality go round articles about their designated enemies trying to "get one over" on their rivals. In this particular instance we probably have an example of Russian (and other?) editors trying to stick it to the кичливый лях with a bit of WP:UNDUE. No doubt you can find examples of the reverse.
"another section where unless there are wholesale topic bans, no form of order will ever be restored. Amnesties and this lacklustre enforcement doesn't seem to be cutting it". This isn't the place, but we really need a centralised debate about the whole national/ethnic edit wars problem. There seems no will to fix it. This "working group" [35] has been meeting in camera for two months with no visible results, so maybe it's time to have an open "meta-debate" somewhere on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Pushkin. If he'd died ten years earlier, what a liberal hero he'd have been. Conversely, imagine Byron living ten years longer and writing odes to Wellington. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Mickiewicz and Puskhin remained friends after that. Wiktor Weintraub, writing about Mickiewicz's anonymous French obituary of the Russian poet (signed un ami de Pouchkine), says: "This remarkable essay is distinguished not only by a fine appreciation of Pushkin's work but also by a subtle and compassionate understanding of Pushkin's difficult position vis-à-vis tsardom. Not a word is said of Pushkin's anti-Polish poems". --Folantin (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
He made such friends, didnt he? According to the Times, Pyotr Vyazemsky said "Go and hymn the government for taking such measures if your knees itch and you feel an irresistible urge to crawl with the lyre in your hands" after he read the Polish poems. And yet he asked for and got Pushkin's beloved desk and trademark waistcoat after AP died. OK, really off-topic now. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's off-topic but, by coincidence, over the past few days I've been thinking of doing something on the Pushkin-Mickiewicz relationship (maybe beefing up the Dziady and The Bronze Horseman articles), so this is all of interest - to me at least.
With regards to general national/ethnic edit war issues (which don't have a place on the Fringe Theories Board), I've thought about experimenting with hosting an informal debate (for the time being in my userspace here [[36]). Everybody with an interest in the matter is welcome to contribute. --Folantin (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments so far. I think that the collaboration is dealt with - nobody has been raising this issue recently - but the atrocities still generate some discussion. If you could clearly address those issues, it would be much appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pope Michael

User:Nvyslsnp thinks David Bawden is the pope and is using the article as a blog, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear God.
Its true. He was elected Pope by six conclavists, including himself and his parents. Where does one start?
Working on it now. Relata refero (disp.) 04:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Better. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Good job. He may have backed off on the blogging, looks like he's just resorted to linkspamming.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a lot of self-publicity to me, what is the justification for having his blog as an external link since we don't normally allow blogs as links?Doug Weller (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It more clearly shows him as a nutter? Don't know really.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Links to blogs are permitted if they are those of a "recognized authority" as per WP:EL. I'm guessing the subject's blog is written by the world's leading authority on his church, so I guess it could technically qualify as relevant. John Carter (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense. The whole thing is self-publicity as much as anything else anyway.Doug Weller (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well "Pope Michael" is definitely Fringe... so the first thing that needs to be worked on is establishing that he and his claims have been "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." At the moment, this is not the case. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
He's not up there with Emperor Norton I, is he? --Folantin (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not even close. But the last paragraph of David Bawden#Sedevacantist criticism of 'Pope Michael' indicates chapters in at least two books, presumably somewhat reliable, and references to those and other mentions elsewhere do seem to me to be possibly enough to establish notability, if barely. Certainly, the article did withstand a deletion debate before. I would definitely question whether he would be worth a link on the main Roman Catholic Church page based on WP:Undue weight, and I do personally question the amount of material relating to papal succession and such in this article, but the subject seems to meet the minimum requirements of notability. I do think the biographical content relating to the subject himself could definitely merit improvement, if sources can be found, though. But no way is this fellow even close to being in the league as the estimable Norton I. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New project on hermetism

I've just noticed that there's a new WikiProject which has placed its banner on the Talk:Hermeticism page, among others, related to "Hermetism". We don't have any articles on the subject yet, though. We did have such an article earlier, which was deleted and turned into a redirect as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermetism. Is there a chance in the eyes of the rest of you that this project, which to date has only its founder as a member, could be counterproductive? John Carter (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably more likely to be useless than detrimental. Hermeticism is a perfectly valid topic, of course, and it seemingly gave birth to Rosicrucian ideas. But WikiProjects with such small valid topic areas are unlikely ever to be very active. I can't see how it could cause problems - just let it die a natural death. If malignant activity actually does start, we can deal with it then. Moreschi (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well let's just keep an eye on the material in User:King Vegita/Hermeticism and other thought systems in case some of that material goes where it shouldn't. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean, like, maybe, regular article space? Like it's just been moved into? Anyone who knows more about this than me, and that won't take much, believe me, is more than welcome to see if any of its contents do cross undue weight lines. I can't be sure myself, but I can't rule out the possibility that at least some of it does. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, dear God. I admit to thinking he might start putting bits of it into other articles, I hardly envisioned such ambition...
Another tiresome AfD in the future, I suspect. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at it more closely. I think there might not be a case for AfDing on the basis of wholesale synthesis, but I'm still unhappy. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hermetism is back. Lead says "Hermetism is part of the third pillar of Western culture which provides a balance between Greek rationality and biblical faith." --Relata refero (disp.) 23:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that, but I'm still unhappy with the tone. What's with this?

The logic has passed me by. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The author seems to be alleging the original texts were in the Alexandria library, and that without them we can't judge Hermetism's age. I think such a statement would definitely need sourcing, don't you? Also, a few other ideas here. Britannica refers to "Hermeticism" as being a "modernist poetic movement...", so I guess the differentiation between belief in the Corpus Hermeticum and Hermeticism could be a reasonable one. The secion Hermeticism#History states "Hermes is usually equated with the Egyptian god Thoth", citing Abel and Hare, a clearly biased source. I have never heard of any such "equating" of the two in any mythological spheres, so I think that section clearly qualifies as reflecting a nonstandard POV. I also note that only two of the sources cited, Van den Broek and Yates, are from what strike me as necesarily reliale, not knowing anything about Holmes Publishing. Hall is clearly himself not necessarily objective. On the basis of all this, I think that there probably is basis for at least challenging the bias of the article. And I think that there is probably just cause at this point to challenge the Portal:Hermetism, as it only has 22 articles, and a portal should have at least 30 articles to sustain it, as per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Warriors. And I could see, maybe, someone challenging the project itself, as having only one listed member and being a POV pushing effort. But I'm going to have to search for sourcing for all this, and that won't be easy. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The page was moved back by User:SynergeticMaggot and I have not had time to rewrite the entire thing. I did establish notability and the difference from Hermeticism. The article was originally deleted on the basis that it was a term only used by Manly Palmer Hall and that thesis has been disproven. However, The history section does require an entire rewrite, which I planned to do soon, using much more verifiable sources. Feel free to do with that section what you will. KV(Talk) 17:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, blimey

Right, I've gone hacking at Hermetism with an axe, removing everything sourced to the works of Manly P. Hall, a raving crank with some very interesting theories regarding Atlantis. You can look that up in your spare time :) Who knew that Plato was a Hermetist, and that Judaism started off as Hermetism?

Other so-called reliable sources for this page included Israel Regardie (Moses was a Hermetist!), and the mysterious "Dr. M. Doreal". I Googled him with entertaining results (LOL!)

I've also removed everything sourced to Kybalion, which I didn't think really counted as reliable source either. What this has left us with is a small minority of material that might be acceptable and the remainder, which is primary-sourced to the Corpus Hermeticum.

What we've got here is an ancient occultish cult of the Greek god Hermes, about which reliable data is very sketchy, that later inspired a whole bunch of (notable) secret societies/pseudo-religious groups/whatever in time of the Renaissance and afterwards. This in turn has been picked up by our friends the New Agers, and, ah, developed from there. What really needs to happen is for Hermetism and Hermeticism to be merged - there's no real reason to have two different articles on the original cult and its more modern descendants, not when reliable data on the ancient cult of Hermes seems so hard to come by. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ahem, how is "Hermetism" different from Hermeticism? there was a deletion debate on this in August 2006, and the result was "delete and redirect". Also note Hermetism, Hermeticism and other thought systems. --dab (𒁳) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably no difference. It's perfectly reasonable to have the article on the ancient cult and more modern descendants under one title. But...oh my God...I just noticed the charming essay Hermetism, Hermeticism and other thought systems. I don't have the strength for this one. Can someone else clear out the rubbish? And whatever else is lurking in King Vegita (talk · contribs)'s contributions? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Did nobody listen when I was whining about this earlier?? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked briefly into this, and while "Hermetism" does seem to be a term used in the scholarly literature, it doesn't seem to have a different meaning than "Hermeticism". So I think we should observe the result of the AfD and delete/redirect. At a quick glance, Hermetism, Hermeticism and other thought systems looks like a mass of OR/SYNTH. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked into it earlier, with a view to an AfD, as I say above. Unfortunately there are differences from the Hermetism that was deleted, and it doesn't seem outright SYNTH either. The original Hermetism deletion was because it relied excessively on Manly Hall. Now a great deal is sourced also, as are key points in the "comparative" article, to Gnosis and Hermeticism: from Antiquity to Modern Times by some people named de Broek (who's emeritus in the history of Christianity at Utrecht) and Hanegraaff,, which doesn't seem like it can be dismissed out-of-hand. The other reference that supports some key points and might be dubious is a reprint of something that appeared in Gnosis: A Journal of Western Inner Traditions, which doesn't appear to have been peer-reviewed. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, though, at one point the Corpus Hermeticum was supposed to have been written by a contemporary of Moses, and inspiration for both Jesus and Plato. Then old Casaubon had to put the boot in by proving that they weren't written until several centuries AD. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. But de Broek and Hanegraaff's material, that was at Hermetism, can just as well go at Hermeticism. Despite the partial rewrite there's no real justification for two articles on what is essentially the same subject (once the New Age crap is snipped away). Hermetism and Hermeticism are basically synonyms, and what negligible difference there is can be explained at Hermeticism. Ultimately it doesn't really matter too much what the article is called, just so long as we don't have one decent article and a POV fork. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Hermetism now. We can keep Hermetism if we make it into an article on the origins of Hermeticism in the early centuries CE. The problem isn't with the topic itself, it's with the esotericist / new agey nonsense that it attracts. The Book of Thoth: "...Members of this movement often suggest that the Book of Thoth has been positioned beneath the paws of the Sphinx for some 12,000 years." dab (𒁳) 07:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we agree that the whole series of articles belong to the field of history of religion? If so, perhaps the first step should be to agree a periodization. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories, again

Currently, on 9/11 conspiracy theories there has been some discussion regarding the views of a Canadian mathematician and conspiracy theorist, Alexander Dewdney, who claims that it was impossible for the cell phone calls which occurred on 9/11 to have taken place, and that they were faked following Flight 93 being shot down. However, User:WLRoss has been trying to present a very different version than this in the article — you can see the comparison here. In the first version, the sourcing is to this Macleans article, and there is additional information about phone calls cited to the New York Times included. In the second version, the sourcing is to Dewdney's study here at a 9/11 Truth website, and to the primary views of another conspiracy theorist here. In terms of content, the first version discusses Dewdney's study, then his views that the calls were faked after Flight 93 being shot down. It then discuss a concurring conspiracy theorist, who agrees with his assessment. Finally, it cites industry experts who state that cell phones can work in all stages of an aircraft flight. The second version presents only Dewdney's study, and omits his other views about the phone calls. It also omits the industry expert's opinion entirely.

So, far, in this discussion on the talk page, the arguments have been made against the first version are that:

  • "Dewdney's conspiracy beliefs are irrelevant" and "make him sound like a crackpot".
  • "The paragraph should concentrate on the study not on his own irrelevant views as the study stands by itself."
  • "The new sentences that have been added are misleading as because no one disputes that there is a chance but the source implies ALL cell calls have a HIGH chance of connecting which is incorrect in light of actual studies and this implication makes the addition POV and it needs to be deleted.
  • "Dewdney's study is relevant because it is a study and backed by other sources, but his own views are not notable"
  • "The Macleans source you quote is a hit piece that has factual errors that even cursory fact checking would have fixed (ie:it's not a RS)"
  • "Your version is clearly cherry picking in an attempt to debunk what is probably the only 911 fact that is undisputably true which is that cell calls are next to impossible"

In favor, I have argued that the Maclean's source is the only one which presents either the study or his views and notable or relevant, and no other reliable sources have been so presented. Selectively choosing which of Mr Dewdney's views to include, or not include, based on the "crackpot"-ness of them is biased editing, and is designed to give readers a false impression about who conducted the study, and what he believes about the phone calls. Furthermore, it omits information on disputes on this subject is because it disagrees with a fact that the WLRoss believes is "undisputably true".

In other words, it's a run of the mill case of selectively picking and choosing which parts of a person's views on a subject you wish to display, in order to present their opinions in the best possible light. In addition, it removes criticism (or dispute) which gives the false impression that the views expressed are undisputed, or correct. I'm bringing this here because I think we need more eyes on this subject, and more voices in the mix. --Haemo (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

well, I agree with you in general, but this is, after all, an article about crackpot theories. Nobody is going to take serious any claim in it. I suppose this falls under "Moreschi's item #44". dab (𒁳) 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
But I think the point is that we're deliberately not telling anyone that this study was carried out by a conspiracy theorist. Instead, he being portrayed as a mathematician and professor who just happens to have done a study. That's the opposite of Item #44 — it would be like discussing JZ Knight as a "CEO and Author" rather than a Ramtha-channeling medium when talking about "What the Bleep do we know?". --Haemo (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
we are "not telling anyone" that the author of a theory expounded on an article clearly labelled "conspiracy theories" is a conspiracy theorist? This is where I suggest you should allow for some intelligence on the part of the reader. But again, I am not opposed to your revision, I am just saying it's less than crucial. dab (𒁳) 16:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kurgan hypothesis

I created this article back in 2005[37], and it has seen a troubled history since, mostly due to the exploits of the likes of Rokus01 (talk · contribs) and WIN (talk · contribs). There have been good additions, but it has been tagged for a rewrite for some time. This isn't very urgent, but it appears that the disordered state gives rise to further deterioration. There is one editor apparently bent on treating the hypothesis as a work of art by Gimbutas without any truth value (as in, not falsifiable, hence art), and consequently to be treated like an unfinished symphony or something, while it is in fact the mainstream hypothesis (or class of hypotheses) for PIE origins. I am not sure how to approach this. The "Criticisms and qualifications" is terrible, but it contains valid content. As I said, this isn't a red-hot topic of edit wars, but I feel it will only get worse if an effort isn't made to put the article back on its feet. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Kurgan hypothesis" of origin certainly was "mainstream" within the Soviet Union, which actively pushed it for all it was worth, and sought to use ostracisation tactics on any who said different... It's still just a hypothesis, with no actual records of any kind to substantiate it... 70.105.57.250 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, just as PIE itself is just a "hypothetical" language. No records for that either, really. Still, it's widely accepted as having existed. Your logic doesn't really cohere. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
How mainstream is the Kurgan hypothesis outside Russia?Doug Weller (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Pretty mainstream. There are respectable, albeit minority, alternatives (as well as some not-so-respectable alternatives). The page should reflect this. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonwithstanding the anon's claim above, the Kurgan theory is not a "Russian" or "Soviet" theory. If anything, it's a Lithuania-USA co-production, whicih would automatically make it less than useful for Soviet doctrine (it also speaks volumes for its bona fide academic quality that for once an origin theory is not advanced by someone who just happens to be a native of the suggested area of origin...) The actual Russian (1980s Soviet) theory of PIE origins is the Armenian hypothesis: the support of this one is virtually restricted to Russia (and Armenia of course...). It's also a bona fide academic theory, but it has clear drawbacks compared to the Kurgan one, and failed to find wider support. I would be surprised to learn the Soviets touted the Kurgan theory (contemporary Ukrainian nationalism is another issue, of course). dab (𒁳) 19:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also debated, seriously, critically, and at length in J.P. Mallory's survey of IE origin theories. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, after we ostracise and ban every academic who investigates a given theory, it then becomes very easy to sit on our high horse and say "tsk, tsk, it failed to find wider support". Reminds me of the walrus and carpenter. 70.105.27.58 (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
nonsense, plus please use your account. We just said that bona fide Soviet academics came up with the Armenian hypothesis. Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis is also part of the game. The "broad homeland" idea seems to have at least some sane advocates. It is simply not true that "we ostracise and ban every academic who investigates" alternatives to the Kurgan model. The Kurgan model fits the bill best, but there are noteworthy alternatives. That, and, well this. --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose this is another expression of that tendency, common in certain parts of WP, to assume that everything that came out of the Soviet academy was fringe by virtue of being filtered through Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Unfortunately untrue. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
yes, but, I am saying, the Kurgan hypothesis didn't even originate in the USSR, so that point is moot. It's the mainstream view in the USA in particular. dab (𒁳) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. "Came out" should read "accepted in." Relata refero (disp.) 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ararat arev?

or a close cousin? your call:

--dab (𒁳) 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the info that I had added back, Greco-Armeno-Aryan I removed from the Armenian hypothesis, cause it already has links in the "See also", so its not need to push POV. However, minor correction I made, I corrected the date that is 4th millenium BC, corresponding to their hypothesis date, and also in the other PIE pages have the same info that was corrected. And I dont know any Ararat arev. Testerarms (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The good thing about IRC is that often you can find checkusers there a lot easier there than you can on RFCU. Blocked indef. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on contributions it seems likely to him that Ara Ur (talk · contribs) is another Ararat arev sock. Checkuser concurs. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Syriac people and newly created pages by the minute

The page is a mirror of Assyrian people. If you look at the Syriac people page, it uses http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/ as a main source for many lines. If you look at those links, it says specifically below that the information was taken from Wikipedia itself. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac) and Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board, we agreed that we would not bring in politics into other pages, but explain the situation in the Assyrian naming dispute page. We agreed that the defacto name used to describe the group would be Assyrian (Assyrian people) since that is the term used mostly in the English language. This single user seems to be on a crusade to create an ethnicity based on, well, nothing except a few quotes taken out of content. But now, he is creating all this mirror pages (Example History of the Assyrian people - he goes on and creates History of the Syriac people) and seems to continue to path of mirroring pages like Assyrian culture, etc. We don't have saperate ethnic pages let alone history, culture, music, etc for Orthodox Armenian people and Catholic Armenian people and it should be like this for this group too. Chaldean (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Syriacs are not assyrians. Syriacs are descendants to the arameans not the assyrians. You and Eliasalucard were the only one who has agreed that the name to describe the whole group would be Assyrian people wich is totaly wrong. No one that call him or her self for syriac accpets assyrian identity. there are more syriacs than assyrians. And the assyrian history is way different with the syriac history. Please stop all this assyrian propaganda. You and Eliasalucard main object was to assyrianaite everythign and everyone. FOr example that the Ephraim the syrian was assyrian. No he was not, and no the name Syria does not derive from the name Assyria, and that has been proven in later times. Stop all this assyrian propaganda! VegardNorman (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I will leave the ethnology to those who know it better than I do... and will limit my comments to http://www.spiritus-temporis.com - This is clearly not a reliable source for use in Wikipedia, as it takes its information from Wikipedia. Another source will be needed to back any statements that are cited to that site. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean and VegardNorman are two editors who decided they will simply Not Get It. The topic of their dispute is valid, and I have invested insane amounts of time trying to get them to collaborate towards a wikilike solution, but instead they simply act disruptively and are completely impermeable to reason or advice. VegardNorman likes to prance around with pov forks and erratic splits, while Chaldean's approach is consistent and complete ignoratio elenchi. Administrative action is needed here. We can solve these problems, but these two editors are clearly not part of any solution. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't put me in the same basket as him. Take a look at my edits and take a look at his. Do I use joke of a sources like he does? I'd like to bring up the question that you asked me about a month ago; "Are you here to write encyclpedic articles or are you here to push nationalist agenda?" - Show me a single edit vegard has made that is considered encyclopedic. All you see from him is screams of Syriacs are Arameans, Syriacs are Arameans and creating proparganda pages. As for me, if my latest work, Persian Mesopotamia, isn't considered one of the better articles written in Wikipedia, let alone coming from a user who "act only disruptively", then by all means, punish me. I'm really disappointed in you dab for not being neutral when dealing with me. I have repeadly requested for you not to label me as one of these other nationlistic users you deal with, citing my work here on wiki. Chaldean (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I know you mean "well", but your involvement is simply not helpful in dealing with this issue. VegardNorman also "means well", and yet we agree he is a problem editor. Meaning well isn't enough, you need to actually understand what Wikipedia is, what it isn't and how it works. And I'm sorry to say that you aren't exactly making an effort. dab (𒁳) 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
How can you say that? I tried to help the issue by suggesting and creating the cooperation board. I understand what Wikipedia is, but I'm more then confident to say that Vegard doesn't. He can't honestly say that his here to create encyclopedic work. If so, I'd like to see one example of that since he has opened his account. Chaldean (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Could we please stop the personal comments. This is not the place for them. Focus on the WP:FRINGE problems with the article in question and how to fix them, rather than the editors. If the problem is the editors... then take that to a more appropriate venue. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
the problem is, of course, with the editors. As in virtually every case listed on this noticeboard. I would welcome previously uninvolved admins looking into this. Vegard probably does need a warning what with his tactics of creating confusion with wild-eyed moving and splitting instead of trying to find a compromise. --dab (𒁳) 14:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_4&oldid=1142598545"