Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 21

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR)

Maybe this doesn't quite qualify for this noticeboard, but I'd like to hear what others think. It's covered by Skepdic and Quackwatch, though these and similar links have been removed from the article. I've been trying for months to get editors to concentrate on applying WP:MEDRS with no success. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The main editor at that site is a shill for a provider; the studies cited don't show what they're purported to show in the article; and the studies I've read cast doubt that the main premise—conscious emulation of REM—has anything to do with its purported efficacy, which is no better than similar therapy without the EMDR, so I think this is the correct noticeboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe this article belongs on this notice board. EMDR is not a fringe theory. It is a psychotherapeutic technique, like CBT or exposure, that has 20 years of scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates that it is an efficacious treatment for trauma. It is recognised internationally as one of the two efficacious treatments to treat those who suffer from PTSD and the effects of experiencing trauma. it has been recognised in the highest category of effectiveness for treating PTSD by organisations such as the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the American Psychiatric Association, the US department of Defense amongst many others. There is no "main editor" on this site, and the extensive list of references do appear to be supporting statements they are cited for. I'm not sure what is meant by "conscious emulation of REM", but there are many theories as to how EMDR works, and I believe the article does a fair job at discussing these. Like any effective therapy, it is known that the therapy works, and research is being done to find out specifically how it works. The article is up to date with the current literature. Many of the authors on the cite are caring, dedicated practitioners who only want the best for clients, as people suffering the effects of trauma deserve nothing less than to recieve evidence based therapies and treatments. EMDR is not a fringe theory. The evidence shows that it works. Sschubert (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy to see this article on this notice board. Talking about your past trauma (with a dedicated and caring therapist) is an evidence based therapy - talking while a paid convert of waves their finger is fringe. Earlypsychosis (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead of the article is very biased. I would suggest the controversy section needs to be summarised in the lead. Also there is too many weasle words, like emphasing to the reader that it is "evidence based" etc. It is basically CBT mixed with quackery. I am not sure if fringe is the right word as it does seem to have generated a degree of mainstream acceptance, probably quackery and highly controversial are more accurate. The neutrality noticeboard may be worth notifying, in addition to this noticeboard if there is an ongoing content dispute.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sschubert, I think that it is worth being on this board as there is considerable overlap between quackery and fringe and the subject matter will be of interest to readers of this board. Just because a subject has some mainstream acceptance does not mean that it is not quackery and arguably fringe. Sschubert, you did not respond to allegations that you are misrepresenting what sources say. Are you misrepresenting sources? Tom Reedy, can a couple of examples of misrepresentations of sources be given?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Under "Empirical evidence" section, this sentence: "Based on the evidence of randomised controlled research trials both the practice guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association[13] and the Department of Veterans Affairs and Defense[14] have placed EMDR in the highest category of effectiveness and research support in the treatment of trauma. This status is reflected in a number of international guidelines where EMDR is a recommended treatment for trauma.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]"

I only read refs [13] and [14], and I am not an expert in reading medical studies, but it did not appear to me that they supported the sentence and in fact contradicted it, saying the evidence is inconclusive with limited applicable evidence and less effective than other therapies in some cases. (Please pardon me for not providing embedded links; it is time-consuming for me and a simple matter to click on them in the article itself.)

Sschubert, who is the main editor of that page, is an SPA and her advocacy goes way beyond disinterested defence of accuracy, and I also believe that she might have a conflict of interest, but I do not want to violate WP:OUTING so I need direction here.

I came to the article by way of a newspaper article about sciatica. One of the commentators posted what appeared to be a miraculous cure for back pain using EMDR, and in researching the subject I read this article and several other sites evaluating the claims. To me it appears to be an alternative technique such as rolfing, with very spotty uncontrolled studies--mainly by its practitioners--touting its efficacy and mostly published in a journal containing little or no critical articles.

As way of a disclaimer I must say that I consider most psychological therapies to be borderline quackery and our age's version of shamanism, so I'll excuse myself from further comment. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This EMDR topic doesn't seem appropriate for the fringe theories notice board, whatever may be the problems with the article. "EMDR" is listed in the title of no less than 514 citations in PsycINFO (279 in peer-reviewed journals) (search conducted today). Many of the journals in the reference list (e.g., Annual Review of Psychology, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology) are among the most high-impact journals in the field (as judged by impact factors). Whatever may be the merits of the treatment and the merits of the article as currently written, this does not appear to be a fringe theory. I say this as someone who had previously heard of the treatment (since I follow professional psychology literature), but has not had other interest or involvement with the treatment or with the page. Health Researcher (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. I'm tending to agreeing, so I'll look for a more appropriate venue. Any suggestions? --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one thought that comes to mind is you could try getting additional impartial energy/views from WikiProject Psychology, since the article's talk page says it's of interest to that project. I've never tried to recruit interest/energy there for an article, so your guess is as good as mine about how much energy you could get. Good luck. Health Researcher (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an active project. I've made a request there. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

EMDR is not a fringe therapy. I don't have time for an exhaustive account here, so here's a summary: I'm trained in EMDR and have used it for years with great success in my work as a licensed professional psychotherapist who specializes in anxiety disorders and particularly in PTSD. I am decidedly NOT a flag-carrier for the mainline EMDR Institute, but have reviewed (a while back) both the Wikipedia EMDR article and the bulk of the relevant clinical studies on EMDR. It is indeed one of the two best-validated psychotherapies for PTSD. Whether or not we understand why it works is beside the point.

I personally think the eye movements probably contribute only a little, if at all, to the treatment effect (this is only a personal opinion). I don't even use them, and get the essentially the same effect I got when I did. There is no clear professional consensus about the value of the eye-movements, and it won't be settled on this page. There IS clear professional consensus about EMDR's efficacy. It is therefore NOT a fringe therapy, or quackery. Disagreement is not evidence of quackery. Informed people don't quarrel about EMDR anymore, because as a therapy it has been too successful.

Finally, consider that if you are not trained in evaluated research on psychotherapy efficacy you might not be qualified to comment on this allegation (and most assuredly to make it!). Psychotherapy research evaluation is no game for amateurs. There are a number of good references in the reference section of the EMDR article. Look at the meta-analyses especially. The question of treatment efficacy is one to be settled with empirical study, not opinion. Review of the evidence by a great many professional reviewers and review bodies (some of which have been already cited in this article) is clear: EMDR is for real. We don't need to rehash the matter here. We have more important things to do. Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your views Tom. When I mentioned quackery, I (and I believe other editors) were referring to the eye movements being very controversial and dubious, rather than the other psychotherapeutic aspects of EMDR. I believe Earlypsychosis is a psychotherapist, but the rest of the commentators I believe are not psychologists. Good references were used but there are allegations that at least some of them have been misrepresented to play down controversy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your distinction. The "controversy" is about what? It cannot be about the value of the procedure as a whole. That is settled, and this is easy to discover if one but reads the relevant literature (assuming one is skilled enough in one's ability to read research that one can arrive at an informed opinion). The argument about the value of the eye movements is over a decade old. Edna Foa (the author of the OTHER of the two best validated treatments for PTSD - prolonged exposure therapy herself tried to keep EMDR on the fringes for years, and was forced to retreat from her position by the sheer bulk of supportive research that build up around EMDR in the past 20 years.

Shapiro (EMDR's originator) herself writes quite clearly in her principal book of the need to deconstruct the procedure so as to find the relative contribution of its components. To my knowledge, this has yet to be done. Psychotherapy in general suffers from lack of adequate research. However, we DO get results - again, the research on this is clear. What is not at all clear is precisely WHAT we do that gets results. Some of what we do is surely worthless, and we don't yet know this. So, are we quacks? Hardly.

To refer to EMDR as quackery, as a small number of psychologist still do, reflects on their quasi-fanatical dogmatism, not their objective commitment to science-based psychotherapy. If we had conclusive evidence that the eye-movements were NOT needed (and I don't believe we yet do, although I expect it to appear eventually), and the mainline EMDR community still insisted on their value, then we'd have an issue. At this point, however, I don't think we do. Hence my request that our energies be put to a more productive use than to quibble about this "controversy". It's just tiresome, and ill-informed.

Instead, how about going after the Veterans Administration (USA), which still uses group therapy (of the talk therapy variety) and a range of other methods known NOT to be valid treatments for PTSD, in its hospitals and clinics, all the while telling veterans that PTSD is a permanent condition. This is outrageous, and reflects a gross lack of familiarity with the research literature. Now THAT is demonstrable quackery. I routinely cure PTSD, and have the evidence to prove it - why can't they?Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to accept that the treatment as a whole has demonstrated benefitial effects. The controversy I think is over the eye movement componenent. As you have stated the individual components to the treatment have never been evaluated and thus the eye movement controversy is still valid. The treatment as a whole can be said to be science based but the eye movements on their own can't be said to be "science based". I and no one else said psychotherapy was quackery. The only suggestion I felt was that any sources which were misrepresented should be fixed and the lead should contain the well documented controversy surrounding the eye movement componnent to bring the article up to WP:NPOV standards. I agree that there are professionals and even large generally respected healthcare bodies who promote dubious or outdated treatments which lack any evidence and may even harm patients. The only role that us wikipedians have to play is to make sure that we write comprehensive and uptodate articles by following WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. You have and are, as I have said before, writing a comprehensive and good quality article on PTSD.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Show me the controversy, please - by referencing material (articles, editorials, letters to the editor) in relevant peer-reviewed journals. The "quackwatch" website does not qualify, for reasons that should be obvious. Last I checked, it was the pet project of primarily one man - essentially a blog in alternative form. Its material on EMDR used highly selected citations from the literature, and old citations at that. This material and its presentation thus qualifies as polemic, and nothing more.

Serious theories have been advanced which make plausible the purported effect of the eye-movements component. Serious, peer-reviewed research has been published which reports this component to be essential to treatment effect. (This material is cited on the EMDR.org website.) I think a fair review of the literature would lead one to conclude that the jury is still out on the percent explained variance accounted for by this component of the EMDR treatment protocol. That fact does not allow one to conclude that we have a controversy on our hands, but rather just a discussion.

In strict behavioral psychology circles, there are people who still consider cognitive behavioral psychology to be controversial, because of the cognitive component. So, do we have a "controversy" there? Does controversy exist whenever we are not unanimous about the answer to some question?

I submit that it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide if something is controversial or not, but rather to report it as such if members of the relevant professional community clearly consider it so. Gratuitous fanning of the flames of supposed "controversy" is an old ploy used to sell newspapers and other mass media. I think we should adopt a more measured, thoughtful stance here. This noticeboard is for discussion of material of a possible "fringe" nature. The seriousness with which EMDR's eye-movement component has been, and is being, discussed, supports my contention that what we have here is a question, not a controversy. Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the referenced controversy is in this section of the article,Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing#Eye_movements_in_EMDR and included meta-analysis and reviews. A controversy is just a prolonged disagreement, debate or dispute between opposing views which is what we have. A discussion is a short lived exchange of opinions, although I don't want to get into a debate of dictionary definitions of words.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd that the discussion here is primarily on focused on the necessity of the eye movements in EMDR rather than whether the page conforms with WP:MERS - which I think is why the discussion came upon this page in the first page. To answer some questions: First, in response to Tom Reedy, there is no main editor to this page. Many editors contribute to the page and keep it updated with the latest scientific research. Second, in response to literaturegeek, I or other authors of this page do not misrepresent sources. If it is found that a sourse is misrepresented other authors in the past have corrected this. Literaturegeek, in your second entry you stated that I did respond to allegations to misrepresenting findings, however, above your first entry, within my first comment I stated that "the extensive list of references do appear to be supporting statements they are cited for".

Again, just in response to Tom Reedy, you stated that I am an "SPA and her advocacy goes way beyond disinterested defence of accuracy". Excuse my naivety, can I ask what an SPA is, and also how exactly it is that I "advoacte" for this therapy? Just quicky, I'd like to say that I only recieved training in EMDR less than 2 years ago. I have recently completed my masters in in clinical psychology - in which evidence-based therapies is all that is taught. Currently I am just a PhD student who is looking at the evidence for and against EMDR and specifically examining why EMDR may work. I am also investigating whether the eye movements matter or not as other authors here have correctly stated that the jury is still out on how much the eye movements in fact add to EMDR's treatment effect. There is a great deal of research on the effects eye movements have on memory processing, and at present it is generally shown that approximately 10% of the treatment effect of EMDR, when used to treat PTSD, is accounted for by the eye movements themselves. Also the research that has demonstrated EMDR's efficacy have used EMDR with eye movements, so the treatment is effective when the eye movements are used - so ethically, as a clinician you cannot simply remove them from the procedure, becasue EMDR without eye movements has not been shown to be an efficacious treatment. The discussion here about the eye movements has previously been had between authors of the EMDR page - hence a controversy section exists on the page. And, as authors have pointed out on the page, we still don't know exactly why any psychotherapy works, i.e. how exactly psychotherapy changes neurology, physiology. And even for CBT or exposure therapy, we still don't know how much each aspect of the therapeutic procedure contributes to its overall efficacy. A good thing is that the controversy within (and outside of) the profession has lead to a vast and growing body of researhers still attempting to answering these complex questions.

But again - this controversy is not the reason for this discussion. This is about whether the page conforms with WP:MERS. It still needs to be clearly highlighted exactly how the page does not conform with WP:MERS. What references are misrepresented? I, and another author on the page have tried to offer suggestions on how to fix the page, with EVERY suggestion and attempt to fix the page being unsatisfactory to Ronz, who placed the discussion here. Maybe other authors here can help resolve this discussion by offering some clear and specific direction as to how the page can be fixed, so that the NPOV debate can be resolved, and all authors are satisfied with the content. Sschubert (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To address your points directed at me, Sschubert. I never made the accusation about misrepresented sources, rather it was Tom Reedy. I was just an uninvolved editor with zero interest in the subject matter who was trying to clarify whether allegations of sources being misrepresented were true or not. Tom Reedy has said he read sources 13 and 14 and found them to be misrepresented. No one has addressed this issue with sources 13 and 14. With regard to neutrality and MEDRS, the issue is more WP:LEAD, which is meant to summarise the article body. There is no mention of controversy in the lead section, despite an article section devoted to controversies. If the article is made compliant with WP:LEAD then I think the neutrality issues would be largely resolved. As stated the next thing is to confirm or deny allegations that Tom Reedy made about refs 13 and 14 being misrepresented.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Tired Light

An IP is inserting original research at Tired light, having been rebuffed a few months back at Nonstandard cosmology. Help would be appreciated.

Relevant diffs:

Edits

• [1]
• [2]

Reverts

• [3]
• [4]

Warnings

• [5]
• [6]

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See now: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pseudohistory redux, editor added 15 fact tags

An editor has added 15 fact tags, and refuses to try to cite them. Some can be cited in seconds, other examples are by obscure writers with articles. I removed the fact tag from holocaust denial describing the description as not contentious, it was replaced saying it was OR. Someone else added a cite, but I don't think it was necessary and the whole thing looks pointy, particularly with the refusal to look for any sources. Comments?

Well if someone wnats citesgive them. Thats how it works.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Science myth

Talk about dubious and confused application of the terms "myth" and "mythology". This article is about as bad as they get, WP:TNT may be the only way out. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

List of myths about scientific discoveries would be a good article and, as a list, wouldn't act as much as a coatrack. There's a persistent myth in my field, for example, that Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" to make fun of it (Hoyle claimed it was solely meant to be descriptive and not derisive) and that Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder" (a myth that may have been invented out of whole cloth by George Gammow, who had a whimsical sense of humor). ScienceApologist (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted much of the article and moved it to List of popular misconceptions about the history of science.Griswaldo (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And I made it a section redirect to a far better developed article. --dab (𒁳) 15:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good.Griswaldo (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Denialism

There is an apparent attempt to remove or modify the term "denialism", by a user who asserts that it's pejorative. See Kary Mullis, Peter Duesberg, AIDS denialism, Denialism, Phillip E. Johnson. Surprisingly, despite veiled legal threats, gross incivility, apparent 3RR violations, etc., the user has not received even a single template message concerning this behaviour. In fact, Jimbo Wales's response to extensive accusations of "slander" and threats of subpoenas on Jimbo's talk page was rather critical of me and other editors who seek to ensure that fringe positions are not given undue weight on Wikipedia. Wales wrote, "I do know that it is very often that case that scientists who take minority positions, particularly when those positions turn out to be wrong in the end, are often caricatured in a way that's unfair".

In any case, I would appreciate input and additional attention to these articles from those who are familiar with our Fringe guidelines. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please direct our fearless leader to read WP:RGW. It's may not seem fair to individual editors, but Wikipedia should report exactly what the reliable sources say about a scientist that takes a "minority position". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

do you have a diff on that? I will find that very useful in some of the debates I find myself tangled up in. --Ludwigs2 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

well, I can confirm that "denialism" is pejorative. Note the "-ism". Just saying "denial" or "denied" isn't pejorative. It's ok to use pejorative terms, with attribution, if the reliable sources use them, but they will still be pejoratives. Check out how recent the term is. Apart from a few nonce uses around 1970,[7] it only takes off after 1997 or so.[8]. The original context is clearly the Holocaust,[9] and there is something like an oblique Godwinian jab when you say "X denialism" in contexts other than the Holocaust. --dab (𒁳) 17:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

More than that, the term is a personalization. it's one thing to say that X denies the holocaust existed (that is a claim that is at least ostensibly related to historical facts - X denies that Y exists, let's go read the history books). It's another thing entirely to say that X is a denialist (that implies a personal characteristic of X, that he denies things as a matter of disposition). wikipedians do love to personalize things... --Ludwigs2 17:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the literature on denialism backs up Ludwigs's assertion: a denialist indeed may have a contrarian personality type that leads him or her to deny verified material simply for the sake of playing the devil's advocate...but I'm sure we're all familiar with the references.

Please, let's remember that Wikipedians did not create the term denialism, nor did they pioneer its use (as far as I know). We are simply using the term that has come to be accepted in reliable, independent sources. I, too, am somewhat uncomfortable with the spreading tendency to characterise anyone who disagrees with one's position as a denialist; the term should probably apply only to those who indeed display the denialist disposition, despite the attendant subjectivities. That's my personal view. It shouldn't stop me from recognising that the term is regularly and verifiably applied to certain belief systems. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

just to be clear, I'm more than happy to see the term applied by reliable sources, but less than sanguine with it being applied by wikipedia editors. As long as we keep that distinction in mind (and adhere to it stringently and conservatively), I have no problems with it. --Ludwigs2 20:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Unicorns

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petro photoglyph probably needs some attention. Uncle G (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know god was a photoshop user. Hatchetfish (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoagland

There's a content dispute going on at Richard C. Hoagland. He's the face on Mars guy. Since it's basically a dispute about how to treat fringe-to-lunatic theories, up to and including not mentioning them at all, I thought those who frequent this noticeboard should know about it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I made a few minor improvements. I think the article suffers from WP:UNDUE and the editors are right who are trying to delete large sections of it pertaining to things Hoagland has done that have mostly escaped notice by anyone but Hoagland. I also clicked on a link that took me to Thomas E. Bearden, a perpetual motion claimant, that I think also needs attention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right about Thomas E. Bearden. The article is all "Bearden claims X" ...sourced to Bearden himself. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame Controversy

I am sure many of you have this article watchlisted, but you might want to jump in on the discussion there. A recently registered SPA dislikes the term conspiracy theory, among other things, and has been attempting to make changes without consensus (at least in my view). Perhaps a few more eyes on would help. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Marco Polo's birthplace

This article seems poorly sourced, and I think it was probably produced to give the Korčula hypothesis air time. The sources used do not seem very good, but they are in Greek or something and I can't review them. Anyway, second opinions would be very welcome. I took out the "hypothesis," then realized that the article would be so vitiated without it that it might as well be deleted. Also, it's almost certain to turn out to be a POV fork of Marco Polo [10]. Should probably be deleted. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Use Chrome to translate, it's easy to use. The 'hypothesis' is quite widely circulated, even in Google Scholar (all the tourist guides seem to mention it too, so you need to weed them out). Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yes... so are you saying this is an appropriate article? Not a POV fork or in need of being merged? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the main article doesn't seem that long that this should be a separate article, so merging and changing this into a redirect seems appropriate. I'd say it was created as a pov fork given it's a recent article created under the title " Polo's alleged birthplace on the island of Korcula". It was PROD'd for that reason just after its creation. Looking at the talk page, the editor creating it will object. I'll support, but you might want to do it more officially via Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get that? "Polo's alleged birthplace on the island of Korcula" is the image caption. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misread that, but the PROD was because "Why does this need a separate article? Content is appropriate to a section on Marco Polo but not a standalone article." You removed that, placing your articles on the talk page, which were:

1: the section on birthplace was removed by the WP:spotlight team.

2: the argument on birthplace keeps flaring up on the Polo article, wasting editor's time in explaining things over and over again. Keep that talk page for Marco Polo, not the place where he was born.

3: this article is supposed to examine all evidence and present the facts, informing people as to why we can't say wether it's Venice or Korcula.

4: debate is ongoing as to which sources are reliable.

5: give it some time, I cannot do all this on my own.

6: check the talk page at Marco Polo for past discussion on the subject, there is more than enough to justify a separate article.

none of which seems a sufficient reason to have a separate article, which unf

The Korčula hypothesis is perfectly well covered with a footnote or two in the main article, as has been the situation months ago. More than a year ago, an article about the birthplace controversy has been AfD deleted due to content forking and the situation has not changed since. --Tone 10:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthplace of Marco Polo. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't speedied it myself, but I've tagged it for Speedy deletion. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing with having a separate article for Marco Polo's birthplace since the topic and the related controversy are well known enough. The problem is rather with the actual content and sources of the current (or the former) version. It lacks academic sources by reputable history scholars.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Declined as substantially different and not as pov, but no comment on the forking, which was a major reason for the original delete. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Amerike

Biography being used to push a fringe idea of the Americas being named after him. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Only a few sources. One [11] says "Spain has the grave of Amerigo Vespucci- ostensibly the man who gave his name to America. We know

better, of course." and I'm not sure it says anything else, but isn't mainly discussing the article's subject. this one has the statement "But it is also probable that, as the chief sponsor of the Matthew's voyage, and with Cabot's wife and children then living, at his instigation, in a house belonging to a close friend, Amerike sought reward for his patronage by asking that any new-found lands should be named after him." which supports the article's hypothesis. The third source [12] has a footnote on the "claim". Needs to be merged into a paragraph or less. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that tis might be fringe in another artciel, but its about teh man. so I would say its not fringe in this respect. But there may be an issue of undue, it would deserve only a couple of line.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be only sources enough for a paragraph. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely a fringe theory [13]. And sure... his biography should have a paragraph about this idea. But if you want an article on this idea, make an article on the idea, don't stick it in his bio. Have other articles on this idea been deleted or something? Slatersteven, considering stuff like this don't you think there's enough for an article on the idea? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there is enough (beyond hyperbole) to fill an article. I think a paragraph in his articel wil sum up the theory. But if there is more sources and comentry then maybe an artilce might have value (for example reactions from historians and talking heads).Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt we should be making the pretense that anyone is interested in writing his bio minus the fringe theory as the majority of the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that the SUNY guy is a writer in residence, not a historian. What have real historians to say about this? Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Some sources

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=viMvSIj4-tUC&pg=PA73&dq=Richard+Amerike&hl=en&ei=gfdeTNywCuSmsQb3w4y4Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Amerike&f=false Not sure this bloke is a historian.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ty2UQH9aggIC&pg=PA167&dq=Richard+Amerike&hl=en&ei=uPdeTPL5HuSpsQaS1sG_Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Amerike&f=false This one seems to be (of sorts).18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More sources

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9jvX0NvSbr8C&pg=PA57&dq=%22Richard+Amerike%22&hl=en&ei=1vleTIuMKJfesAaP6LTGBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=%22Richard%20Amerike%22&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XEO-0oHp0TUC&pg=PA23&dq=%22Richard+Amerike%22&hl=en&ei=AvpeTN_3BNymsQaOk6DHBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=%22Richard%20Amerike%22&f=false

The European Discovery of America: The northern voyages, A.D. 500-1600 Samuel Eliot Morison page 163.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those brief mentions seem to me to be sufficient for an article on the fringe theory (when combined with the others), so I wonder if we should do a redirect to such an article instead of a bio. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rurik Dynasty

A guy keeps adding some sort of hoax about "Jewish Rurikids" into the article.[14] I don't want to edit war, but this is patently false and does WP a disservice. No genealogical reference (of which I have a-plenty) lists the Ransohoff family among Russian nobility, let alone among the princes of the House of Rurik. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also account Trpeza10 seems to be a single purpose POV pushing account [[15]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have desisted (for now at least). --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mind uploading

Resolved

 – Medrate and their sock blocked indef for abusive sockpuppetry.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am having a dispute with Medrate (talk · contribs) about the appropriateness of an external link. I have already reverted once, and it is against my policy to unilaterally multi-revert, so I wonder if somebody else could take a look. The issue involves a .com site that claims to be putting together a prize, and asks people to donate $1000 toward funding the prize with the reward of being placed on a waiting list for having one's mind uploaded. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Send $1000 to a sketchy website? Sounds like the object is mind "losing" rather than mind uploading. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the website? They are seeking funding from a group or individual to fund a US $1 Billion Dollar prize to anyone who can scientifically prove the concept of mind transfer! The $1000 is if someone wants to go onto the waiting list, with those funds going towards the furthering the cause. Two entirely separate things. What is it about the link that specifically irks you so? Is it because you believe it to be fraud? Or is it another reason? I would love to hear. What makes it sketchy? And again that's a libelous statement, need I remind you of the consequences?Medrate (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to avoid mentions of things like "libelous statement" since wikipedia has a strict policy of no legal threats. It's best to just keep the discussion to the point at hand, IE is the link appropriate to use in the article mentioned. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out the usage of language would be considered libelous, for that user to exercise caution and some decorum remembering the rules, just because Wikipedia writes it as a policy doesn't make it real, and cyberspace is no excuse for poor manners and is not without it's real world consequencesMedrate (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this link is pure promotion, without any particular value for the topic. If and when they give the money to someone who has perfected the process of mind uploading, than this site might be useful; as it is it's just using the wiki for advertising. delete it. --Ludwigs2 22:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

I am hesitant to ask this, knowing that many editors are Christians, and thus suspecting it's impossible to avoid cultural predispositions in this topic. BUt, I'll give a go anyway.

I added material to Historical Jesus describing skeptcism that there is a definite historical figure on which the Biblical Jesus is based. It was deleted on the grounds that skepticism of the historical existence of Jesus is a fringe theory. Here is what I added:

"Researchers do not agree on the existence of a historical Jesus. Professor Alvar Ellegård, argues that he is an “evangelisation” of a “teacher of righteousness” who lived circa 100 B.C.E.. [16] Professor George Albert Wells argues that the connection between the religious figure and an actual person is poorly supported by historical documents.[17]Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of Jesus: “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all"[18] The scholar Joseph Campbell compared the myth of Jesus to the myth of Osiris.[>http://books.google.com/books?id=CgfxLofK6o0C&pg=PT9&dq=jospeph+campbell+dionysus+jesus&hl=en&ei=z8tETN_HE4a-sQOuvdGKDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false] Authors Earl Doherty, Timothey Freke, and Peter Gandy similarly argue in their books that the evidence for a historical Jesus is weak.[ http://books.google.com/books?id=KD6wQQAACAAJ&dq=Earl+Doherty+jesus&hl=en&ei=BSFHTOa8K5T0swO69YjnAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AewAA] [19]"

Regardless of particular wording issues (e.g. mentioning that Russell won the Nobel Prize) is it fair to delete this on the grounds that it is a fringe theory? Most of the sources that have been given calling it a fringe theory are theological. Noloop (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I have a problem with using a google books search result as a citation for the views of an author. Have you actually read the books so you are sure you are correctly presenting the author's views (if so... just cite the book and the relevant pages). Second... the fact that a source is theological is not necessarily reason to discount it. Theologians are scholars too. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like google/books either, but it has become a norm, and is used in this article on both sides of the debate. Agreed, Christian theologians may be scholars, but they are obviously not neutral regarding the existence of Jesus. Keeping skepticism out of an article because of the opinions of theologians is problematic. Noloop (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be neutral... we do. Our job is to accurately tell our readers who says what about the topic whether we agree with them or not. So... if one bunch of scholars say Jesus was a historical figure we note this... and if another bunch say he was not a historical figure, we note that. We give each source due weight. Now... I would agree that in an article called "Historicity of Jesus" we should give more weight to what historians say and less weight to what theologians say. But that is not the same as ignoring what theologians say. And let us remember that someone who is a theologian can also have a reputation as a historian... When it comes to studying biblical times, you often have to be familiar with both fields (as one will give context to the other).

That said... there is a fairly strong consensus among historians that a man named Jesus did exist. What there is debate about is his life. Actually, the historicity debate can be grouped into four broad theories... 1) it all happened exactly as written in the bible... 2) things happened in a way that was similar but not exactly as described in the bible (ie that the bible recounts real events but freely adapts those events to fit religious needs)... 3) there was man named Jesus (or Joshua) who led a Jewish sect, but the events (or most of the events) of his life as recounted in the Bible are mythological in nature and not based on actual events... and 4) Jesus never existed in any way shape or form. The first three are discussed by mainstream scholars... the last is fringe. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've actually read Russell's collection of essays, and it's hardly surprising that they are rather sophomoric given that Russell's Nobel was in a completely unrelated field (not that there is any Nobel in a field that is germane). He was not a scholar of religion, and while he enjoyed a certain notoriety as a self-publicized skeptic, he has no expert standing. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the vast majority of scholars reject the Christ myth theory with contempt. It IS a fringe theory and that can easily be seen here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Campbell didn't doubt the historicity of Jesus, so the text Noloop wants to add is flawed. Blueboar's comment is sensible; I'd just like to add that most scholars who study the historicity of Jesus as historians usually hold positions in academic departments of religion, New Testament, Christianity, etc. A lot of Wikipedia editors will say that any scholar who specializes in the study of Christianity is a theologian; this is not so. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we need to be neutral, so the basis of our decisions needs to be neutral. So, it's a problem when editors cite non-neutral sources as the basis for an editorial decision, such as declaring something a fringe theory. Of course the Pope thinks it's a fringe theory and of course the fact of the opinion can go in an article. That's beside the point. We wouldn't decide its a fringe theory because the Pope says so. What are some neutral sources for the claim that doubting the historicity of Jesus is fringe? Noloop (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, you said, "What are some neutral sources for the claim that doubting the historicity of Jesus is fringe?" Here's your answer. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, when we are talking ab out neutrality, Bertrand Russell hardly counts, as he was a vocal atheist who apparently felt the need to defend this in print and likewise attack religion. I think there is no alternative to assessing the quality and character of the argument (or more WP:NORly, find others to do so) and largely ignoring the personal stake of the writers, since they all, in the end, have a stake in the answer. Mangoe (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, please do your homework. We have only been going over this for the past four years. You don't need to be a Christian to recognize the historicity of Jesus, any more than you need to be a Roman imperialist to recognize the historicity of Tiberius, or a Scientologist to recognize the historicity of Ron Hubbard. Seriously, you are not helping. See WP:ENC. If you cannot do your own research and pull your own weight, don't edit. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reset. Folks, the question is whether the non-existence of Jesus ("Christ myth theory") is a fringe theory. Does it belong in the same category as belief the Earth is flat, and that the moon landings and the Holocaust never happened, etc.? Fringe theories are not merely minority views: they are proven wrong. Wikipedia asserts as fact that the Holocaust happened, preceisely because the opposing view is pseudoscience. Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to state as fact that Jesus existed? Yes or No? Noloop (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. Can you please drop this nonesense. You're fresh off of your latest block and you're right back at it. How many more AN/I and various content noticeboard discussions do we have to endure this time around? I highly suggest a self-imposed break from this area of editing for a little while.Griswaldo (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite one peer-reviewed article in a secular academic journal that says so. Noloop (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only is he fresh off of his latest block, he's even made an arbitration request here. If anyone wants to, check out his opening statement. It's downright bizarre (e.g., he actually considers his behavior "righteous and pure"). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That says what? That Jesus existed? Conversely, has any of the Christ myth people published their theories in a said "peer reviewed... secular academic journal"? -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Crap. Nobody has to prove a negative. Can you cite a peer-reviewed article by a mainstream historian that says Jesus existed? Not a priest teaching at a religious university. A real historian.

There is no negative to prove. You are arguing that the questioning of Jesus' historicity is a very common occurrence, so it shouldn't be hard to cite "peer reviewed, secular" scholarship put forth such theories. That said, I found a citation for you, with 3 second of searching on JSTOR, but that was before you moved the goal posts. John P. Meier "The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians" Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 740-746. I guess you know more about Biblical scholarship and history than this journal. You must have superior editorial standards, because you know that priests are all deceitful, lying, cunning, untrustworthy folk who should never ever be published. Seriously, what matters more, the scholarship of the journal (peer review, non-religiously affiliated, etc), or the personal religious background of the scholar in question? Trying to discredit the reputation of such scholars is nothing but personal prejudice on your part, and it sickens me. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

John P. Meier is a priest, and the Journal of Biblical Literature self-describes as theological. The problem is that something probably isn't a fact if the only people who "know" it are Christians. What are some other alleged facts that you can only find in religious literature? The world was created in seven days. Dinosaur fossils aren't real. The Earth is the center of the universe.... If it's a fact, for Wikipedia's purposes, it should be easy to find non-Christians reliable sources for it. Noloop (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Does the journal in question assert that the world was created in seven days, dinosaur fossils aren't real or that the earth is the center of the universe? If not, do you have any reason to reject this peer-reviewed journal as WP:RS? Finally, what sources can you offer to support the claim that the Jesus myth hypothesis is commonly accepted outside of religious circles? Phiwum (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The very ironic aspect of this is that the article is arguing AGAINST the historicity of an event in the gospels. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view." It's a theological journal (by its own description) and the author is a priest. (And, nothing has been cited from it but the name.) As for proving that Christ myth theory is commonly accepted--irrelevant. I'm not trying to prove that Jesus didn't exist. The issue is whether skepticism is a fringe theory. So far, it's only been shown that it's a fringe theory within Christendom. Noloop (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What POV is being pushed by the journal? I'm not sure you know what "theological" means. I really really don't mean this in a bad way, but I can't think of another way to phrase it that isn't as harsh. Your comment sounds "ignorant". What sort of journal do you want your proposed mythical article to be published in? A mathematical journal? A medical journal? A biology journal? Could you name names of such journals in the field of NT biblical criticism or near east ancient history? -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already been over this with Noloop, and yes Andrew he has no clue what theology actually is. Anything that is associated with religion appears to be "theology" in Noloop's mind. People who study religion are theologians, and journals the publish on religion are "theological". there is no hope here, he just wont listen. I tried very hard on AN/I recently to get others interested in discussing sanctions that might help Noloop take a break from all this nonesense but no one would listen. Now we have to put up with it on every religion associated entry he wants to target as well as all the noticeboards ... take your pick AN/I, RS/N, NPOV/N, this one, etc. He might as well figure out how to make this a BLP issue so he can hit up that noticeboard as well. I'm beginning to think that since admins don't consider this disruptive enough to discuss topic bans, mentorship or other similar sanctions the best thing to do is to ignore him at this point.Griswaldo (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of discussion that makes me proud of WP: it is thoughtfull, well-informed, and reasonable. But Noloop is continuing to push his campaign not only at the Jesus article page but other noticeboards. Frankly I think the response to Noloop here is so well-informed and reasonable, there is no need or any further discussion. But I am starting to wonder whether there is call for a topic-ban. Noloop's use of talk pages is now reaching the point where it is abusive, disruptive ... he not only refuses to do the research that would enabl him to use talk pages to help improve the article, he actively assumes bad faith on the part of anyone who disagrees ith him, in that he ignores all substantive and serious responses to his questions. He seems utterly incapable of improving these articles, so his comments are only disruptive. In other words, in response to Griswaldo, I AM proposing a topic ban, now.Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in just as much support of your proposal as I was of my own on AN/I. The first time I suggested it there was a bit of traction but the discussion got derailed. Then on the second try to get back to the topic ban idea it was dismissed by pretty much every admin commenting. I warned, at the time, of exactly what is happening now (not because I'm Nostradamus, but because it was already happening then).Griswaldo (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

People involved in discussions with Noloop should read this proposal at AN/I. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not been involved with this article, but my response to this would probably be much the same as here [20], if I had time to wade through this discussion and corresponding article. - MishMich - Talk - 22:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

An interesting tidbit I found when trying to substantiate whether or not the "jesus is a myth" theory is fringe. It might be helpful to those seeking more input. Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We had a long talk over on Talk:Christ_myth_theory regarding the bede org website and it was ruled as being unusable because it is a self published website with unknown credentials. As far as Christopher Price (the author of the above piece) goes him himself has stated "My formal training in historical studies is limited to a minor in that subject from the University of Houston. Hence my onscreen name of "Layman."". There are also a serious problem with the Micheal Grant quote in the article.

I presented the full Micheal Grant quote in as much context as made sense in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_39#Grant and it was decided that it wasn't really clear what he was arguing. Here is the actual paragraph the "This skeptical way of thinking" sentence belongs to:

"This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth. In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence. Subsequently, from the eighteenth century onwards, there have been attempts to insist that Jesus did not even "seem" to exist, and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction. In particular, his story was compared to the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods."

As you can seen when put back into its context the "Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth" idea is connected to docetism which goes all the way back to the earliest days of Christianity but the meaning Grant is actually driving for is at best confusing. It certainly puts a very different spin on what Micheal Grant is saying.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I will also add that while the Christ Myth theory is clearly fringe just what it exactly is is a total train wreck. The sources give vague or conflicting definitions that don't seem to fit together.

• Jesus was an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christan community
• Jesus started out as a myth with historical trappings added later (Walsh) including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" (one possible reading of Dodd, C. H. (1938) History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17)
• Jesus was historical but lived c100 BCE (Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65)
• The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character and therefore non historical by definition.(Price, Robert M. (2000) Deconstructing Jesus Prometheus Books, pg 85)
• There is not enough to show Jesus existed (Jesus Agnosticism)(Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend. Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)
• The Gospel Jesus didn't exist (Doherty)

Lists of who is a Christ Myth theorist are similarly messed up.

Comment. Sorry, this doesn't work. Look at Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism, 3 vols. to see how 'messed up' and contradictory, conflictual are the various historical accounts of Marx and Marxism. Look at Harnack to observe how variegated are the ways in which both Christ and his ostensible doctrines have been presented. Look at any contemporary survey of Christianity, and note how many mutually conflicting portraits of Christ, and of doctrine exist, many diametrically oppposed. There is the revolutionary Christ, the pacific Christ, Christ the Jew, Christ the Hellenizing dissident, Christ the ante litteram praeternatural 'Christian' Christ the provincial healer, or wonder-worker, Christ the cynic, Christ the fundamentalist Jewish messianic prophet, etc. It's rather cheap to call what is a nuancing of positions proof that there is a doctrinal 'mess', and shows a rather striking lack of awareness of what goes on in any system of ideas through history, geographical spread and dogmatic/hermeneutic variation. In this sense, Christianity, like most abstract labels, is a nigh infinite set of ghost categories. Where the outsider sees a unitary name, the insider sees a proliferation of distinct cults and creeds, much as is the case with other historic religions. Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a prime example why things are a mess: "But the sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte leads (sic. 'lends'?) colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." (Wood, Herbert George (1934) MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.]: The University Press pg 40) But then on page 54 of the exact same book we get this: "No form of the Christ-myth theory can survive this test. As Dr Schweitzer observes, 'It is no hard matter to assert that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, infallibly works round to produce the opposite conclusion.' This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence." which just confused the blazes out of the reader.

If you are talking about two related but separate ideas why have that "and indeed" there rather than "as well as"?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Because in this context "and indeed" and "as well as" don't have much difference in meaning. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in this context "and indeed" (should have been "and indeed to all") and "as well as" make a big difference especially when you are dealing with a restrictive clause (no comma). Using "and" as an idea contraster means that "but" can be use as well; doing so in the above makes an awkward sentence as the sentence already starts with a "but". Furthermore if these are two separate ideas why is that "all" there?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Marathi

An user "would like to include in Marathi (lead), Maharashtra and Pune":

“ Standard Marathi is defined as the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune." Standard Marathi is the official language of Maharashtra. ”

The dispute is on at Talk:Maharashtra#Marathi_statement_dispute, whether the quoted is a fringe theory. Please comment on Talk:Maharshtra. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Redtigerxyz is propounding a fringe theory without providing any sources that somehow long standing governmental policies were reversed to change the direction of development of a standard Marathi language in the state of Maharashtra in India. Here's a summary of the dispute:

1. I would like to include the statement "Standard Marathi is defined as the language that is spoken by the Deshastha Brahmins of Pune." in three articles stated above.
2. It is a non-controversial topic
3. I have provided independent sources per WP:Sources that support the statement emphatically.
4. Chronology of the dispute in brief:
   1. Content was removed by User:SpacemanSpiff claiming that the word "Deshastha", let alone the statement existed in the source. I proved this was untrue by providing the statement and urging users to look more carefully at the citation and page numbers I had provided.
   2. User:SpacemanSpiff brought in User:Deepak D'Souza and User:Redtigerxyz
   3. User:Deepak D'Souza claimed that this was WP:ONESOURCE - I provided another independent source.
   4. WP:SYN was alleged regarding the juxtaposing the above statement with another one. I have agreed it is WP:SYN and the dispute is now only limited to the above statement at this time.
   5. User:Redtigerxyz claims that the above statement is fringe despite independent, long standing, best in class sources confirm it.
      1. At first User:Redtigerxyz attacked the first source claiming the author wasn't reliable. I argued that actually the author was best-in-class and I have provided the reasons for that in a table here.[21] User:Redtigerxyz refuses to fill out another relevant table [22] that I developed hoping it will help participants arrive at a consensus.
      2. User:Redtigerxyz then attacked the other independent source saying "Some 1831 dictionary using a particular dialect as its standard does not make that dialect is an universally-accepted standard." I have since provided a third source which says "The dictionary of Molesworth which is the work of a group of local scholars is the best available dictionary of any modern Indo-Aryan language. The 1831 Candy, et al work was very comprehensive and till now remains authoritative." This dictionary has been in reprints since 1831, the last known one being in 2005.
      3. User:Redtigerxyz is now hinting that the pre-independence British government had an agenda. But the sources I have provided include a post-Independence Indian source as well.

My claim is that it is User:Redtigerxyz who is propounding a fringe theory by suggesting some invisible hand came in to play that changed the direction of development of Standard Marathi, that suddenly sometime between 1831 and present day, the dialect of another caste was chosen for development as a standard. He has not provided a single source that shows a reversal in governmental policy or attempts by other linguistic organizations to divert from this direction.

The dispute is at Talk:Maharashtra#Fringe_theory_for_Maharashtra.2C_Marathi_and_Pune and Talk:Maharashtra#Standard_Marathi_dialect_dispute Zuggernaut (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry, this is not a "fringe theory", it's just a generic content dispute. wrong noticeboard. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Kecksburg UFO incident

I just removed a fair bit of material from the "scientific articles" section of this article that was purportedly being supported by a self published website. Could I have some extra eyes take a look at this article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of this article includes an account of a reported meteor fall occurring that day purportedly shedding "hot metal debris over Michigan and northern Ohio starting some grass fires and [causing] sonic booms in Western Pennsylvania". I can easily believe that there was a bright naturally occurring meteor observed over the areas that are being described that afternoon that precipitated a "sonic boom"; although I'm having a difficult time believing any grass fires were caused by "hot metal" being shed from it. What I'm having the most difficulty with, is asking the reader to correlate this meteor sighting with what's being contended happened on the ground near Kecksburg; it seems to me to be pure "original research" connecting the two together. What do other editors think about this? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's disturbing that an entertainment program hosted by Bryant Gumble on SyFy Channel is given credibility as a "scientific study" in this WP article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, when I started looking at this article, I was struck by what appears to me, to be its obviously unbalanced and agenda driven perspective on the purported "event". It was in anticipation of a 'firestorm' response to me alone attempting to make the kind of large scale changes necessary to achieving some form of neutrality in this material that I posted here. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

SyFy programming being positioned as "research" is a widespread problem. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool may be a target for meatpuppets

James Edwards, the host of The Political Cesspool (an antisemitic white nationalist radio program), has just posted a blog entry [23] in which he accuses me of being a "Zionist" and encourages his own listeners to edit the article to insert their own POV. I think The Political Cesspool (which is a featured article) could use a few extra watchers to keep any such meatpuppetry in check. I've also posted this to the ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question and WP:ONEWAY

Although I suspect topic fatigue has set in for many editors, it would be much appreciated if some would weigh in on this discussion about whether inserting the Shakespeare authorship question into Shakespeare's plays is a violation of WP:ONEWAY. The discussion preceding the current one has more information. Same actors, same topic, same arguments, but it would be nice to get this settled so we don't have to go through this on every article. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY is part of the WP:FRINGE guideline. I'm not sure I'd base any arguments on a guideline, since editors seem to disregard them with wild abandon. The question is really whether it's appropriate (and useful for readers) to spam nonsense about the authorship "controversy" on every Shakespeare-related article. The answer is "no." --Akhilleus (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is really whether it's appropriate (and useful for readers) to mention the existence of the long-standing authorship controversy, briefly and neutrally, in at least some Shakespeare-related articles, such as Shakespeare's plays. The answer is "yes." SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is really whether it's appropriate (and useful for readers) to mention the existence of the long-standing authorship controversy, briefly and neutrally, in at least some Shakespeare-related articles, such as Shakespeare's plays. The answer is "no." Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My mileage varied. There may be a legitimate question to be asked as to how the fringe theories are to be linked to, but no more than that. The answer is, I think, "very carefully", so as not to suggest that they are anything other than lunatic fringery. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

This article failed GA for being very pov. One of its main editors has been giving it a Creationist slant. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Creationist cryptozoology? the mind boggles... --Ludwigs2 02:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Having just read through the article, I can see why it failed GA status - clunky writing and bad structure. I don't see the bias that you are asserting. There are a few places, yes, where editors are trying to wheedle in some pro-CZ advocacy, but as a whole the article seems to be a fairly neutral description of the topic. I also don't see the creationist slant at all - where are you finding that?

remember, this is an article about CZ; we don't need to be as strict with it as we would if this were an article about mainstream zoology. a bit of rewriting should remove what POV problems are currently there - I may undertake that in a day or so. --Ludwigs2 02:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory and fringe

The Jesus Myth Theory is rejected by the vast majority of scholars, who treat it with disdain, as many sources, both secular and religious indicate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ#FAQ_Question_.232

And yet, the lead section only mentions it as being rejected by "most scholars", a clear mis-representation of the extent the theory is rejected.

Any edits I make which adds the viewpoint that CMT is rejected by historians gets reverted and labelled as POV pushing.

[24] [25] Flash 00:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Dawkins promoting it? I thought it went out around 1920 or so, once Biblical scholarship started becoming a reputable discipline of its own. I always read it as being a reaction to using the Bible as an arbitrator of history.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rejected". More like "unproven and unlikely". But most scholars seem to think it's a possibility, even if not a very great one. — kwami (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

<sigh...> the problem on that article (which I made a short attempt to work through a while back) is that there is ambiguity about what the article covers and a number of agenda-driven editors involved. the actual Jesus Myth theory (e.g., that the story of Jesus is a completely fabricated mythology) was a short-lived scholarly theory which probably wasn't fringe in its heyday but might be considered so if there are modern adherents still advocating for it. The various corollary theories (e.g. that there was an actual historical figure in the correct time frame who was extensively embellished by Roman mythology, or that there was an earlier historical figure or figures who was/were picked up and blended into a sort of historical 'meme') certainly are not fringe, or rejected, or even outdated, but are variously interpreted by editors as or as not pertinent depending on whether they are trying to solidify the Jesus Myth theory for anti-religious purposes or refute it for pro-religious purposes. It leads to disheartening conversations. 'Most scholars' seems like a reasonable compromise in the absence of reasonable discussion: JMT narrowly conceived is broadly rejected, but JMT broadly conceived is not an uncommon scholarly viewpoint. --Ludwigs2 02:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Ludwigs2's summary is quite accurate. For more background, see any of the previous appearances of this article on this board: see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Christ_myth_theory for a list.

Anyway, there is a proposal at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Merger--Christ_Myth_Theory_and_Historicity_of_Jesus to merge Christ myth theory into a larger article called Existence of Jesus or somesuch—people may be interested in commenting. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize how many times this has been brought up at this noticeboard? By now, absolutely everyone with the slightest interest in the matter can just watch the article talkpage, no? This discussion is so WP:LAME by now it boggles the mind. Sorry for ranting. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

lol - dab, if that's what you consider a rant, you must be half-Vulcan. Or else you need some serious lessons in effective venting... but you're right (which is why I prefaced my own response with a deep sigh). some people seriously need the wikipedia redpill, because they are far too absorbed in the reality of their own nonsense. --Ludwigs2 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Help!

People pushing positive promotion of the climate denialist blog Watts Up With That? are demanding that a positive review by Virginia Heffernan be included in the lead even though there is a verifiable regret she expressed about it. Please help at Talk:Watts Up With That?#Virginia Heffernan. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that ScienceApologist has been edit-warring to include unsourced contentious material about a living person. Since ScienceApologist won't tell us the source for his edit, I believe it is this,[26] a comment to a blog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Having read the material in question: while she is not absolutely clear about a rejection of her original endorsement, it's clear that her present opinion doesn't match her first (and exceedingly brief) statement. I personally see no way to treat the material without creating a potentially false impression. Better just to drop the whole thing. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot

Also needs some attention. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Man, stop paying attention for a few months and the article becomes a pro-Bigfoot wankfest. I fixed most of the issues now. DreamGuy (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nubia

It appears the Afrocentrists grew tired of Egypt for the time being and now concentrate on Nubia as the improved "homeland of black civilization" (better than Egypt!). In any case I just did some emergency cleanup of Nubia, Nubian people and related articles, but much, much more work is needed. See also Thesunshinesate (talk · contribs), Chancellor Williams. Ah, and here is another eyesore, in case somebody feels like wasting a Sunday on a boring race essay. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement analysis

I'd appreciate it if others could watchlist this article and keep an eye on it. It's an obscure technique that tries to tell if someone is lying or not by examining specific words chosen and reading into them very specific meanings. DreamGuy (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Heads up about this entry at the COI noticeboard.[27] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads down. Oclupak (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein questionable material

At Ludwig Wittgenstein, there is one editor who is furiously edit-warring to re-introduce material that was earlier removed by consensus of editors.

The material centers around speculation that because Adolf Hitler and Wittgenstein briefly attended the same school, they knew each other well and had a profound influence on each other lasting their entire adult lives. The thesis was put forward in a book by fringe author Kimberley Cornish, who has been associated with holocaust denier David Irving. According to critics, the book is garbage (negative reviews outnumber positive reviews by about 10-to-1; see Wikipedia article The Jew of Linz).

Kimberley Cornish for a number of years tried very hard to accord his crackpot theory a prominent place in the Ludwig Wittgenstein article by making many edits, as an IP and as User:Kimberley Cornish. This included inserting a cropped 1901 classroom photograph, in which he labeled Adolf Hitler with his name and another, unknown, boy as "Ludwig Wittgenstein". Finally editors at Ludwig Wittgenstein got so fed up with Cornish and his antics that they basically kicked him out, setting up the The Jew of Linz article so that Cornish could promote his book to his heart's delight. Which he promptly did. It wasn't until much later that other editors stepped in and cleaned up that article as well.

In the course of his self-promotion, Cornish repeated all number of unverified claims from his books, for example that a forensic examiner in Australia looked at the picture and identified Wittgenstein as "highly probable" in the picture. Regardless of whether or not an examiner did so (probably not, since Cornish is known for playing fast and loose with the truth and making things up out of whole cloth, as noted by many of his critics), we know this is impossible because the picture dates from 1901 and Wittgenstein did not attend that school until the 1903/1904 school year.

SlimVirgin pretends to be on the safe side by captioning the picture as "there is no consensus" that Wittgenstein appears in the picture. It would be more accurate to say that "there is no evidence", but then the picture could not be in the article at all!

The foremost biographer of Adolf Hitler's youth is Brigitte Hamann, and she is on record numerous times saying that Wittgenstein and Hitler, being two grades apart and moving in different circles, had "nothing at all to do with each other". Source Further, Hamann explicitly says that "the picture was not taken in 1903 and the child close to Hitler isn't Wittgenstein. The picture is older. It was taken at a time when Ludwig was a pupil in Vienna and not in Linz." Source

By SV's logic, the Dinosaurs article must include a photograph of fossilized impressions that "show" a human footprint next to a dinosaur footprint. After all, it is sourced to Young Earth Creationist literature. To be safe, a disclaimer stating that "there is no consensus" can be included!

Cornish's book is gradually subsiding into well-deserved obscurity. His publishers are not reprinting the book. Google search hits are relegating the supposed Hitler-Wittgenstein nexus to back pages as more and more time passes. Resurrecting the notions of a crackpot writer within the WP article on Wittgenstein would reverse that trend, a bad idea. It would also run counter to WP:WEIGHT, which says that tiny-minority views are not to be included in WP articles.--82.113.106.29 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This anon arrived at the article, reverted several times with insults, posted abuse on talk (e.g. [28]), and while he was doing this a new account was created that tried to out me, and called me a lying cunt in an edit summary on the same article (now oversighted). [29]

The anon has confused several different issues, and has been told this already. Here is the material he's objecting to. It's reliably sourced and debated; see the Notes section. That's all I'm going to say about it, because I've had enough of trying to deal with this person. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading that section (out of context of the article, which I haven't looked at in a while), it seems a bit over-weighted. The only clear element is that Hitler and Wittgenstein attended the same school for a time - the rest is (properly sourced) speculation that (a) they knew (or at least knew of) each other, and (b) that they had an influence on each other from that childhood experience. That smacks a bit of vague historical revisionism - there's really no evidence that Hitler of Wittgenstein gave any serious thought to each other as adults. would you have any objection to my trimming it back a bit?

Also, is that picture really from 2 years before W attended the school? If so, then it really ought to be removed as a specious addition.

Has anyone taken the time to properly warn that IP for unpleasant behavior? --Ludwigs2 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel

Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) is on the prowl again, pushing his strange fundamentalist fantasies about ancient Ethiopia and the Bible. See user contributions. His recent contributions seem to be close to 100% reverts, plus the occasional rants about "hateful distortions" on talkpages.

I know this is also a repetitive call for attention, but as long as we do not finally honour this one with a dedicated "Til Eulenspiegel" (or more conventionally, apply user sanctions), this is probably the best place to bring it up. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Dab's problem is today, but he chose to wade into two articles overnight and turn them upside down into total POV pieces, and accuses me of being the disruptive one. Almost nobody in Ethiopia thinks the name of their country comes from Greek for "burnt face" as was first proposed by a European scholar in 1843. There are a number of alternative and referenced theories about where their name comes from that are more popular in Ethiopia. The question here is, do Ethiopian views about themselves count for anything, or must they accept what is being handed to them by European scholars. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd asked the people of Victorian Manchester how the name of their town originated, they'd almost all have said it came from the manly chests of early Saxon citizens who repulsed Viking invaders. That was the standard folk etymology of the name. But we don't say that's the etymology in the Manchester article. So, no, we don't care what non experts say, wherever they come from. Being from a place does not automatically give some special insight into ancient etymology, especially the etymology of a language wholly unrelated to your own. Only the consensus of experts matters. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And Ethiopians couldn't possibly be experts on their own history, nor are their views about themselves significant, or even worthy of mention. Because everyone knows experts come from Europe, and only they count. I see, il Duce. Don't bother getting me sanctioned, I will not be back on English wikipedia for quite some time, because what it is becoming these days speaks for itself. If you need me, I will be active on Amharic encyclopedia and on the Afrophone wikis mailing list. See ya. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Manchester, in case you haven't noticed, is in Europe. My point is that being European, Ethiopian or Chinese is irrelevant. Being an accredited expert is, whatever ones race or nationality. Your argument seems to be that Ethiopians don't like the etymology, so it can't be true. Well, the Welsh don't particularly like the etymology of "Welsh", but they don't deny it. Paul B (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note - all this was discussed back in 2006 with Til under his previous username. See the archive sections 24, 26 and 27. Til (aka Codex) just dismissed all other editors Talk:Ethiopia/Archive_1#etymology. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully support dab's filing. The user is again on the warpath to promote his fringe POV with recourse to the usual doses of wikilawyering to game the system. Perhaps AN/I for a block solicitation would be salutary. Eusebeus (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

re etymology, I submit that the claim that an 8th century BC Greek name (Homer) is based on a 15th century Ge'ez name is not so much a "pov" as patent nonsense. It's not worth anyone's time to discuss this failing excellent quality academic support. --dab (𒁳) 18:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• This should be done at a User RfC. If Til continues on his campaign, then escalate to a WP:AN report. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

Has just had a big OR dump to someone who usually just uses talk pages to go on and on with OR. I'd like a sanity check though. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina

• Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this article should be named Hurrican Katrina fringe theories because that's what it contains. One editor, User:BD2412, has reverted my page move citing a discussion from 2005 as evidence that the page cannot be moved to a more appropriate title.[30] Can we generate a consensus here on what the proper title should be? I think five years is a very long time, and that discussion had only a handful of editors. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One question, are any other fringe theories called such in articel titles?Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have worked on 9/11 conspiracy theories and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. We often use "conspiracy theory" in titles. This Katrina "stuff" is not entirely about conspiracies. I recommended "fringe theories" as a broader term that includes conspiracy theories and other fringe ideas, but I am open to a different, yet accurate, title. The term "Alternative" is bad because it exaggerates the weight of these theories. Do we have any other articles that start with "Alternative theories regarding"? If we do, they ought to be changed as well. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be a no then. In that case calling it Hurrican Katrina fringe theories would be wrong. Perhaps "non meterological thoeries" might be better.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The theory that the government dynamited the levees is an a historical conspiracy theory, having nothing to do with meteorology. The idea of diving retribution is non meteorological. While it has some utility, I think your proposal does not encompass everything in the article. Perhaps the article needs to be broken up into pieces so each can be named accurately. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you remove the one paragraph section on what Louis Farrakhan said about the intentional destruction of the levies, the rest of the article focuses entirely on religious claims (that Katrina was God's punishment for our sins, etc). I would therefore suggest that the levy paragraph does not belong. We should remove it and rename the article to Religious claims regarding Hurricane Katrina. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that the article had previously contained a section regarding arguments connecting global warming to Hurricane Katrina, which Jehochman moved out at the same time that he renamed the article. The result of this trend will be that we have a series of stubby articles that will never grow, each covering a set of unconventional ideas expressed about the causation of this particular storm. bd2412 T 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to what? One large article with sub-sections that will never grow... one that combines unconnected sets of unconventional ideas about the causation of the storm? I think it is better to have several small articles that focus on specific subjects than one large article that attempts to combine unrelated subjects (and thus is not at all clear as to what the article topic actually is). Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How about unconventional theories regarding Hurricane Katrina.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Unconventional" is a euphamism for "crackpot" or "crank". I am not sure whether any of those are properly neutral. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The subjects are not "unconnected"; they are connected in that they are "unconventional ideas expressed about the causation of this particular storm". Some people view global warming as a fringe theory and divine punishment as a reasonable theory of causation; some people view things exactly the other way around. bd2412 T 18:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that that the concept of natural disasters being "Divine punishment for the sins of the world" is not all that unconventional in religious circles. It is a concept that has a long history. (Hmmm... Do we have an article that covers this concept? If so, perhaps the religious claims about Katrina should be merged into that article.) Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Divine punishment. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks J... Divine punishment definitely needs a lot of work, but I could see a section (or sub-article) to discuss "Natural Disasters as Divine punishment" (as a suggested title for either a section or a sub-article). The section or sub-article could discuss how religious leaders through history have claimed that various plagues, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. are a form of divine punishment for what they see as man's wickedness. That would place the claims about Katrina being Divine punishment in their proper context... as part of a long tradition in western religion. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good idea. There was nothing particularly unique about Katrina; the same sorts of claims have been made about past hurricanes. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Katrina was unique in its scope and the relative attention paid to it. Everything about Katrina, including the volume of discussion regarding the effects of God, government, and global warming, was sharply magnified relative to storms before and since. bd2412 T 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

About 100 years ago there was a storm that killed something like 6000 people in Texas. I am sure there was a lot of focus on that event during the following years. The 1938 storm that hit New England is legendary around here. Katrina appears more significant because of recentism, and because all the conversations happened online where they are easily accessible. Plenty of information can be found about older storms, but that info is in newspaper archives and books out of print. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's still three storms out of thousands that have hit the U.S. in that timespan. I doubt there were many theories put forth about the earlier storms regarding sabotaged levies, global warming, or weather control technology. bd2412 T 21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious theories regarding hurricane katrina I think is the best name based on its content.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. We would have to remove the part about dynamiting levees, and put that into a separate article, Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• How about renaming to Religious claims about Hurricane Katrina, with a link to divine punishment, and we move any other bits out to their own article(s) or another appropriate article? Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedant mode on - I wish people wouldn't use 'theories' this way. I prefer 'claims'. And admit 'conspiracy hypotheses' won't fly. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with claims being used instead of theories.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is also a Divine retribution article, which may need to be merged into Divine judgment (to which Divine punishment redirects). bd2412 T 18:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to clean up, reorganize and review all these articles. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I boldy spun out the two sections to the separate articles. Note the WP:SYNTH problems with just collecting all fringe theories of a topic into one article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Censoring my own thoughts on this topic, regardless of whether this garbagetopic should even be on Wikipedia, the title "Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina" is most assuredly not appropriate.   Thorncrag  00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to alternative title suggestions, obviously. The article is about people who have attributed the destruction associated with Hurricane Katrina to supernatural forces. This is a reasonable topic. I don't think any of the above titles are very good. I don't think "religious theories" is correct nor are "religious claims". These are supernatural attributions. There's also a few sources who have attributed Katrina to the devil and sources which connect the two. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Thoncrag.... while Supernatural attributions of Hurricane Katrina may be a correct title when taken in a literal sense, it reads as if someone was claiming that Katrina was the result of a "build up of undischarged spiritual ectoplasm" or some other pseudo-scientific clap trap (When a hurricane nears... Who ya gonna call?... Ghost Busters!). These claims mentioned in the article explicitly religious in nature... I see no reason not to say so in the title. Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the claims are "religious" in nature. A "religious" claim is one of dogma. These are merely attributions to divine powers. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem in my opinion is that the title is open to interpretation. I submit that most readers will presume that the article encyclopedically links events of the disaster or the hurricane itself to divine intervention, when those are just fringe claims. And by the way, weren't most of those claims basically excited utterances which have been largely retracted? Thus, isn't a lot of this content giving undue weight, etc? Just asking, not implying.   Thorncrag  04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

All claims of divine intervention in modern times are properly fringe claims by definition. Thus, we don't need to hedge the title per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate framing. I'm not sure that any of these claims were retracted, but if they were that's definitely something we should note lest we violate WP:BLP. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

errr... Reading this discussion, it seems as though we somehow made the implicit assertion that we can lump together a whole bunch of non-notable things to create a notable topic. this strikes me as a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (or maybe WP:NOTCATALOG is more on point). I might support listifying this - i.e. list of alternate hurricane Katrina disaster explanations - but otherwise I think the article should be deleted and the useful bits farmed out to sections of other (actually notable) articles. --Ludwigs2 02:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs... I would hardly call Pat Robertson and Louis Farrakhan non-notable... when they make claims like this, it makes national news... and thousands of followers believe it. We may not agree with their religious take on what causes natural phenomenon... but their POV is notable enough that we do need to note it.

Perhaps the title should be very explicit... Divine retribution claims concerning Hurricane Katrina This title would tie the article directly to the Divine retribution article... and indicate that we are discussing the event from a purely religious POV, and not a scientific POV. Blueboar (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Ludwigs may be on to something in a sense. However, there are secondary sources listed at that article which do analyze the similarities between these claims. Rather like the Lisbon earthquake, I think this particular natural disaster got people who believe in divine action in the world thinking that there was some action of the supernatural (whether it be wrath or evil or what have you) at work. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

well, there are two problems here. Pat Robertson and Louis Farrakhan are prominent figures with reasonable numbers of followers, yes, and I suppose if we wanted to do an article on 'claims of Katrina as divine retribution' we could discuss whether that particular claim is notable. I'd think in that case, we'd need to demonstrate that the 'Katrina as retribution' theme was more than just passing commentary - one or the other of them would have had to be pursuing it in a serious way for a reasonable period of time (If, for instance, this was one of those week-long, flash-in-the-pan, media memes that pop up every now and then, then it may not be notable). Assuming it is notable, though, there is a distinct problem with throwing in other outré Katrina theories, since once you start adding theories together that way, the article stops looking like a societal event (Robertson and Farrakhan making religious claims about Katrina) and starts looking more like a serious collection of alternate theories. If the only thing these things have in common is that they present alternate explanations of the Katrina disaster, then the article is about alternate theories of the Katrina disaster, which is pure Fringe.

In other words, if this is an article about Robertson's and Farrakhan's extreme religious views on Katrina, I can almost see that as a valid, notable topic. but if this is an article expounding on non-meteoralogical explanations of why Katrina was such a disaster, then we might as well open the door all the way and let people who want to claim that the flooding was caused by UFOs or Bigfoot have their say as well. --Ludwigs2 05:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Robertson's Divine Retribution view is just a standard religious explanation for disasters. It's not an 'alternative' account, since it does not deny the physical mechanisms that caused the storm. It adds an (unfalsifiable) moral explanation. Farrakahan's was putting forward a conspiracy theory, which is something completely different. Both positions can be briefly mentioned in the main article. Paul B (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm on board with you, Ludwigs. That's why I split the article up. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The "main article" is already 126k without any of this stuff in it. I'd like to point out here, as I have in the deletion discussion, that the reason this article was created in the first place was that people with agendas kept trying to jam all of these various claims into the main Hurricane Katrina article, which was leading to substantial disconcertment. I and a few other editors made a serious effort to put these various theories somewhere where they could be documented, well-sourced, and framed in a neutral tone, without adding to the existing bloat of the main article. I started this at about the same time as I started Social effects of Hurricane Katrina and Political effects of Hurricane Katrina, all of which were efforts to create an orderly division of materials amenable to separate coverage. In short, this was not an instance of 'I love cruft, so let's make an article out of it', but of 'other people who love cruft keep sticking these moderately notable contentions where there's no space for them, so let's make an individual article out of it'. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting up the old Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina article was definitely the correct action. We seem to have solid agreement on that. What we don't seem to have agreement on is the title and scope of one of the resulting articles. I see the new article as logically being a sub-article of Divine retribution... and as such, I think it is purely about a religious view... I don't think it is about non-meteorological theories of why hurricanes occur. This is why I am uneasy with the term "Supernatural". Using that word frames the article in scientific terms, when the topic is non-scientific.

That said, perhaps the flaw is in having a stand alone article focused purely on Katrina... As I said before, claiming "God's wrath" for all calamities is a time-honored tradition in the religious world. I propose that we merge SA's "Supernatural" article into Divine retribution, which would place the claims by Robertson, Farrakhan and others in a proper context. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I fear that such a merge would make Hurricane Katrina take up too much real estate in Divine retribution. However, I will concede that it offers a nice case study of how prominent figures of all different faiths can point to a single disaster as caused by deviations from their very different tenets. bd2412 T 14:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging does not mean a simple cut, paste and forget... the material would have to be reworked (summarized) to fit the target article. My point is that the material best belongs in the Divine retribution article, as modern examples of the concept. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Principle

Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Notability_by_collection

I thought that this was self-evident, but obviously not as I look through Wikipedia and start seeing these things popping up.

E.g. Alternative theories of Al-Qaeda.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Kuzari Principle

A mess of original research. Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And looking at it more, it's based on someone's self-published work. Thus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuzari Principle. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oera Linda

IP adding personal opinions in fractured English to this article. I've reverted him once and he immediately replaced it. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Not immediately but after reeding your elaboration.

1. Someone who cant distinguish adding ref form removing should be thigh from fringing this project. Actually Dougweller obscured for unknown reasons or whatever his agency reasons the article removing few refs. Well could you dough what you consider OR so more refs may be added? Is anything new added to this article at all beside ful names, dates one ISBN and few wikilinks to existing articles? Please elaborate what overflow to your OR.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk • contribs)

priceless :) --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

lets spell me *thank* you , well you may have here accents.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk • contribs)

I couldn't agree more. Paul B (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the reason the IP wants me 'thigh from fringing', mentioning my 'agency reasons', has to do with this edit [31] where I'd removed some talk an editor with an account had added, and the IP started a talk page writing "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Alliance_of_Jews_and_Christians&action=historysubmit&diff=383969370&oldid=382759644 don't you agree it is active force to influence elections and status of "non for profit' should be rejected?". Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. all I can say is that the IP's bad grammar is extreme, and doesn't correspond to any particular ESL issue that I've seen before (it seems to be a mix of pre-schooler verb-agreement errors, non-systematic spelling errors, and hacker-speak). That leads me to believe it's intentionally badly done, rather than a language limitation. You might ask a sysop to look into it for disruptive editing. --Ludwigs2 16:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been wondering about the contrast between these recent edits and his other edits at Cro Magnon - either different people are... Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... perhaps what we're seeing here is the written form of a Cro Magnon accent. Maybe those GEICO Cavemen commercials were true. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

P.s. "Wikipedia - so easy a caveman could do it." copyright infringement? --Ludwigs2 18:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it seems clear to me that automatic spelling correction is involved. Many words are replaced by other words that have a similar spelling. Hans Adler 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

for a moment there I thought ESL was for extra-sensory linguistics. --dab (𒁳) 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Real thanks for retouching inquiry on: Wikimedia status under 501c3 . Do you admit/agree to obstacles with goals?

1. Electioneering communications, which depict(describe) a federal candidate...Finally, groups that do not plan on conducting substantial lobbying and electioneering activity may register as a 501(c)(3) charity...nonprofits (except 501(c)(3)s) may also conduct substantial electioneering activities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk • contribs)

Does anyone know what the above means? Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Methinks that the IP is trying to say that the foundation's 501 (c) (3) status is in jeopardy (for some presumed violation of NPOV or such). —SpacemanSpiff 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And also by organized lobbing and fulfilling extra-agency goals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk • contribs)

We can take that as a legal threat by you? —SpacemanSpiff 20:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No is not a "legal threat" by me, I'm not threatening you. How you can ever put semantic association of words legal + threat? In law abiding societies law never should be associated with the word = threat. Rather force. Do you plan use of force to threat me?99.90.197.244 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. To think we managed to hang on to 501(c)(3) status over eight years of epic edit wars at George W. Bush only to lose it over an obscure point of Frisian crypto-Nazism. Bummer. --dab(𒁳) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the IP if they plan to take legal action. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Another word 'threat'. What prompts you to ask for my private plans ?

well, 99.90, it's good to see that you can speak proper English. I can also see that you're a bit miffed about something. trust me, I have learned from experience that acting out on miffedness isn't worth the effort on Wikipedia. best to just state your piece and drop the issue. --Ludwigs2 00:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

except, of course, if you want to brighten people's day with a little drollness. But I think we have exhausted the potential of this one now, so let's move on. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you resort to force and block Oera Linda ?

Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement

There is a dispute going on about this article, concerning my extensive rewrite (diff)[32]. Please see this thread[33] and the article talk page. BillMasen (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Smurl haunting

Supposedly the basis for a TV movie and a book about an alleged haunting (but we have articles on neither). Lavish sexual assault, demonic possession, and drug OD death claims, but not-so-lavish sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Metaphysical stuff being related to Faith Healing

Unresolved

Could someone look at Adrian-from-london (talk · contribs) recent entries to articles such Energy medicine, Energy (esotericism). He came on my radar making edits to Faith healing. I am unable to evaluate this metaphysical stuff he has been adding. BB7 (talk) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Seems to be blowing up again. I don't understand the issue yet but have asked parties to summarise it on the talk page. It may be a sourcing thing, but I know that a post here will find editors who have worked on the article in the past and/or have a physical sciences background. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, IMJ. However, the "dispute" there isn't mature, and discussion is starting to find some agreements, after initial disagreement, which often happens if one or both sides are civil and careful and willing to admit mistakes, and I assume that will continue. What you saw was two COI editors, pointing to sources, presenting arguments, etc. Not, for the most part, "fighting over text." I made a specific text proposal, and was leading to more, but some there -- on both "sides" -- are wont to discuss the topic instead of article text. Sometimes I get sucked into that, too.

However, I'm COI, and I'm not about to make a controversial edit to the article, no matter what I think. But I also know the field. All I want with the article is to see policy followed, with due weight being determined by balance of reliable sources and consensus. I don't mind, at all, more eyes. Please. I'm confident that, in the end, policy will be followed, and reliably sourced material will not be excluded just because someone alleges "fringe," and concerns about due weight will be resolved through inclusion of balancing material of comparable or better quality as to sourcing.

There is one very difficult issue here. There is lots of very negative source for cold fusion from the early 1990s and continuing on in some secondary or tertiary sources into the early 2000s, as late as about 2005 or 2006. Since then, there has been almost no negative source appear under peer review (I'm aware of only one paper, a critique of a very positive, earlier article, and accompanied by a rebuttal by multiple widely-published authors in the same later issue, this year), with positive sources, that treat some of the findings as established, practically exploding by comparison with what came before. It's a rapidly shifting field, and what is happening in those cells is still a mystery. But the spreading consensus now is "nuclear," and probably something we could call "fusion." Just not the "fusion" that was thought of by either side in 1989-1990.

The overall balance of publication under peer review, in terms of numbers of papers, substantially favors the reality of some kind of nuclear reaction. That was actually true by 1990 or 1991! But for a long time, it was difficult for researchers to get published in some major journals, though not in others. It may still be difficult at some journals, but there is now substantial publication in truly mainstream journals. Likewise peer-reviewed secondary sources are almost entirely positive in recent years. Some of that whole story, itself, is covered in reliable source, so we should be telling it! But we haven't been. In the end, we will look at proposed text, piece by piece, as is based on reliable sources. We may need some assistance, because there has been a practice, too often, of rejection of independently-published sources because they are supposedly "fringe" and they are fringe because they seem to support a "fringe theory," and, of course, it's a fringe theory because there are few reliable sources! That's circular, and based on a misunderstanding of WP:RS, which has to do with publishers and the process and decisions involved in publishing, not authors or opinions expressed. --Abd (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an unpromising start. Are you going to subject us all to another flood of walls of text? Looie496 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I believed I was done here. Was my comment above a "wall of text"? Is it out of place here? But, please, respond on my Talk page, not here, where it will be a distraction, as was the above question. And, please, if you thought my comments above was appropriate, tell me that, also. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

well, it was a bit on the "tldr" side, but at least nobody can claim Abd is unwilling to negotiate :) And admitting you have a COI is also a sign of good faith. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africoid peoples

This is up for deletion as either a neologism or a fringe theory. I've just noticed it. Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

House of Keglevic

I'm not sure where to bring this, but as this has statements such as "Archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts are both non-exact and contradictory, therefore there is no single piece of firm written evidence or artifact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the 11th century. All events and characters conventionally dated earlier than 11th century are fictional, and represent phantom reflections of actual Middle Ages events and characters, brought about by intentional or accidental mis-datings of historical documents." and "Such coat of arms are also over the door of the castle of the abbot of the Abbey de Bonlieu (bonum locum) near Peyrat-la-Nonière, but the seal of this abbey was different. (Per bonum spatium ad locum, ubi eminerentur due rupes. - Through the good gap to the place, where two rocks would protrude.) So it are ten places. The orthodromic distance (see Pappus of Alexandria[30]) from the lawn of the ancient ruins in the centre of Bonlieu to theEmirgan Park, which is next to the Archangel Michael Church in İstinye in Istanbul, which was built by the Emperor Constantine the Great, goes exactly over the Bosnian pyramids. The Earth radius was in the Middle Ages about 6500 km[31][32], that are the orthodromic distance from Bonlieu near Peyrat-la-Nonière to the Emirgan Park in İstinye, from there to Milet (in Milet is a nice amphitheatre, where the triangle for the Trigonometric functionscould be exactly measured), from there to Serò near Granja del Pairs near Artesa de Segre, from there back to Bonlieu, from there to the hill next to the village Trubar near Drvar, which is exactly on the half way between Bonlieu and the Emirgan Park.[33] " - clearly fringe, I thought I'd start here. Do we have any good editors on Serbian related stuff? Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the above is an article created and almost only edited by one user, I just found this also from the same user, so we do have a fringe issue elsewhere also. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

good catch, Doug :o) --dab (𒁳) 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology at Bardyllis

This [34] appears to be an example of trying to pass off folk etymology as actual etymology. Though the source doesn't explicitly calls it folk etymology, "traditionally equated" pretty much means the same thing. Nor does the source anywhere say that that is the actual etymology of Bardyllis. Since Illyrian predates Albanian, that is clearly impossible anyway. The two Albanian words "i bardhe" and "ylli" happen to sound similar to "Bardyllis", but that is as clear an example of folk etymology as there can be. When I pointed this out [35], I was swiftly reverted on the grounds that the source doesn't explicitly call it that (though it is plainly obvious). Athenean (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If the source doesn't say it's a folk etymology, please don't make that OR deduction. Btw I added three more sources about it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

All that the sources say is that "i bardhe" and "ylli" mean "white" and "star" in Albanian. No one supports that that is the etymology of Bardyllis. That does not mean that his name in antiquity was "King Whitestar". There is no way an Illyrian (ancient) name can have an Albanian (modern) etymology. If "i bardhe" and "ylli" meant "white" and "star" in Illyrian and "Bardyllis" was a modern Albanian name, then you could conceivably make a case that the Albanian name has an Illyrian etymology, but not the other way around. Athenean (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

All the sources say that Bardyllis means White Star and nothing more, so please don't make OR deductions about the etymology.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In Albanian, not "Illyrian". If Bardyllis were an Albanian name, then you could claim that that is the etymology (though even then it could still be a case of folk etymology). Illyrian and Albanian aren't the same thing. In fact we don't even know what Illyrian is (a single language, many...), since it is not attested, and thus no one knows the Illyrian words for "white" and "star", no one knows whether that is a basis for a name, etc... And please indent properly. Athenean (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that the specific source is a partisan source (written by an author during Socialist Albania's Stalinist regime (1945-1991)). It's common logic that Albanian language can't scientificaly explain etymologies of ancient names (Albanian language was first recorded after 11th century AD).Alexikoua (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If a source does not makee the claim then its OR to say the claim is made. If an RS says there is such a claim then we can say it. If doubts are raised about a sources nuetraility then just attribute the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua it would be prudent not to make OR deductions. Btw Stuart E. Mann was a professor of the University of London and an expert on Albanian language so your comment about Stalinist regimes etc. just shows your complete lack of knowledge of the subject.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Germanic New Medicine"

Something interesting I found, Ryke Geerd Hamer. Not too urgent FTN-wise, probably too fringy to pov-push, but worth a look if you like pseudo-medical madness. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a news website article about a scientific paper

Editors may find this article entertaining and relevant. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

quite relevant both to this noticeboard and probably about 1/2 of wikipedia's articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Someone is liable to mistake this for a "how-to." DeistCosmos (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dark flow

Eyes needed on recent additions to dark flow - specifically sections The location of the Great Attractor in a small closed universe, Why the universe's gravitational field is geocentric and The universe as a gravitational drainage basin. Looks like an OR and POV synthesis of crackpot ideas, with misinterpreted/misread sources. Samples:

"The assumption that the pull is exerted by another universe implies that our universe has an absolute boundary, whose inner surface is reflecting all light as a concave mirror"

"... the planet Earth can be the dynamic spearhead of the dark flow (the rest of the flow is being pulled by the Earth and is lagging behind it, which results in a redshift proportional to the distance to the Earth)"

"Therefore the intensity of the universal dark flow is a function of mankind's informational progress"

"The planet Earth can be the orchestrating spearhead of the gravitational drainage system of the whole universe"

Gandalf61 (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

After cleanup, this is probably an article worth keeping, but clearly an article falling under WP:FRINGE. The article must not create the impression that anyone who matters takes this idea seriously. --dab (𒁳) 19:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that this is essentially about the recent addition of confused nonsense by a Russian IP. Apart from that, it's an article about a research paper and should be merged somewhere. --dab (𒁳) 20:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Burst of activity around deism

A new editor has appeared who has started making a set of related changes on deism-related topics. This appears to be related to some traces I've found of some modern movement to take over Deism as a formal position. There are obvious fringe possibilities here, and I've reverted one change in moralistic therapeutic deism which appears to be part of an attempt to take control of the term and deny its historical usage. People who watch philosophy and philosophy of religion articles may want to keep an eye out. Mangoe (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical usage? What historical usage? The term was coined in 2005 or therabout, and no other notice was taken of it until last year. Calling something which defies the very definition of "Deism" by this name is what is "fringe" here. And I notices that the article on Panendeism, a genuine form of Deism which has been around three times as long and has actual adherants, was deleted for being not notable. This article is like an article on a theoretical branch of Christianity which denies the existence or importance of Jesus. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Google scholar gives quite a few hits on the term. I'd disagree with 'last year'. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But hits from when? DeistCosmos (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Mango is talking about the historical usage of the term "Deism"... which was used as far back as the 1700s. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Doug most likely refers to the smallish but respectable number of hits on Google scholar for the new MTD concept. [36] As for Mangoe, I confess I'm not clear what he is arguing when he speaks of attempts to deny "historical usage". It is pretty clear that the so-called "deism" of MTD is not deism as historically understood. It's more like God as the ideal dad envisaged by teenagers: one who helps you out by driving over to pick you up from the all-night party when you want him to, but never insists you get home by definite time or there will be consequences. Is it the MTD people who are denying historical usage, or those who criticise their innovative use/misuse of the term? As far as I can see this is more an OR issue than a Fringe issue. DeistCosmos has added assertions that MTD is really a form of theism not deism, and is a misappropriation of the term by Christians wishing to imply that deism is "watered down" christianity. From my point of view he is right, but we need to be careful about what we can legitimately assert. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To some degree, this all depends on what article we are talking about. I assume there are enough sources that discuss MTD for us to have an article about it (ie that MTD passes the tests set out at WP:FRINGE). If so, it is fine to focus on the MTD definition of Deism in that article (noting, briefly, how it is different from the traditional "mainstream" definition). However, mentioning the MTD view in other Deism related articles probably gives a fringe view undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) What I saw when I started looking around was that there appears to be something of an effort from someone-- not clear who, but they have at least one website-- to claim deism for their own and defend their version of it against others. I'm concerned about this because when this sort of thing has appeared in Wikipedia before (and also in The Real World) we've seen attempts to redefine past usage of the term. That's why I think people ought to keep a watch on this.

The issue with panendeism is one that besets a lot of these minor religious/philosophical positions: does anyone else care? A quick search tends to reinforce the course of discussion at the AFD: this is one person's notion which hasn't managed to get much notice by the larger world. MTD, on the other hand, has gotten a lot of notice. I think it is reasonable to point out that the "deism" in it is something of a rhetorical figure rather than an attempt at philosophical taxonomy, but I think we need to find a WP:RS to point this out, and I suspect looking Christianity Today or some similar journal will produce that source.

Deism has been a problem spot for us for a long time, as evidenced by the long-standing tug of war over exactly who among the America founding fathers can be claimed to be a deist. As a position without an establishment it tends to be vague around the edges, and its utility in exerting political leverage against the Christian Right has tended to produce a lot of tendentious editing here and sourcing in The Real World. I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned when someone who more or less labels himself a deist comes in and does nothing but edit articles related to the topic; it sets off my WP:OWN detectors, and the history of trying to own deists, in the absence of official affiliations to fall back on, is quite problematic. I'm not saying he can't edit these articles, but rather that the situation is likely to require supervision. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Imagine that a couple of sexologists published a book including a concept of "Liberated Heterosexual Marriage," which they defined as "marriage between two people of the same sex," and they acknowledged that usually "Heterosexual" doesn't quite mean that but claimed "in our definition the word heterosexual is revised from its classical meaning by the 'liberation' aspect." And imagine they got some of their colleagues to put up some blog posts or even publish other articles using their "Liberated Heterosexual Marriage" concept to mean same-sex marriage. And imagine someone reading that stuff thought it would make a fine Wikipedia article, and presented it here as a fact, that this is what "heterosexual" means. You might think then that some editors knowledgeable of "heterosexuality" might add a note in the article that that is not what heterosexual means really no matter how much one can stretch the word's historic use. And looking at the google scholar returns, searching from 1904-2004 for "moralistic therapeutic deism" returns zilch. Searching 2005-2006 returns barely more than a dozen, including several that look to be just from the coiners of the term. 2007-2008 gets two dozen. 2009-2010? A hair more than that. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an academic neologism and it has not garnered much attention as things go, and quite frankly I'm surprised we have an entry about this. As far as I know the usage of this term is only in reference to the original concept, born out of the original study -- no subsequent studies, no further testing of the concept, etc. I think sourcing needs a bit of a steroid boost to convince me that this deserves a stand alone entry.Griswaldo (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, and perhaps more to the point of what started this discussion, I really don't think mention of this concept belongs at Deism. If it is notable enough to have its own entry, which I'm not convinced of, it is certainly not directly related to the topic of Deism, despite Christian Smith's use of the term.Griswaldo (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it needs to be covered in Deism, for someone hearing the term and looking in Deism expecting to find out what the D in this MTD is about. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not just disambiguate it on top ... if indeed the stand alone page is necessary? I also have to retract my clam that "it has not garnered much attention as things go." It appears to have garnered much attention, within Christian communities. It has garnered much less attention amongst sociologists and other scholars of religion. This may, admittedly, be due to the fact that youth religiosity is not a research area that garners much attention in the first place.Griswaldo (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, and then there's ceremonial deism, as well, which has a prof's comment right in it on how odd it is to use Deism in that term. But it still needs to be covered in Deism, and that MTD is pretty much the opposite of Deism needs to be put back in the MTD article. The only reason not to have it is to trick people into misunderstanding what Deism is. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neologism hasn't caught on widely, article should be merged with Christian Smith. Much more important is improving the Deism article: overlinking, quote farming. And I found it inconsistent. If Deism died out in England by the 1740s how come Tom Paine wrote a book about it later? There may be an explanation in the way terms are used by different authors, but it would be useful to add some more info about that. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In my view, whatever "Moralistic therapeutic deism" may be, it has no urgent business of being mentioned at the Deism article. A first step would be to show that "MTD" is more than a random ephemereal blog fad. Once there is a scholarly monograph discussiong "MTD" we can still consider whether it is a valid aspect of Deism. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dab. As you noticed, there is a monograph, Soul Searching (book). Should MTD also redirect to Christian Smith (sociologist)? I see a lot of Christian writers responding to the concept in terms of what it means to future Christian generations, etc. but little scholarly response in peer reviewed publications or in academic books (a conference paper, an unpublished paper submitted for publication in 2009, and a very recent peer reviewed paper that is not available online yet). I should add that Soul Searching received quite a few reviews since its publication if that makes a difference. Maybe we keep the book entry and redirect MTD to it?Griswaldo (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I have noted that there is a monograph. In fact, this article seems to be mostly about the core point made in Soul Searching (book), so why don't we move it to Soul Searching (book). The remainder of this discussion will then be confined to interpreting WP:BK.

--dab (𒁳) 12:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking it out of Deism altogether, well that just doesn't square. Look at some articles linked in the MTD article. "Death By Deism"; A nation of deists"-- these aren't making that distinction, so readers reading those titles will come to Deism to find out what they're talking about. There needs to be some comment, some brief comment, in Deism telling readers why the versions of Moralistic therapeutic deism and ceremonial deism are not going to be found under Deism. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no. In fact, that would be better covered in the article about MTD itself, ie a section about "Differences from classic Deism." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well not ceremonial deism. And somethings got to tell the confused searcher at the deism article that these other nondeistic things are out their guised out as kinds of Deism. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DeistCosmos, I do not understand what you are trying to say. Deism is an article about a theological topic. "MTD" is a neologism relating to current issues in US sociology. Just because the word "Deism" is in there doesn't establish that it has any sort of topical connection to the Deism article, and if it does, it is very far from clear that its notability is anywhere near WP:DUE to the "Deism" topic. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DaB, if you're so convinced about the non-notability of MTD, please put it up for AFD. I think it will survive that, but that's just my view, of course.

I've taken the apparently radical step of reading the original source, and they do explain exactly why they use the word "deism": "Like the deistic God of the eighteenth-century philosophers, the God of contemporary teenage Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is primarily a divine Creator and Lawgiver. He designed the universe and establishes moral law and order. But this God is not trinitarian, he did not speak through the Torah or the prophets of Israel, was never resurrected from the dead, and does not fill and transform people through his Spirit." (p. 165) There's a bit more after this, but you can get the gist from this. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Dab didn't say that the term is not notable on its own, but I'll let him answer that. What he did say was that it's not notable, or UNDUE, within the more general topic of Deism. I think several of us agree with him there, and I am not personally convinced by the authors' own explanation of why they chose this term. The God of MTD intervenes in human affairs, even if its' not "through his Spirit". That's not Deism. Story closed.Griswaldo (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mangoe, I have already commented on my opinion of the notability question on the article talkpage. Please consult it. After all, this is just a noticeboard, the actual discussion on the further fate of the article should take place on the article's talkpage. The "fringe" question here is not the notability of MTD but its inclusion in the Deism article. It is a question of WP:DUE and/or WP:SYNTH. Whatever my opinion on the notability of "MTD", I certainly do not think it has any kind of notability pertinent to the topic of Deism. --dab (𒁳) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's got Deism right in its name so it's representing itself as a kind of Deism. If you have an article on that, not mentioning it in Deism is basically hiding the ball. At least ceremonial deism has long since been linked right at the top, but there's still nothing in Deism to explain that it isn't. And about that quote from the book, you could do the same thing with the " liberated heterosexual marriage" I described above -- just talk about how both involve a lifelong commitment, having sex, maybe raising a family even and presto! Now you've shown that marriage of a same sex couple is heterosexual. Jeez. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is rather clear at this juncture that we have failed to communicate. "It's got Deism right in its name so it's representing itself as a kind of Deism" is so far beside the point of WP:DUE that I am at a loss on how to respond. Avatar (2009 film) "has got Avatar right in its name so it's representing itself as a kind of Avatar". Does this mean we need a "2009 movie" section in our Avatar (Hinduism) article? I don't think so. Am I contesting the notability of the movie in denying it a section in the Hinduism article? I hardly think so. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. No ones actually claiming that the movie is some kind of Hindu Avatar. But they are claiming this MTD is some kind of Deism. And, there's an Avatar disambiguation page. Griswaldo suggested doing the same for Deism so I made Deism (disambiguation) and guess what? Right away someone wanted to delete it because they think these are all the same thing. DeistCosmos (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DeistCosmos they are not apples and oranges at all, but I do agree that disambiguation might be needed for the same reasons it is needed with Avatar. Dab I think this might be the best solution. As I see it disambiguation is mainly to separate entries that are conceptually different but use (for whatever reason) similar terminology.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The topic isn't notable, so the article should be merged with the biography of the sociologist leading the team. Hopefully that will clear up all the confusion. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But MTD still will be discussed there? So with that and ceremonial deism the disambiguation still is justified. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate. Sociologists coin neologisms all the time. Some are more felicitous than others; some catch on and others don't. (Whether there is any correlation between those variables I will leave to others to decide.) Perhaps this one is misleading, but we would need a source to assert that. If there is no source then we have to rely on the intelligence of readers who can click on Deism to learn more. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just like the same-sex heterosexual marriage I said before. Can't challenge the proposition that same-sex marriage isn't "hetero" til someone writes an article saying "liberated heterosexual marriage isn't really hetero" - right? But not to worry, of someone writes that article our sexologists can just coin "fraternal heterosexual marriage" or "coequal heterosexual marriage" to keep making same-sex marriage "hetero." Black is white! Night is day! Freedom is slavery! DeistCosmos (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

is this thread even about any identifiable point at this stage? --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this point, there's a confabulated idea out there masquerading as Deism, and no one's allowed to say even a peep about it in either article. DeistCosmos (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Old Turkic script

The section Old Turkic script#Variants looks very dubious, as do some of the the 'See all' links. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Plate tectonics

User:Oriel36 has been making some arguments on Talk:Plate tectonics in which he has a non-standard interpretation for the length of day and thinks that it has some bearing on geodynamics. I tried to talk him out of it, but after he failed to respond to my arguments and just condescendingly repeated himself (note: I'm a little annoyed right now, so you can neutralize that in your own head), I warned him that since his talk page contributions weren't aimed at improving the article, I would simply remove the section per WP:TALK if he tried to continue it... which he did, and I removed it. After that, he removed one of my talk page replies to someone else from earlier on that (a) was aimed at improving the article, and (b) is grounded in mainstream geology and geophysics; I'm guessing he removed it because it disagreed with his thoughts. In any case, I reverted his removal as vandalism, and am now stepping away from that article talk page. Assistance would be appreciated. Awickert (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be reopening an issue in a somewhat more reasonable way now; still, if someone can spare the eyes, a third party may be nice to have around. Thanks much, Awickert (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Orion Correlation Theory

An IP stating he is Robert Bauval has added quite a bit of content here which I've moved to the talk page as one of the main proponents he has too much of a conflict of interest. Some might be reinstated, but it needs to be discussed first. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

well. the stuff that is on the talk page seems a little be overkill to respond to the criticism about angles. Also, it needs some references. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Narwhal2 and Ralph Ellis

Narwhal2 (talk · contribs) has been adding reference to the fringe author Ralph Ellis to a number of articles. I posted to his talk page several months ago and asked him not to, but had no reply. He's started again today and I've reverted most. I also found this File:Baalbek-stoneofpregnantwoman.jpg. I'm not sure if this should be here, at RSN, or where. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller is nothing but a site vandal.

I improved the Deva Victrix page by adding a separate section for the elliptical building, as this is perhaps the most interesting building on the site. I also added a new section for the Market Hall inscription.

And then along comes Dougweller and deletes the whole lot, simply because it had a reference to Ralph Ellis in it. I doubt if Dougweller has even heard of the Deva fortress before now. So Wiki readers are denied any knowledge of the Market Hall inscription and elliptical building, because of what? Because of Dougweller's ego.

Ditto the other pages I added to. Had Dougweller even heard of the Elagabal of Elagabalus before today?? I doubt it.

These sections greatly added to these pages, and frankly it is sheer vandalism to just delete everything from this page.

Narwhal2 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the Deva Victrix stuff, except of course the Ellis reference. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of this gentleman before, but this book description from his website is elucidating:

"Contrary to orthodox perceptions, King Jesus and Queen Mary Magdalene were the richest couple in Syrio-Judaea. The Romans wanted to impose taxes on Jesus and Mary, an imposition that provoked the Jewish Rebellion. King Jesus fought and lost that war, and so he was crucified, reprieved and sent into exile in Roman England. In those remote lands, King Jesus became known as Atur-tii (the Egyptian) or 'King Arthur and the twelve disciples of the Last Supper Table'."

Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering Dougweller has otherwise been an exemplary editor, and that Ralph Ellis seems to have fallen for and is cashing in on Dan Brown's bad writing, and Narwhal2's somewhat uncivil behavior, I'm going to side with Doug on this one. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Does seem to be both a WP:COI problem (good catch, Dougweller!) and a WP:FRINGE problem (per ClovisPt). That's a fatal combination (even though fringe itself is a very serious concern always, and coi also without corroborating independent sources). Does that explain the reaction of lashing out at others who point out this problem, and failure to see that it is a problem, because it's in essence an attack on his theory?--maybe. Does that excuse the behavior or make the content acceptable simply because he's his own best reference on it?--absolutely not. DMacks (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

copied from ANI:

•  Confirmed the following are socks of one another:

• Disranter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Arnatorim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Samosterat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoogson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Narwhal2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

checked byUser:Tiptoety

Ralph Ellis's been busy. :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910

Current version of Coanda-1910 is based on fringe theories supported with incorrect accounts of Gibbs-Smith and incomplete information of Frank H. Winter's 1980 article in The Aeronautical Journal!--Lsorin (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So, this appears to be a dispute about whether or not this experimental aircraft counts as a jet-propelled aircraft. I'm not certain this is a clear WP:Fringe issue, but if a couple editors wanted to carefully look over relevant sources, they could probably reach a rough consensus on that issue. ClovisPt (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was tried and a form presenting both accounts was tried as well. The two editors supporting their version with Gibbs-Smith wrong accounts and incomplete Winter's article are not trying any consensus as the current version present only their side.--Lsorin (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Islamic problems at Eye of Providence

We seemed to have picked up one or more persons who are determined to insert material on a one-eyed antiChrist-like Islamic figure (sample edit). A sanity check and perhaps more eyes would be nice. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Number inflation in Turkish People

Not sure if this is the right place, but this article suffers from major inflation of numbers in the infobox. The main problem is one of methodology: National censi are routinely ignored, and instead, a maximalist figure obtained from an often low-quality online source is used, typically without any explanation of how that figure is arrived at. This is done for many countries, and is clearly a pattern. Specifically:

• Germany: a figure of 3.5 million is used, based on nothing more than a press release by the German Embassy [37], without any explanation of how this figure is arrived at. The lower figure from the census is ignored [38].

• Iraq: A maximalist figure of 3,000,000, taken from Iraqi Turkmen advocacy groups is posted along side the generally accepted figure in Western sources of 500,000.

• UK: A figure of 500,000 is given, taken from this [39] source.

• US: Until recently, the only figure given was 500,000, which was taken from local websites such as "The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History" [40] (even the title is ungrammatical) and the "Turkish Society of Rochester NY" [41]. Both sources are moreover from 2005, while the data from the US census from 2008 [42] was relegated to a footnote on the most spurious of grounds [43].

• Australia: Until the census was recently added by me, the only figure given was taken from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that casually mentions 150,000 in passing, without any further explanation [44].

• Greece: A maximalist figure of 150,000 is given based on POV advocacy sources such as these [45] [46], even though the Greek census shows that Muslims make up only 0.95% of Greece's population (~105,000, which includes about 35,000 Pomaks).

I could go on. Any attempt to discuss this on the talkpage is met with personal attacks, trolling, mockery, feigned victimization [47] [48] [49] and juvenile "retaliation" over at Greeks [50] [51].

Here's what I propose: For countries where current census data does exist, such as Germany, US, Australia, use the census data and only the census data, as is standard practice in all other ethnic group articles. If there is an issue that the census does not include those with ancestry, a footnote can be added as is done in Greeks regarding the number of Greeks in the US. POV advocacy sources should not be used at all (e.g. Iraqi Turkmen advocacy groups). Athenean (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Turks in the United Kingdom#65,000???? may also be relevant. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The inability of this article to handle relatively simple facts in an unbiased manner is a real mark on Wikipedia. The article should stick with census data, offer a mention where there is a legitimate differing sum, and stay away from POV sources or sources throwing unsubstantiated numbers around in passing.Konchevnik81 (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well do you actually know anything about the British Turks? Have you any expert knowledge? There are an estimated 200,000 Turkish Cypriot-born people living in the UK. The 65,000 figure is toally absurd.Turco85 (Talk) 15:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of "maximalism" vs. "minimalism", it's a question of what you want to count. In Germany, there are 3.5 million ethnic Turks, and 1.7 million Turkish citizens. This isn't a contradiction, it just means that Germany has 1.8 million citizens who are ethnic Turks. --dab (𒁳) 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that many of the figures are backed by dubious or unreliable sources (e.g. for the US or UK), as opposed to sources that meet WP:RS. The method used is to scour the internet for a website that gives the largest possible figure, and then enter that information in the infobox so as to make the numbers as large as possible. This is a common problem in many ethnic group articles, not just here mind you. Athenean (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

that's just a matter of WP:RS, then. A serious reference will make clear whether it is talking about Turkish nationals or ethnic Turks. These are two entirely different questions (you can be a Turk but not a Turkish national, and you can be a Turkish national but not a Turk) and need to be treated seperately. You must avoid by all means to end up with a sum of "mixed" figures, some counting nationals and some counting ethnic Turks. --dab (𒁳) 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

dab, this is why I object to using firgures based on citizenship. A person with Turkish citizenship could be a Kurd, Armenian, Grek etc. Nonetheless, a person with Cypriot, Bulgarian, Greek, Iraqi, Syrian, Kosovan citizenship may actually be an ethnic Turk. Using citizenship figures is therefore not reliable. Furthermore, citizenship stats do not include ethnic Turks who have be naturalised citizens or who have been born in the host country. I would like to invite you all to discuss this further in the discussion page of the aticle in question...Turco85 (Talk) 15:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Stats can only be produced when data is collected. In the UK the 10 yearly Census of Population provides the definitive stats. That means the 2001 census, out of date, pity, can't be helped. It asked about ethnic origin, but there was no category for Turkish, so Turkish people presumably ticked "White Other" or "Other". It asked for place of birth, so we know how many people living in the UK in 2001 were born in Turkey or North Cyprus. If you want to know how many ethnically Turkish people live in the UK today, then you will be in big problems, because the census didn't ask. A demographer could make an estimate from the data held on school pupils, but has that been done? Unemployment is measured in the same way across Europe, so you might think nationality and ethnicity might be as well, but they're not, so there is no consistent way of counting how many Turkish people live in the various countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The case for the UK is an interesting example: It is true that there are no reliable official figures, for the reasons you mention. However, there do exist estimates of 125,000-300,000 which appear in reliable sources such as these [52] [53], while The Independent, another reliable source, gives a figure of 300,000 [54]. True, these are nothing more than estimates, but at least they appear in reliable sources. This is in contrast to the figure of 500,000 which is taken from the Federation of Turkish Associations [55], a less reliable source. So while official figures are impossible to come by, and this is unlikely to change, it boils down to a question of estimates in various sources. To me at least, it is clear that the estimates from the more reliable sources should be the ones used in the article. Athenean (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Itsmejudith, it's great to see someone understands about census'...yes this is what I am trying to explain. However, I would like to add more to what you have said. There is an estimated 130,000 Turkish Cypriots who came to the UK from the TRNC which is not recognised by the UK. The Cyprus-born figure most likely only includes those TCs who came the the UK before 1983 as they immigrated with Cypriot passports; which makes it even more complicated.
• Athenean, please take into consideration that The Independent estimate of 300,000 was given 15 years ago. The Independent has also recently reported that a further 100,000 have been smuggled to the UK which would equal to at least 400,000 as the original 300,000 estimate would have increased even if 100,000 Turks were not smuggled to the UK.Turco85 (Talk) 22:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to say that I am now confused on what Athenean sees to be a reliable source. It seems as though if the estimate is a high one he/she believes it to be unreliable. e.g. Athenean sees The Independent's 1996 estimate of 300,000 British Turks as reasonable yet does not believe that the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany's 2010 estimate of 3.5 million Turks to be reliable.Turco85 (Talk) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

So basically you're claiming that the number of Turks in the UK almost doubled in the 14 years since 1996? Outlandish, and pure WP:OR. Btw, these sources [56] [57] are from 2005 and 2009, and they are much more reliable. 19:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No what I am saying is that 300,000 (1996 estimate) + 100,000 (recently smuggled in 2005) = 400,000. But what about the population increase prior to the smuggled 100,000? Are you saying that the population stayed at 300,000 for 15 years until 2005? And now you claim that academic sources are reliable. Before you was arguing that the figures used for Iraq is unreliable because we are using academic sources for them. So what is it Athenean? Your comments are all contradictory. I am sincerely confused with what you see to be a reliable source. Turco85 (Talk) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

100,000 smuggled in 2005? Again outlandish. Do you have a source for that (for once)? I am getting bored by your OR. And I never said that academic sources are unreliable. The Federation of Turkish Associations is definitely not a reliable source. Athenean (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Independant in 2005 reported that 100,000 Turks had been smuggled to the country: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gang-held-over-smuggling-100000-turks-into-britain-510591.html Why are you saying this is 'outlandish' for? You make it seems as though I come up with all these figures from thin air! Every stat I talk about in my arguments come from a source.Turco85 (Talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In your first comment you wrote the following the 'maximalist figure of 3,000,000, taken from Iraqi Turkmen advocacy groups is posted along side the generally accepted figure in Western sources of 500,000'... in the article we are using two academic sources [Park 2005 and Kibaroğlu, Kibaroğlu & Halman 2009] which both state that the population is disputed between 500,000 to 3,000,000. Turco85 (Talk) 21:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I also find it amusing that you find the 500,000 estimate of Turkish Americans by the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History as an unreliable source. If you type 'Encyclopedia of Cleveland History' in the wikipedia search engine you will see that there are 2,145 results!Turco85 (Talk) 21:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Exotic tribes of ancient India, Category:Exotic tribes in Hindu scripture

Just found a sizeable walled garden, apparently due to Jijithnr (talk · contribs), plus Sri Lankan additions by Wikinpg (talk · contribs), full of {{inuniverse}} articles inspired by the Sanskrit epics. I found this when I stumbled on and tried to clean upthis, and things just got worse the more articles I looked at (sigh).

• Rakshasa Kingdom & Raksha people vs. Rakshasa
• Pisacha Kingdom vs. Pisacha
• Gandharva Kingdom (ugh) vs. Gandharva
• Kimpurusha Kingdom (yes, "They could be a tribe of horse-warriors like the Kamboja")
• Kinnara Kingdom vs. Kinnara
• Naga Kingdom & Naga people (Sri Lanka) vs. Nāga

and probably others. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance that this is a topic that has received attention from scholars who analyse the ancient Indian epics? Or is it pure synthesis? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a valid topic of Hindu mythology, or more specifically of Category:Mahabharata and Category:Ramayana. So, the Rakshasas were a class of demons, and they figure as having a kingdom in the Mahabharata. Hence Rakshasa Kingdom either should be merged into Rakshasa, or it should become Rakshasas (Mahabharata), i.e. a WP:SS sub-article of Rakshasa focussing on their role in the Mahabharata.

As usual, the articles also need to be cleaned of their 85% useless cruft. I think as Wikipedians watching the Hindu articles, we slowly begin to understand just how the Mahabharata itself could end up as a 1.8 million word construct. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you still need assistance with this? I can see for example that Rakshasa is a sensible and informative article whereas Rakshasa Kingdom wants me to believe that the Mahabharata is a historical document. I will help if I can, but can only give a lay view. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians#Genetic studies

This section of the article is a dreadful, incoherent mish-mash of unrelated items. Claims that Y Haplogroup J2 originated in Albania, that the Albanians are unmixed with other Balkan peoples (from "sources" such as this [58]), utterly irrelevant maps about the spread of Cardial pottery [59] (what this has to do with the article's subject is beyond me), you name it. This section was always a mess, but it has now grown out of control. Any help in cleaning up this section would be appreciated. Athenean (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose I can just delete it? I think that would be an improvement... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly would not object to that. Athenean (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have replied here regarding this issue before. As you can see genetic section is present in many Balkan people related articles pretty much in the same format, while I didn't see user:Athenean complaining about that. Furthermore I don't understand the supposed fringe theory issue? I am curious to find out what kind of fringe theory is that and where it is stated?! As far as I see in the article there are only data related to haplogroups presented among Albanians and everything is properly cited. No theory of any kind. As for style of editing my version was somewhat primitive but the current form was made by Andrew Lancaster which is well known in wiki and outside for his contribution in genetic related articles. Look here and for about a year that section of article had been stable and right now is pretty much the same, although there was a lot of edit warring about the rest of the article. That means the Andrew has done an excellent job. But of course there are always places for improvement and genetic studies which are multiplied during recent years can help in improving that section, but that needs an expert in the field. Aigest (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Aigest mentioned the discussion so a quick comment. I worked quickly on this in the past and do not want to claim too much for it at all. It can certainly be improved. But on the other hand, needing work does not equate to being "fringe". There are lots of normal looking sources, so I think Athenean needs to explain why he has posted here? Just from what he has said so far though, I agree that the map of the Cardial culture does not have any reason to be there right now unless someone finds a reason. I'll have a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Have made some changes in order to reduce any potential controversy, at least in the Y DNA section. I see nothing not coming directly from the strongest sources available, and quite uncontroversial. If there are problem in discussions about other types of DNA I have not checked.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I object to any deletion of well sourced material in general. Could you please specify how the material is fringe theory? A cleanup tag would suffice. Grubi is a reliable source and his article is certainly WP:RS.--Sulmues ^(talk) 12:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this genetic-basis-for-racial-origins material has been spread across multiple articles. It all looks like fringe science, if not outright pseudoscience.

Someone needs to look across the relevant noticeboards to what's already been discussed, and list the discussions here or in another central location for discussion. If I'm not mistaken there's a lot out there, including at least two related Arbcom's. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more complicated than that. Population genetics is an orthodox type of science, but the problems on WP come from the lining up of a few things:-

• It is a new field, so especially 5 or more years ago the academics themselves were still writing quite speculative stuff, without as much caution as they should have; and this was made difficult to reflect properly here also because there is still not much secondary writing.
• It is a very multidisciplinary discussion, which meant that for example there were geneticists trying to write about linguistics and vice versa, again leading to problems made worse by there not being much secondary writing. Again this was worse a few years back than it is now.
• Perhaps the most critical point is that people are very interested in it, especially people with interests in ethnic and national identity things, and so there are newspaper articles, press releases etc, (and this is also something academics encourage these days).

I believe the WP community is getting better at handling these issues, and also the field itself is maturing, but there were certainly a few years were it was a mess. The most difficult articles, because of their sensitivity, are generally those about the genetics of particular ethnic groups. Also Y haplogroup articles have had their troubles, mainly because these were heavily relied upon for a few years by both scientists and pseudo-scientists looking to explain the genetics of ethnic groups. With technology now moving ahead we are hopefully seeing more autosomal DNA studies which will give better balance to the field, and therefore hopefully also reflect upon WP articles. (Because WP articles are supposed to reflect whatever a field says.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Ronz, there aren't any fringe sources or theories like others said and that part of the article needs some cleanup.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing

There's a discussion here about Barry Fell and his idea that Mi'kmaq 'hieroglyphs' were Egyptian. Some other views would be useful on how it should be handled in the article. I'm not sure myself. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the chart of Fell's errors was undue weight. It's quite interesting, actually, but mainly to illustrate how the pseudoscientific mind works. It doesn't tell us anything about Mi'kmaq writing. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO, that would be more appropriate in the Barry Fell article. At Mi'kmaq, we could simply say that there are fringe ideas about connections to Egyptian, link Barry Fell, and leave it at that. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear semiotics

Nuclear semiotics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I'm at a loss. Between the nuclear priesthood and the atomic cats, I know not where to turn.

Is this WP:SYNTH? I can't tell.

Help!

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's synth. Some could be merged into Thomas Sebeok, some into nuclear waste. I expect it is a concern in health and safety studies. Perhaps there are working parties that are notable, if so someone needs to point to the references and allow the articles to be created. Not a sub-discipline of semiotics. Is it a notable trope in science fiction? Probably not. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It has three interwikis, for what it's worth. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the article. Sure, it's an eccentric topic, but then this is Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been translated from German Wikipedia, hence the interwikis. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this excellent find! I have no idea if it's synth, but frankly for this particular hilarious but apparently legitimate topic it doesn't seem to matter much. One of the sources is an article from Der Spiegel. I quote (in translation):

The team of 13, including engineers, sociologists, anthropologists, lawyers, nuclear physicicsts and behavioural scientists, enjoyed protection from the highest rank. The recently inducted Reagan administration acted as contracting body. When the commission presented its report in 1981, recommendations for a Stonehenge-style nuclear Grail were part of it. Responsible for the curious recourse to antiquity was Thomas Sebeok, then professor of linguistics and semiotics at Indiana University in Bloomington. His proposals would originate a dubious research area – nuclear semiotics was born.

I see a featured article coming for early April next year. Hans Adler 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Rosicrucianism

I removed mention of Rosicrucianism from 1313. It is "regarded as their founding date", but since it is an esoteric movement there is no real reason why the date should be regarded as historic in any way. It is a legendary founding date. All the articles about Rosicrucianism seem to be beset with in-universe speculation. It needs close attention because this is a notable part of early Enlightenment thought. In regard to the Rosicrucian Manifestos I would like to know: were they written in Latin, German or bits of both? Are the original texts online at reliable hosting sites? Dab, if you could have a look I know you could distinguish fact from fiction in this area. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Weston Price and Quackwatch

Some additional input would be nice at Weston Price where there is disagreement about whether or not to include a contemporary criticism of Price, now dead over 50 years, from Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch. A prior related discussion was held at the RS/N. See ...

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F

My personal opinion is that Barrett's criticism is UNDUE in the entry. He's criticizing Weston for scholarship that during its time of production (almost a century ago) does not seem to have been fringe. Other editors have pointed this out in more detail than I have. Some comments from people more knowledgeable would be good here. In general some help might be good with the Weston entry, as it is not in a very good state over all either.Griswaldo (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I have a very different perspective on the dispute:

Weston Price is most notable today because of the two organizations that base their claims on Price's research, the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation and Weston A. Price Foundation. Both organizations promote fringe theories.

It appears Price is notable (almost?) entirely due to the work of these organizations, as well as individuals and groups who also use Price's research for similar purposes.

Currently, the Quackwatch reference is the only one in the article that discusses how Price's research is used today.

My perspective then is that the article needs more and better references on Price's notability as a researcher cited for fringe theories. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing is we already have an article on The Weston A. Price Foundation so the use (or possible misuse) of Price's theories belongs there. The Weston A. Price article is on the man himself--NOT what organization founded after his death have done with his theories.

As for notability that is kind of sticky as Weston A. Price was certainly notable in his own time (It looks like his obituary appeared in the New York Times and tribunes and memorial articles appearing in Journal American Academy Applied Nutrition and Modern nutrition) He was also the Chairman of the Callahan Memorial Award Commission in 1922.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Any other notability of Price remains to be seen. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Price was very notable in his own time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not certain why this discussion is on this noticeboard. I don't think Price's views are given undue weight, nor is the concept of nutritional effects on teeth fringe theory with regard to processed foods. Even my own dentist has admitted that. Barrett tried to make the point that if you introduce these tribes to western foods they would develop a sweet tooth and over eat on candy; and of course their teeth would rot (I'm paraphrasing).

"Price knew that when primitive people were exposed to "modern" civilization they developed dental trouble and higher rates of various diseases, but he failed to realize why. Most were used to "feast or famine" eating. When large amounts of sweets were suddenly made available, they overindulged. [Barrett]"

Well anyone that's every traveled to a Caribbean island would know that these people have their own forms of "sweets" from the products they've grown for centuries, that are not produced in a factory using artificial ingredients (i.e., processed). So the business of trying to paint Price a simpleton because he didn't account for this obvious fault in his study is ridiculous. Furthermore the age of observations and studies is not a determinant of the validity of the results today. Until we see proper studies that refute Price, we shouldn't be assuming them. Does everyone or Price's theories have to be correct, to bring Price out of the finge? If so, then should we label the hydrogenation of oleo as fringe too? Didn't we all grow being told it was healthier than butter, only to find out later it wasn't? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 13:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's being discussed here because Price is most notable today for a researcher whose works are used to promote fringe theories.

This is not a venue for apologetics for Price. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with WP:Recentism. Thank you. Hans Adler 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've written my comments about the situation with WP:Recentism in mind, as I'd hope my repeated use of "notability" indicates. Others agree with my notability concerns. Let's not beat a dead horse. If you have specific concerns that haven't been addressed by myself or others, please bring them up. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor is it a venue to critique one person's work based on another's use. Maybe you should bring those articles in here instead. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, no one is doing that. How about we keep the discussion to what is actually happening? --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have two thoughts. 1) a discussion of the impact of someone's theories/researches after their death is appropriate for the biography. and 2) Use of Barrett and Quackwatch should be limited as, he is more focused on debunking of theories than on straight up evaluations of them. If no one else cares to discuss the fringey-ness of Price's old theories, it might be best to keep it short. Full discussion of the fringey-ness of the various foundations who promote fringe off his work in their own articles is warrented, imo. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said over in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F Barrett has serious problems.

Burn Barrett Bandwagon?

Barrett: "While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition."

Price: "This physician stated that there were about 800 whites living in the town and about 400 Indians, and that notwithstanding this difference in numbers there were twice as many Indian children born as white children, but that by the time these children reached six years of age there were more white children living than Indian and half-breed children. This he stated was largely due to the very high child mortality rate, of which the most frequent cause is tuberculosis." (Chapter 6)

"The changes in facial and dental arch form, which I have described at length in this volume, develop in this age period also, not as a result of faulty nutrition of the individual but as the result of distortions in the architectural design in the very early part of the formative period. Apparently, they are directly related to qualities in the germ plasm of one or both parents, which result from nutritional defects in the parent before the conception took place, or deficient nutrition of the mother in the early part of the formative period." (Chapter 19)

"It is important to keep in mind that morbidity and mortality data for many diseases follow a relatively regular course from year to year, with large increases in the late winter and spring and a marked decrease in summer and early autumn. [...] I have obtained the figures for the levels of morbidity for several diseases in several countries, including the United States and Canada." (Chapter 20)

"Dr. Vaughan in her reference to the data on the annual report of the chief medical officer, the Minister of Health, states as follows: Our infant mortality returns show that over half the number of infants dying before they are a year old die before they have lived a month..." (Chapter 21)

The direct quotes from Price's own book showed that he was very much aware of the high rates of infant mortality of native peoples and the effects of endemic diseases so where is Barrett getting this idea that Price ignored these factors? Worse for Barrett, Price wrote this in a 1923 book called Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic: "since 1870 the average length of life has been increased by fifteen years, that marked reduction has occurred during this period in infant mortality and in mortality due to tuberculosis, typhoid, smallpox and many other diseases."

Short life expectancy, high rates of infant mortality, and endemic diseases being eliminated by modern culture were addressed by Price years before and more over Price uses this very book as a reference in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (Chapters 2 and 18). But according to Barrett claims Price ignored the very things Price himself noted in 1923 even while referencing said work. Does this make a lick of sense?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett is not an WP:RS on this subject matter at all as far as I can see, and this is just evidence of that fact. Arguing for the inclusion of Quackwatch here is not only a detriment to the entry but also a detriment to Quackwatch in the areas when it is a useful source.Griswaldo (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

One could hardly wish for a clearer proof that Barrett simply makes things up rather than doing any research. What I find really worrying is that with this level of laziness, dishonesty, or whatever it is – in any case lack of professionalism – in one area, it seems hard to defend Quackwatch as a reliable source on anything, and we need something like it. The key question for me (although probably not very relevant to the Price article) is now whether this is a unique error or whether this reflects Barrett's general MO. Hans Adler 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the right person to ask about this, but I was under the impression that there are areas where issues are so fringe that mainstream sources of better quality are hard to find refuting the fringe sources, and that something like Quackwatch is all one is left with. However, I am now also wondering if Barrett is "reliable" for anything given how grossly unreliable he appears to be here. I'm sure there are those who know more who want to respond here though.Griswaldo (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we please drop the strawmen on how Quackwatch is being used as a source? No one is even proposing that the source be used in the ways discussed above. Also, please note that WP:BLP applies in discussions about Barrett. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's back up the burn-Barrett bandwagon for the moment. Barrett is spot-on with his criticism of holistic dentistry and is probably the best independent source we've got on this obscure alt. medicine. His dismissal of Price is inexact but not ridiculously out-of-line compared to the outrage I'm seeing expressed here, on the RSN thread, and the article talkpage. What is needed here are sources on the subject. I've been unable to find many. This makes me very nervous. In my first brush with research, I've discovered, for example, that Price was a prominent eugenicist until he renounced it in the 1930s [60] which seems to be all but absent from the Price Foundation's website: [61]. The source I reference is quite good, but makes me think that what is needed is a competent researcher to solve this problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

SA, regarding your "eugenics" comment, lets not play so fast and lose with what the sources says - "And early on he, like many of his class and educational background, was an advocate of eugenics, although he had abandoned it by the early 1930s" (emphasis mine). However horrible we might consider eugenics, it hardly seems like something that a contemporary supporter of his theories would feel compelled to mention if it indeed eugenics was such a widespread position among people of Price's social station at the time. And it is up to Barrett and Quackwatch to do their editing and fact checking more diligently, btw. As I pointed out earlier, if Quackwatch is a resource that is a net positive to the project pushing articles like this is a serious detriment because they rightly make us question the website's reliability.Griswaldo (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not playing fast-and-loose. Price had an eight part slideshow he marketed all over Cleveland called "Race Decline and Race Regeneration" where he advocated a "back to Africa" sort of noble savage idealism according to this source. Sure, there were lots of intellectuals on this bandwagon until the excesses of National Socialism, but the fact that this fact is available in reliable sources and totally absent from our article is troubling to me. On the other hand, contemporary supporters have written multiple pages on homeopathy, which, as far as I can tell, Price never wrote about. So how are we to tease all this out? I'm concerned that we're swallowing a supporting-party-line for no good reason. The Weston Price Foundation probably does not belong as a reliable source for our article, and it is startling to me that no one is saying that right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You are playing fast-and-loose and now you've raised the specter of National Socialism, and to what end? Price believed in some theory of eugenics, and so did the Nazis, therefore ...? Here is an even more complete quote from the source - "Price was long influenced by Darwinism and genetics. And early on he, like many of his class and educational background, was an advocate of eugenics, although he had abandoned it by the early 1930s." Do we actually know that there is any connection between the "excesses of National Socialism" and Price abandoning his own version of eugenics? Not that I can see. The source does however make a connection between eugenics and his interests in evolution and genetics, so why didn't you mention that? I'd say you are exactly "playing fast-and-loose" with the sources, seemingly to make Price look less appealing. But again to what end? If the eugenics stuff was a prominent part of his life and work of course we should add it to the entry, but you seem less concerned with the encyclopedic quality of the entry and more concerned with impugning the Foundation and others in the homeopathy movement, which is exactly the problem we're facing with the Barrett as a source. We should be focusing on building an encyclopedic entry on a historical figure and not fixated with a Foundation that was created nearly 50 years after his death. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Comments like this seem way out of proportion. I have no irons in this fire at all and don't care one way or another about "homeopathy movements" except that it's patently obvious that the Weston Price Foundation is advocating a whole lot of alternative medicine that doesn't seem connected to the biography of Weston Price and so using them as a source is worrying. It's undeniable that Price was a Eugenicist. I am not sure why he abandoned eugenics, but I do know that the 1930s were the time it fell out of vogue and the rise of fascist ideologies which advocated for national purification were definitely part-and-parcel to this. What Price's motivations are cannot be determined from the paltry sources we have, but I am extremely uncomfortable that you are engaging in strident attacks on these issues. I'm wondering why you want to make this so personal. You're really just making my trepidation worse. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I just read your user page; I'd say you have plenty of irons in the fire. Exposing pseudoscience appears to be a subject of great interest to you. Bringing up fascism in regards to this article is certainly taking things out of proportion. Let's try to get back to the topic at hand please. You are also assuming bad faith on the part of Griswald which is out of line as well. Your trepidations are your own doing, don't blame anyone here for that. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your personal comments to yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett, the Price Foundation, and Expertise

"Want to make this so personal" ... nothing of the sort. It just seemed to me that your comments were more aimed at attacking Price than helping us with the problems raised on the board. I'm clearly mistaken and apologize. I have no desire to make anything personal. Using the Foundation as a source is not good, I agree, but as Bruce points out we need better sources here. My perspective is precisely that the connection to the Foundation is the problem, and I mean that in both directions. We ought not to write an entry on Price based on the Foundation's romanticized version of him, utilized by them quite clearly to promote their own contemporary nutrition agenda. Agreed? But we also shouldn't write an entry on him puffed up with criticism of this romanticized version Price, promoted by professional "debunkers" in their own contemporaneous discursive battle with the Foundation. Do you also agree with that? Regarding eugenics, which is clearly a topic we should discuss but not really related to the question that started this thread, as I already stated if this is a notable aspect of his life and work we should put it in with the aid of reliable sources. I don't see where the problem is there. What I didn't understand was how his connection to eugenics could be stated so emphatically, while we all know and admit that sourcing on Price is extremely thin. That doesn't sit right with me, and I'm sorry if you think my responses to this were turning personal. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the source I cite is a pretty good one, so that's a start anyway. Barrett's site is, to be clear, reacting to the foundation. To that end, he may be criticizing the image of Price rather than the actual person, but I'm not buying the arguments presented here that somehow his brief essay is flatly contradicted by the protestations of Price-enthusiasts. The current article claims that the Foundation disputed Barrett's claims, but what I see instead is a harping on singular ideas and ignoring bigger issues. Did Price have the tools required to figure out what the differences in diet meant for dentistry? Not compared to today. That's really what I get out of Barrett's piece more than anything else. His confounding variables points are not refuted by other sources that I've seen, but this is all really beside the point since I agree with you that better sources are needed for the biography. I was just using the connection to eugenics as an object lesson as something about Price which is not found at all in the article but is trivially referenced to independent sources. I'm just concerned that there may be people from the Foundation trying to control the biography and harping on about Barrett is actually obscuring the real issues of how to write a neutral and well-researched biography. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a fair concern but I don't think that this is happening. Bruce's points are not from the Foundation as far as I can tell but from his own reading of Price's work. Basically he has shown that Barrett makes claims about Price that seem to be contradicted rather plainly by Price's own writings. Either way, I've been looking into sources that cite Price, refer to his work or review his work, and I've been putting my results on the article talk page. It appears that there may be a wealth of further information out there that simply isn't all that easy to access.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The claims of "plain contradiction" seem, to me, to be more-or-less incorrect. Barrett was speaking broadly about some concerns regarding confounding variables. In some of the instances Bruce cites (which are very similar to foundation talking point I looked at wherein they criticized Barrett) the quotes seem to be about entirely unrelated issues. In any case, moving towards better sources might make this entire dispute disappear. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett rather dubiously leaves out of his discussion of Price the role of "vitamins and minerals", which appears to have been the most important variable to Price. If you ask me Barrett creates a caricature of the man so that his findings look as absurd as possible. If had pointed out that Price thought that the processed food of his time was positively correlated to higher risk factors because it had a lower vitamin content it wouldn't have had quite the same damning effect now would it? Now it is possible that many or most of Price's conclusions have not stood the test of time. It is possible that his studies were flawed in a great many ways, but I think that Barrett's presentation of them is unreliable and skewed. I've now read some of Price's book, along with a great many of sources citing him and reviewing his work (and no, none from the contemporary fringe), and I don't get the same picture here. My concern is that we do justice to a historical figure in the way that someone with an axe to grind against holistic dentistry (Barrett) cannot be trusted to do.Griswaldo (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett's discussion of Price as a person takes all of, what, three paragraphs? I think he is entitled to an editorial opinion if he wants. Arguing that he is unreliable "by omission" seems really strange to me. No one is arguing that we use Barrett as the authoritative and exhaustive source of all that is Weston Price. But I don't think that the three paragraphs he wrote on the man are strictly incorrect or particularly more unreliable than any other random three paragraphs on Price we might care to identify. Price's obsession with first nutrition and then micronutrients is clearly documented in the source I listed. Note that this "nutrition" movement is the direct antecedent to modern vitamin therapies and the largely unregulated (in the US) supplement industry which is famously guilty for overselling their ideas. Price argued passionately about certain foods (especially fish oil) being associated with dental health and towards the end of his life was largely dismissed by the mainstream establishment as a has-been quack. This is also documented in the source I cited. Barrett seems to support this portrayal and I'm not convinced that he has been plainly impeached in his critique. Sure, I want Price to be treated fairly. But I don't think that we need excise Barrett as a source in order to do it. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hans here regarding WP:SPS. Barrett does not have the relevant expertise. If Barrett was adept at seeking out expert opinions, or expert studies that refuted someone like Price and utilizing them in his own critiques then one might consider his general expertise here in "quackbusting". But since he does not do that, but instead relies on his own analysis of a subject matter he has no expertise in I again have to agree with Hans. That said, I also disagree that Barrett's characterization of Price is even mildly in line with the paper you linked by the PhD student in history. I just read through the paper, and it is a great resource, but it does not discredit Price's work at all so maybe I missed something there. It also emphasizes the connection to vitamins and minerals I mentioned above, and plainly states that there was "nothing idiosyncratic" about Price's position. Now he's not lauding Price either or saying that Price got it all correct by any means. But this is the kind of dispassionate historical narrative we need to evaluate Price's theories and not that of contemporary skeptic.Griswaldo (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the relevant expertise here is in relation to evaluating alt med claims. Inasmuch as Price's ideas are relevant to alt med claims (and I submit that they are), Barrett is a reliable source to discuss them. I can understand why you might think that the history paper is not "in line" with Barrett's description of Price. That's because the presentation of the historian is one of context while Barrett's presentation is focused on the details of how Price's claims are not scientifically verified. When I read the phrase "nothing idiosyncratic", I took it to mean, simply, that the ideas purported by Price were more mainstream for their time than they are now. In that sense, I think the paper dovetails extremely well with Barrett's criticism. You may take issue with Barrett's tone or his rhetorical style, but the substance of his argument, to me, seems to be that Price was arguing that specific nutrition played a role in dentistry, and that specific nutrition Price advocated (essentially a "nativist nutrition" ideal) is not a dental panacea. This is simply not the point of the history paper, so I'm not surprised that Barrett's take is different: He's a different sort of expert. But he's still an expert with something to add to the discussion about Price's legacy. To be clear, the attempts earlier in this thread to claim that certain quotes from Price's work somehow show that Barrett's criticism is incorrect or off-base seem to me to be akin to Tesla enthusiasts who argue that, for example, that criticism of Tesla's power generation schemes from the ionosphere are ignore the fact that Tesla wrote about potential issues with his ideas. Where you read malice towards a dead man, I read simply critique of ideas that are promoted today by advocates in ways that are verifiably counter to scientific fact. An appropriate summary style of ideas from Barrett might read, "Price's promotion of native diets as a cure for modern dental problems, are criticized as being incorrect by skeptics such as Stephen Barrett who lament the current-day promotion of Price's work as lacking evidence basis." We can workshop that, of course, but I see no problem with including such a sentence (properly vetted, edited, and conceded to, of course) in the article with the citation to Barrett's piece. Do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that Barrett's critique does not rely upon general knowledge of "alternative medicine" ... it relies on expertise in physical and medical anthropology or perhaps more generally expertise in the historical and cross-cultural study of nutrition and consumption behaviors. His critique rests upon uncited claims about both general state of nutritional health and consumption practices as well as various other health related social behaviors of the various cultures that Price did fieldwork with. Sorry but I can tell you emphatically that he has no credentials to make such statements, and being a general critic of modern holistic medicine certainly does not get him any closer to knowledge about the nutritional life of the Wakamba and Jalou tribes of Kenya in the early 20th century, for instance. When we start accepting this kind of lackadaisical credentialing of critics we're doing this project a huge disfavor.Griswaldo (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding Barrett's work here. Barrett is not attempting to make a critique of Price's anthropology. He's making a critique of Price's claims being used for medical advice. In that he certainly has expertise. Barrett is not talking about specific anthropological aspects of the nutrition of the Wakamba and Jalou tribes. He's talking about how the conclusions of Price are not reasonable as medical advice. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You must have read a different article by Barrett than the one I read. There are two criticisms of Price's work. 1) The one I described above which falls into the realm of disciplines like anthropology and public health and 2) of Price's focal infection theory. The first two paragraphs are completely focused on #1 and the third paragraph on #2. I think you are confusing the purpose of Barrett's critique with the actual elements of Price's work that Barrett is actively criticizing.Griswaldo (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Careful parsing of Barrett's two paragraphs is probably not worth it, but suffice to say I do not think Barrett was intending to do an academic takedown of Price's shoddy anthropological methods within the context you suggest. Instead, I think he was pointing out confounding variables (which, though protestations to the contrary were made above, Price did not really take into account and, in some instances, could not possibly have taken into account). ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope this clarifies things a bit. See for instance the following excerpts from paragraphs 1 and 2 respectively with emphasis to make the point more obvious:

• "While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition. While praising their diets for not producing cavities, he ignored the fact that malnourished people don't usually get many cavities.
• "... but he failed to realize why. Most were used to "feast or famine" eating. When large amounts of sweets were suddenly made available, they overindulged. Ignorant of the value of balancing their diets, they also ingested too much fatty and salty food. Their problems were not caused by eating "civilized" food but by abusing it."

These arguments are not simply based upon medical knowledge, they are based upon a series of presuppositions about what the natives Price studied did and how their health was effected by what they did. He suggests that Price overlooked these variables, not that he misinterpreted them. Barrett clearly must have knowledge of the existence of these variables then. Without such knowledge none of these critiques are in anyway germane. Yet he does not have the expertise to make such claims about these natives. He would have to cite the claims, and he does not. Is that clear enough?Griswaldo (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way, given your latest response, Barrett does not have the expertise needed to be a reliable source on the existence of these confounding variables. That is one solid reason why he is not an exception to WP:SPS in this case.Griswaldo (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Barrett is not positing content expertise in anthropology, he's just illustrating that Price succumbed to the normal problems associated with noble savage ideology that dominated much of his work. Barrett is not saying that Price "overlooked" variables. He's saying that he didn't take many of them seriously because he "ignored" them in favor of his own ideological explanation: an explanation Barrett knows from introductory med school classes has gaping holes. Careful reading to me indicates that Barrett is simply pointing out the ideological problems with Price's approach and one need not be a particular expert in anthropology to see where the holes are. To criticize Barrett for pointing these out without citations is like criticizing a scientist who speaks extemporaneously about creationist pabulum. "But, this scientist isn't a geneticist, how can she criticize this claim that genes mutate at too low of a rate to explain evolution?" One need not be a high-level content expert to see obvious holes. That's what Barrett has pointed out. These holes are relevant because people have uncritically used Price's writings to promote obviously erroneous ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You do have to be a content expert if you're using content that is not common knowledge as the foundation of your critique. This isn't even remotely related to your creationism analogy which involves information that is common knowledge and not just among "scientists". Are you saying that it is common knowledge that all of these various groups behaved in the manner that Barrett claims they did prior to and after being introduced to Western customs? Most lived "feast or famine" and suffered from malnutrition? Most were "ignorant of the value of balancing their diet"? Really? Also did most second generation westernized natives of the 1920s and 1930s and belonging to the groups studied by Price "overindulge" in Western foods? I didn't know that. Did you? Where does that come from? I'm sorry I do not accept his non-expert generalizations about native groups he knows squat about. From my perspective these look an awful lot like generalizations based upon some contemporary studies of the health and consumption habits of contemporary "native" groups (e.g Native Americans and Polynesians). I could be wrong, but then again, like Barrett I have no business making such claims in the first place.Griswaldo (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What this amounts to is Barrett critiquing Price for falling prey to the trope of the "noble savage" with his own contemporary trope of the "overindulging savage". Neither trope is particularly convincing on its own and at least Price did some actual research and produced some empirical evidence to back his conclusions, however biased his interpretations ended up being. I continue to believe that this blind defense of Barrett is a great detriment to the project because Barrett is clearly a useful source in other areas.Griswaldo (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Barrett's goal is not to provide an anthropological critique of Price. Barrett's goal is to point out problems. That there are generalizations or "tropes" that are inexact in Barrett's two paragraphs on obvious reasons not to take Price at face value is irrelevant. Barrett isn't asking that we accept his interpretation as the only correct one: he's simply pointing out the error in accepting Price's. At least that's how I read it. You can criticize this kind of critique as being "not useful", but you should not be making judgments about which person did "actual research". Claiming that Barrett didn't do "actual research" is baseless. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to get the last word in here but I don't see this going anywhere at this point. I do get it. The problem is that Barrett does not have the necessary expertise in " pointing out the error in accepting Price's", and this is made obvious by the manner in which he choses to do so (said manner has described above again and again). If Barrett did actual research he would be presenting us with ways to verify his research (whether that research was original scientific research or source research). For the last time his opinion alone doesn't cut it because he is not an expert here. I've quoted directly from his essay to corroborate this claim by showing the exact types of claims he's making in order to mount his argument and I can't really do much more than that.Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Casual analysis and skeptical dismissal has its place when fringe ideas based on nearly 100-year-old work that has no ral intellectual progeny are being promulgated. Just because ideas that are being explicated by non-experts are analyzed in passing by relevant skeptics doesn't mean that the skeptics are doing shoddy research. We can verify that Barrett made the statements, but no one has impeached their validity except to say that they are overly-broad which was their intent in the first place. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Confounding variables and what makes an expert?

Look, I'm sure there were confounding variables here, and possibly even some of the ones identified by Barrett. The problem is that Barrett, who appears to have no expertise in identifying the existence of the actual confounding variables, has created an argument by adapting a series of generalizations that sound scientific in order to prove his point. This is an "ends justify the means" type of situation for his defenders if you ask me, but I do not think we can adopt that approach on Wikipedia because that is tantamount to crusading for the WP:TRUTH instead of WP:V. Do I believe that Price probably overlooked several variables and possibly dismissed others that would add great explanatory value to the health differences he observed and would call many of his specific conclusions into doubt? Certainly. But I'm not about lobby for the inclusion non-expert opinions that in the end agree with my belief I'm going to continue to search for expert criticisms of Price's theories, especially those that situate the criticisms historically and help to flesh out the historical narrative of Price. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that we adopt this approach "on Wikipedia". I've already stated clearly that I think Barrett's critique is worth its context but is not meant to be authoritatively autobiographical. Barrett is an expert on how the works of Price are being misused by the Price Foundation. He's also an expert in how the Price Foundation has spun Price's findings and how there are problems with Price's findings. Are his critiques as precise as those that might be made by an expert anthropologist? No. But that's not the point of the Barrett source anyway. You can search for more sources that are of higher academic quality, but this blanket dismissal of Quackwatch is just unwarranted. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett is not an expert on how they are being misused. He's an expert at sniffing out that they are probably being misused. This is the real problem here. Barrett is probably correct in general but he has no expertise in the fields needed to accurately explain why and this is obvious because he resorts to tropes and generalizations about native diets and westernized native behaviors. Like I said above, feel free to have the last word here because clearly what I'm saying is falling on def ears.Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Griswaldo: my ears aren't deaf, and I agree with you substantially. I think it's time that we acknowledge that we have largely reached a consensus on this bit (that Barrett is not an expert at all, but merely an informed commentator who opinion may have a place on the article with respect to the foundation, but cannot be treated as an unbiased source with respect to Price himself). At this point we should just go ahead and revise the article from that understanding. I mean, I'm happy to continue the discussion with SA, but at this point he's got a bit of upstream swimming to do before he can make an effective case for his perspective. --Ludwigs2 18:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the statement "Barret is not an expert at all". He is an expert at debunking false medical claims. I'm not sure what you mean by "unbiased", but skeptics are pretty much the closest thing we have to independent analysis of much of the nonsense promulgated by obscure fringe sources. Essentially, no one here has addressed these fundamental facts, and these are facts from on the ground: these represent how Wikipedia functions. I'm doing no upstream swimming here. If anything, the vestiges of the old alt-med wars have been all but marginalized from this encyclopedia leaving yourself as one the sole hold-outs. Barrett is used as a source a whole lot more than three years ago, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

SA, I'm not sure what you mean by 'an expert at debunking false medical claims'. I'll grant that that is what he does, and I'll even grant that there's a value to it, but 'being an expert' involves more than just doing something a lot. generally speaking, 'expertise' requires some kind of professional or academic degree, some form of testing and licensing, or some other publicly established system for verifying expertise and conferring the title. There are no public systems for conferring or confirming expertise at skepticism or debunking, and Barrett has no special skills or knowledge (that I am aware of) that entitle him to the status of 'expert'. Honestly, he doesn't do anything that you or I couldn't do (and couldn't do better) if we had the time and interest to dedicate to the task; a decent plumber has more right to call himself an expert (by virtue of specific training and licensing), than you or I or Barrett.

I don't disagree with what you say about skeptics, but that doesn't make skeptics authoritative experts. it makes skepticism a particular point of view to be included in broader discussions. The 'old alt med wars', as you put it, were the result of two partisan camps each trying to queer the encyclopedia to their own bias. the skeptics have generally done better at imposing their bias due to divide-and-conquer issues: fringe advocates tend to have a small range of articles that interest them, while skeptics have a generalized bias that allows them to organize better across a broad range of pages. but it is still a bias, and it is still inappropriate to impose a bias to the encyclopedia, and it's high time that we loosened that particular stranglehold and headed back towards neutral presentations. If in fact you are correct that Barrett is being used more extensively as a source, all that tells me is that a lot more articles may be suffering from sourcing problems. I should probably look into that.

This is what I mean by swimming upstream. you can only maintain your position by maintaining that Barrett somehow, someway, has some special status beyond 'guy that runs a skeptical website'. You have to keep asserting that against every person (5 or 6 in this debate alone) who suggests that Barrett in no way has any special status or position that give his critiques 'umph', but you don't really have any justification for that assertion, and the more you argue it, the more apparent it becomes that you don't really have any justification for it. You simply cannot explain why Barrett is someone whose opinion carries any particular weight (aside from being a notable 'guy who runs a skeptical website'). I (at least) am waiting for the shoe to drop: the point where you stop trying to present Barrett as more than he is, and settle down to using him as he is (which is good enough for skeptical critiques in a lot of cases). Is that ever going to happen, or are you going to continue advancing him as a sort of skeptical messiah? --Ludwigs2 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Barrett has been published by third-party publishers and journals debunking phony medical claims (e.g. [62], [63], [64]), he is an expert according to WP:SPS. According to Wikipedia's definition, then, he is an "expert". That's what I'm going by. If you dislike this definition, take it up at the talk page of that policy. If you think you can get published in the way Barrett has been published and can start a website that has received the accolades Barrett's website has received, then you are indeed an expert. Wikipedia is doing just fine with handling neutrality, as I see it. But I won't stand idly by while people malign perfectly good sources like Quackwatch. My justification is enshrined in Wikipedia policy, and until you get it changed, I'm going to stick to it. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Geez, who keeps changing the section titles? making me dizzy...

SA, wp:SPS talks about 'established experts whose work has been published in reliable sources'; it does not say that being published in 3rd party reliable sources makes one an established expert (which would be an absurd thing to say, if you think about it). asserting that as true is a logical fallacy: affirming the consequent. even if you could legitimately use this argument (which you can't, not within the bounds of rational discourse), you'd run smack into the next line of SPS which says "caution should be exercised when using such sources". You can't honestly claim that this is a 'cautious' application of the source; you're pushing the edges of common sense in order to assert the source as authoritative.

You are free to stick by your viewpoint until the cows come home. I respect that: as you know, I am not even slightly shy about stubbornly sticking to my own guns when I think I'm in the right. But I know (and you ought to) that there comes a point when you simply have to bow to reason. Being stubborn is useful and often successful when the other side is not being reasonable; but one needs to be open to the possibility that reason is on the other side of the table and one's assertiveness is simply misguided. --Ludwigs2 03:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You are really parsing closely if you think the dependent parenthetical clause in SPS is the consequent. But no matter, it's pretty easy to see how either of us could be correct: the real point I'm making is that it is the only guidance Wikipedia gives for determining expertise and it's not an outrageous one. The alternative is to just go by the vague considerations of editors and, as we've seen from the Burn Barrett Bandwagon, this isn't a reasonable approach. I think that if we were to adjudicate this it is very likely that the result would be that the person who has been published in peer reviewed journals and has maintained a website that has received numerous positive reviews from other acknowledged experts is likely to be considered reliable at least for certain aspects of what we're dealing with here. And, you're just putting words into my mouth if you think that I'm not advocating for a cautious approach here. "Reason", as it were, has really nothing to do with our disagreement. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No, SA, it is not the case that either of us could be correct. The common (or should I say 'common sense') criteria for the word 'expert' both on project and off is that someone has a degree, a credential, a license, or some other recognized accomplishment in a particular field that signifies specialized knowledge or skills. There is not even a legitimate field here ('quackbusting' is only a legitimate field of investigation in your mind), and there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that Barrett is an 'expert' at it. Now, if you you really want to keep up this line, then yes, let's go ask for clarification on this issue at ArbCom under the pseudoscience ruling. do you want to open the case or shall I? --Ludwigs2 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes one an expert is their publication record and acknowledgment of other experts. That's what Wikipedia says in SPS and that's what I go by. Arbcom is not going to take this on. I suggest going to the talkpage of WP:SPS to get consensus to clarify the policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the third party verification of his expertise then, and in what field is this expertise in? There is no "field of debunking" as you claim just below. You have listed two peer reviewed publications of his earlier on the page, but that does not make him an expert in a non-existent field. The third source you listed was published by Prometheus books, which is a well known publishing arm of a skeptical society. Doesn't exactly count towards mainstream acceptance as an expert in a non-existent field. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already shown you the places Barrett has been published, and the positive reviews he's received are documented on our Quackwatch page pretty clearly. The "field" is not "non-existent": it's just specialized. If you think that the mainstream distrusts "skeptical societies", I'd like you to show this. Maligning a source as "skeptical" is like maligning a source for being "evidence-based" as far as I'm concerned and it is a criticism that is not only hollow but utterly silly. Skeptics are great sources for describing what they describe. We use them all the time to great effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think ArbCom will take this on, since this is clearly an extension of the pseudoscience decision. We can discuss this at SPS if you like, but neither of us shows any particular inclination to change our point of view, and all an additional forum is going to accomplish is to attract more users who are making a point of not listening to the same reasons that have already been presented. ArbCom request for clarification will save us the trouble of talking past each other for a few more weeks. --Ludwigs2 16:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is in ArbCom's remit. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, obviously it is. At any rate, it can't hurt to ask. since you seem reticent I'll start the process myself as I get a chance. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett is not an expert in nutrition or the associated research. When has conduct any, and produced a scientific report on it? It's already been proven that Price was an accepted expert in his field by his colleagues. Barrett can make all the quackbusting on the Price Foundation he wants, but he can't say diddly about Price. He can't even address his research in the context of the known science at the time. If he did, he would have to agree with him. Price had detailed data and analyses, Barrett doesn't. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Price was incorrect in many if not most of his conclusions. Barrett explained why and is a verified expert in the field of debunking. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To excise or not to excise

The real reason we need to excise Barrett is that the exception described in the following passage from WP:SPS does not apply when Barrett speaks about Price: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Hans Adler 18:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett, I would argue, is an established expert in the relevant field of quackbusting and we have many third-party sources which have identified him as a reliable debunker of health frauds. This is not to say that Price is a health fraud, but in the same way I think it would be dishonest for us not to include mention of the eponymous foundation in Price's biography, it would be dishonest for us to excise sources who have commented on this foundation. Barrett is a self-published recognized expert here in the same way that Phil Plait is when he discusses Moon hoaxers for the biography of Alexander Popov, or Bob Park is when he discusses cold fusion for the biography of Stanley Pons. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

SA: First off, 'quackbusting' is not a 'field' (any more than the MythBusters are a center for academic research). being a debunker is not being a scientist, it's being a social activist for science. I do think we need to include modern outgrowths of price's work (such as the foundation), and I'm not averse to using Barrett's critique as a critique of those modern outgrowths, but Barrett's critique of Price himself strikes me as an unreliable (primary source) opinion, not the product of a reasoned (secondary source) analysis. Barrett is only critiquing Price because Barrett wants leverage against the modern foundations - the technique is akin to critiquing modern American democracy by pointing out that Ben Franklin liked to sleep with 12 year olds. is that really the kind of argument style we want to use on project? --Ludwigs2 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows for broad definitions of "fields". The semantics of such are not really relevant. What does matter is that Barrett is recognized by a wide range of reliable sources as being a good resource for what I colloquially term "quackbusting". You seem to acknowledge that yourself, so I'll let the matter drop. As far as your distrust of Barrett's critique of "Price himself", I'm not convinced that you're doing anything more than exhibiting prejudice. Barrett's three paragraphs on "Price himself" simply indicate to me that certain aspects of Price's ideas do not hold up when subject to scientific scrutiny; a relatively common type of criticism that is leveled against not just Price, but also a wide range of his more accomplished contemporaries (Tesla and Pauling to name a few). There's no problem with acknowledging this facet of Price's legacy. In addition, you make a bold and unsubstantiated claim about Barrett's motivations for writing the three paragraphs in question, that he is doing so because he wants leverage against the modern Price Foundation. This claim of yours is simply not something we can verify. What it looks to me like you are doing is setting up a tenuous strawman: Barrett is unreliable because he is not setting out to write a fair biography of Price. Even if we could verify that as being true, it's actually irrelevant because we only require that reliable sources like Stephen Barrett writing about health frauds and their histories present usable material. We, as editors, can work on how best to use the source, but it's simply not okay to argue that we should ignore or excise every statement in Price's biography sourced to Barrett on the basis of polemics against Quackwatch. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: Please don't ignore the issue. I thought it's enough to simply get to the core of WP:SPS, but you have chosen not to reply to that. So let's start from the beginning: Is Stephen Barrett writing in Quackwatch a self-published-source, yes or no? Keep in mind that you have to defend your answer, and that you probably don't want Dana Ullman's website to become a reliable source. Hans Adler 20:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing that the exception you outline in your previous post does apply with regards to Barrett's article about Weston Price. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry, I don't know what happened to my reading comprehension. OK. So Barrett is an expert in the field of quackbusting. To what extent is Weston Price an article on quackbusting? I vaguely remember something about WP:UNDUE, plants and homeopathic remedies, so I am a bit puzzled. Hans Adler 21:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that Weston Price's legacy is largely controlled in the popular media by advocates of a particular brand of alternative medicine. I wrote a sample sentence above to illustrate. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

SA- point about semantics taken. so long as we're careful not to elevate quackbusting to a full-scale academic pursuit, I'm satisfied. With respect to your other points, however, I don't quite see how you get to 'prejudice' from what I wrote. My two points were as follows:

1. Barrett does not seem to be doing what reliable secondary sources would do - gathering material from an assortment of different sources in order to present a neutral and comprehensive overview of Price's work. He seems to be presenting a version of Price's legacy geared toward making an argument that Price was a pseudoscientist. That would be primary source material, and as a primary source Barrett is questionable and likely not notable for the topic (which I think goes to Hans' SPS issue)
2. Barrett is primarily concerned with the modern outgrowths of Price's work, not Price himself. QuackWatch explicitly deals with practices that are (potentially) dangerous to public, and Price (having been dead for a good long while now, and therefore prima facia not dangerous) is only relevant to the extent that his theories are carried on in some form by others. If Barrett showed any real proclivity for examining scientific history as an independent subject I might reconsider, but his primary interest is clearly generating public information about current practices. The only reason to discuss Price is to use the discussion of price to gain leverage in a discussion of other, more current practices.

And please don't accuse me of using a strawman argument right before you pull out a strawman argument of your own (reverse double-strawman submission technique is disallowed under MMA debating style rules). I never argued "that we should ignore or excise every statement in Price's biography sourced to Barrett". This is a matter for discussion, not a call to action.

@ Hans: I believe SA is saying that Price is an expert in the field of 'quacking', to which the field of 'quackbusting' is intimately related. However, I'm not sure about the sourcing on that. --Ludwigs2 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I agree with your point two. Point one I agree with except for the first sentence. I don't think we make demands on what we want reliable sources "to do". I think we make demands on how reliable sources are evaluated. WP:SPS, for example, explains how we determine when someone is an "expert". I also disagree with your last sentence. Barrett is a WP:SPS, but we make an exception for him because of the advocacy of the Price Foundation with respect to the legacy of Weston Price. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, is that really your position (Ludwigs2 said it, not you): Is the Price article a quacking article? My problem here is that I don't want to open our article Quantum physics to, not just a short discussion of quantum nonsense, but to the use of quantum nonsense literature as supposedly adequate reliable sources. Setting up the historical person Price as a punching doll and proxy for the modern fringe that abuses his writings doesn't strike me as the kind of noble cause that would justify a dilution of WP:ONEWAY. What happened to Price can happen to basically every scientist. I think Scientology or some similar group used to advertise with Albert Einstein's photo and a bizarre claim about using only half the brain. Hans Adler 22:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think quantum physics is a good analogy. Tesla and Pauling are closer analogies, but still not quite good enough. What we have is a researcher whose work lives on primarily as a vehicle for the promotion of fringe ideology. I don't know if that makes the article "quacking", but it certainly makes critiques of the fringe ideology relevant because the biography should not be kept insulated from the legacy. Another example might be Carl Jung. It's well known that the family really dislikes a lot of current-day Jungians and dispute much of the claims that those groups make to Jung's legacy. Nonetheless, it is our responsibility as broad-based encyclopedia editors to let the reader know about the Jungian legacy in Jung's biography -- even if it may not necessarily be most of the article. I hope you understand what I'm getting at. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think so. If Weston Price were notable only for his posthumous reception we would have a problem. But that's not the case. So all we need to do is find decent sources for a correct biography that ignores all the trash, add a little section about his reception and, if we can source it, about what is wrong about his reception – and we are done. No big issues with fringe in the article. Of course for a section on the fringe aspects, we can use Barrett. Taking care only to use plausible things he says. Hans Adler 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ignoring trash. Just be aware that there seems to be trash and treasure mixed up here, probably in no small part due to Price's popularity with the alt med crowd set. I'm happy you don't want to excise Barrett completely, so I think the rest is just theoretical details. I imagine that an actual collaboration and attempt to properly discuss the subject will find us more-or-less on the same page. I just wish people would quit with the insinuations that there are aspects of Barrett's three paragraphs that aren't "plausible". That, to me, is unnecessarily argumentative. Anyway, let's bring on the practical implementation rather than arguing over the theoretical implementation. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SA: Without disagreeing with what you say entirely - and without spoiling the comment you made in the section below, which I think is getting close to a decent solution to this particular question - let me point out that your logic here (in part, at least) leads in some problematic directions. there are two things that I object to:

• You seem to make no distinction between early work that was (in its time) perfectly valid theoretically and methodologically, and later work based on that early work that has questionable elements to it. We cannot criticize Price for not being aware of scientific conclusions that hadn't yet been reached in his time, or for the actions of organizations that did not exist while he was alive. I understand the motivation here, I think - you want to say that the idea itself is somehow inherently fringe, and as such must always have been fringe even if it wasn't recognized as such - but that is misguided. Merely being wrong is not being fringe: many, many perfectly reasonable scientists have been wrong about many issues. Fringe implies an obtuse refusal to accept scientific conclusions that goes well beyond the normal activity of researching, presenting and defending an untested scientific theory, and trying to extend the 'fringe' idea backwards to cover scientific innovations that didn't pan out is actually a snub to scientific methodology (which needs people to take risks with untested ideas just to see if anything can be made of them).
• You seem to be confounding levels of analysis. The fact that Jung's descendants dislike what some people have done with Jungian psychology is an interesting bit of information, but it is not useful for establishing that the modern incarnations of Jung are fringe. I'm not sure what that factoid establishes, actually. New age Jungianism might be labeled as fringe because it (again, obtusely) disregards some established psychological principles or because it cannot otherwise establish itself in scholarly circles - and yeah, from what I know of Jungian psychology, therapists and theorists in that vein would scoff at the assumptions of the New Agers - but we don't want to confound lay critique (prejudicial statements based in a perception of wrongdoing) with scholarly rejection (refusal to accept a position due to analytical concerns). This is actually an extensive problem on wikipedia: many editors seem to feel that 'fringe' necessarily implies corruption, misconduct, or other forms of iniquity. sometimes it does, obviously, but sometimes it doesn't, and lumping everything into the worst-case scenario introduces a bias. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I wouldn't be comfortable "criticizing" Price (or Tesla or Pauling) for ideas that they proposed that later turned out to be wrong. Nor is there anything prima facie "fringe" about any idea ever. WP:FRINGE is quite clear on that. However, pointing out when ideas that certain historical researchers had that did turn out to be wrong is not a criticism nor does it qualify as a categorical assault on the subject. Wrong ideas are an important part of the scientific method, for example. It can upset people who believe in the idea to have these problems pointed out, but that's really not supposed to be our worry.
2. I wasn't arguing that fringe is about corruption, misconduct, or iniquity. I'm not sure why you think that. Some fringe ideas are hurt by the unethical or intellectually dishonest conduct on the part of their proponents, and maybe (I'm not sure about this, though) there is more dishonesty in fringe work than in mainstream work, but that's not of interest to Wikipedia. The issue for Wikipedia is that we need to cover all of our bases, as it were. The problem with fringe fields is that oftentimes they are obscure (by definition) and it makes "covering the bases" difficult. That's the point of WP:FRINGE in my mind. YMMV. Apart from this, I think that the Jungian parallel is pretty good here. There is an advocacy (whether right or wrong) that is pushing certain interpretations of Price into an alternative medicine idealization. We need to be careful on two fronts: 1) that we don't mistake advocacy or response to this advocacy for authoritative biographies, and 2) that we don't dismiss advocacy or the response to this advocacy on the basis that it isn't an authoritative biography.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't express myself properly. I wasn't particularly accusing you of this; I was pointing out the dangers of the logic. there are others in this discussion (and discussions like it) who happily go to the extremes that I'm worried about, and once they've gotten there it's incredibly difficult to bring them back to a sane perspective. I hope you can understand that I'm not disagreeing with you that much, I just want to be (somewhat obsessively) clear about the issue on the near side (because not being obsessively clear on the near side usually means I need to be obsessively pug-nosed about it later on, and that gets tiresome). --Ludwigs2 18:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Convenience break for clarity

Well a secondary source establishing a historical narrative of the reception of Price's theories during his life and after it is valuable. I have no particular interest in making Price look more mainstream than he actually was and welcome information of that nature. Barrett, does not present historical information, however, simply contemporary opinion. I'm inclined to see that is less valuable, even if the reliability issues are misplaced.Griswaldo (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I think that Barrett's three paragraphs are not as valuable as the essay of the PhD candidate I list above. However, it may be more valuable than the single sentence in The Black Stork. But this is entirely due to the fact that one sentence is paltry compared to three paragraphs which is in turn paltry compared to an eight-page essay. Scaling to our biography, I'd expect to see a similar sort of weighting being affected with regards our article: do it by length and ignore these peculiar protestations that Barrett is somehow "wrong" because in 1924 Price wrote a sentence on infant mortality. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the reason that the Weston Price Foundation was used was because more reliable source are so blasted hard to get a hold of in terms of internet accessablity ie you have to a university library and hope they have the needed materials.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with what Barrett and QuackWatch do (and with skepticism as a rule, IMO), is that it's far, far closer to informed social commentary than to science, but they don't seem to realize or acknowledge the distinction. QuackWatch's raison d'etre is to inform people about potentially dangerous/unreliable procedures and practices, but he's more concerned with the opinion-mongering side of that equation (the 'informing people' bit) than he is with the actual analytic process of distinguishing good practices from bad. Basically, QW is a skeptics' clearing-house: It will pick up on anything that sounds suspicious, problematic or unlikely, and get information about it out there long before there's any significant research that confirms the suspicions. As a public service that has some good points - sometimes it takes proper science a long time to catch up with dangerous techniques, and people should have fair warning even of rumors that some practice might be bad - but the people inclined to do that kind of thing (Barrett being no exception) have a horrible tendency to overindulge in questionable critiques. Barrett isn't qualified to act as a scientific source on most of the things that appear on QW. He does work as a journalistic source in a number of cases, but he swings between Walter Cronkite moments and Glenn Beck moments, so you usually have to dig a bit deeper to see whether what he's said is at all credible in any particular case.

He does have a following on wikipedia, which makes things difficult, but I don't suppose there's anything new or unique about that. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

P.s.: Ronz - discussion Barrett's use as a source is not a BPL issue. Everything that we might consider about him as a source is already placed in the public domain, by Barrett himself. --Ludwigs2 23:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussions about Barrett are BLP issues.

"He does have a following on wikipedia, which makes things difficult" Please follow WP:TALK. --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not a shield from scrutiny and legimate critique. WP is not about mindlessly applying policy WP:WIARM, it is about sourced information. We are debating a source here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 10:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussions about Barrett as a source on Wikipedia are not BLP issues. Please tell me where WP:BLP says that calling a source unreliable is a BLP concern?Griswaldo (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLP, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

He does have a following on wikipedia, and it does make things difficult. But that's true of many topics on wikipedia, so... whatever. It's not a huge issue in my books; is it a huge issue in yours? Beyond that, if you see an actual BLP issue that you think needs to be discussed as we go along we can address it. Trust me, I will be sure to 'take particular care'. Otherwise I'll take your comment as a friendly but overly-generic reminder of common sense principles and treat it accordingly. Now, can we get back to business? --Ludwigs2 01:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like hogwash. If it's not a huge issue, don't bring it up. I'll list the specific BLP problems on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've responded there. now, hogwash or not, can we get on with it? --Ludwigs2 01:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible conclusion?

Have read all the above with great interest. Further to my early, quite non-committal comment, I would like to say that again the crucial issue seems to be what field of enquiry the article belongs to. And I think that is history of science, sub-field history of dentistry. That's why Barrett is not, in this case, an ideal source. I, personally, would be interested in reading more about the eugenics connections, even if they are in some way par for the course when considering ideas of this vintage. Science explores, it speculates, it comes to conclusions, it questions, it moves on. Barrett has promoted debunking of crackpot ideas in the cause of science, and built a website to counter misinformation on the web, but his usefulness in these more complex questions is limited. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you had a website called QuackWatch, isn't there an implication that all your subjects are quacks? How could you possibly be consider objective? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett wrote three paragraphs on Price. I think that if we take all the non-Price Foundation sources on Price we'll find that Barrett's contribution is likely to be minimal in amount. However, as an effective counter to the Price Foundation's promulgations, Barrett has a place, methinks. It would be weird if you thought that the Price Foundation didn't belong mentioned in the article on the man, and I think [{WP:PARITY]] is a pretty good argument for why Barrett would also belong. Also, it's pretty clear to me that Barrett is probably more mainstream than the Price Foundation, so... equal weight between Barrett's ideas about Price and the Price Foundation's ideas about Price may be warranted. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there has been parallel discussion at two noticeboards. I guess you missed the discussion over at WP:RS/N#Is a paper (possible blog) by a psychiatrist valid regarding old claims regarding dentistry?. I proposed there to mention the Price Foundation in a "Legacy" section. (In the meantime, having looked for book about Price and only found the modern fringe stuff, I guess it's notable enough.) It should be properly contextualised of course, so as not to give the fringe validity, and for that Barrett is an adequate source. But not for the biography proper. Hans Adler 22:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I agree with that. It's essentially what I've been arguing all along. However, it may not be completely necessary to segregate the legacy into a separate section. It's similar to the style of "criticism" sections. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. As long as we don't allow any sources which are fringe-promotional to be used in the "biography proper", I think this may work. But I actually think there may be some biographical material that can be gleaned from Price Foundation stuff. In that case, I think it irresponsible to say that somehow we can glean from the Price Foundation but not from Barrett, if you see what I mean. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out on the Talk:Weston Price page Price's work must be evaluated in the context of the time it was written rather than present day. Back then few if any processed foods were revitaminized (ie had vitamins added to restore what had been lost in processing) and in the case of canned goods you had another issue: lead solder (banned in the US in 1994). These two factors alone mean you have to adjust what Price found to fit to the modern day--something that most people who use his research don't do.

Conversely you don't do what Barrett does which is attack Price's work with easily disproved claims and outdated references regarding focal infection theory because once you do that the issue of 'well he was wrong on that so what else is he wrong on' comes up. There were so many other better ways to refute the use (or more accurately misuse) of Price but to put it bluntly Barrett basically blew it and undermined the credibility of the entire article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with Barrett doesn't make him wrong and doesn't mean he "blew it". Your attempt to impeach him as a source left me unimpressed. It seemed to wow others, but that's not really the way to approach such things here at Wikipedia since our opinions of whether you've shown someone to be incorrect cannot be verified without conducting original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. It is not a "disagreement" with Barrett but that every claim aobut Price can be shown to be in error if not out right wrong. If the online reports regarding the Stephen Barrett, M.D. vs. Tedd Koren, D.C. and Koren Publications, Inc., King Bio Pharmaceuticals cases are totally factual in their details Barrett has serious credibility problems--possibly enough to discredit him as a WP:RS. The Quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, loses appeal and leaves home town article claims that at the time of writing Barrett had not won a single lawsuit that went to trial. Furthermore with all the material showing that it is not better than a placebo and the fact one of its premises violates basic chemistry how on earth do you lose a case regarding the claim homeopathy is quackery?

Further search shows that even within the time period of the two articles Barrett cites (1951-1982) shows that even his claim of "This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid" is on shaky ground.

"Much of the clinical evidence supporting the focal infection theory is of the case-report type." (Burket, Lester William (1971) "Oral medicine; diagnosis and treatment")

Dental infections: treatment and prophylaxis E.R. Squibb & Sons (1956) Page 46 gives a far different picture: "Grossman believes that foci of infection, where in the mouth or elsewhere, should be removed (...) Elimination of such foci does not, however, necessarily mean surgical removal since infection may also be eliminated by destruction with antiseptics or antibiotics"

"The allergic condition called angioneurotic edema may be related to food allergy, hypersensitivity, local or focal infection, and endocrine or emotional disturbances." (United States. Dept. of the Army (1971) Dental specialist: Sept. 20, 1971: Part 1 - Page 5-14)

The fact that the United States. Dept. of the Army in 1971 still considered focal infection a viable cause of a condition totally disproves Barrett's claim.

So on nearly every point regarding Price, Barrett is at best in error if not flat out wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You think because Barrett lost suits in which he was the plaintiff, that impugns his credibility as an expert in quackbusting? You've got another thing coming. Expertise is not demonstrated through the number of lawsuits you file and win. As for the rest of this, I think Griswaldo below shows that there are conflations possible here. Barrett is correct that Price's focal infection ideas that have spread to the Foundations ideations criticizing mainstream denistry are far off the mark. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

SA, I think yes and no here. From the sources I've found it doesn't seem likely that the old focal infection theory was being considered in 1971, however both of the sources I found review the history of the old theory, in light of recent developments in oral focal infection research. There is an idea of continuity here in the general principles of the theory, and not the unscientific claims of the early 20th century, which btw, were so mainstream for a couple of decades that they were also held by Charles Mayo. I think Bruce is correct to point out that focal infection theories have persisted, and that the basic underlying notion is not all that wacky. What I found interesting, and I noted below, is that not only was the theory mainstream but neither source mentions Price as a particularly notable proponent of it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that dentistry has moved on from this particular sort of focal infection theory. The two sources Barret cites: Easlick K. An evaluation of the effect of dental foci of infection on health. Journal of the American Dental Association 42:615-97, 1951. and Grossman L. Pulpless teeth and focal infection. Journal of Endodontics 8:S18-S24, 1982. seem to align fairly well with his blanket assessment. Barrett acknowledges that many people believed this idea leading to "millions" of teeth extractions. I just glanced at the two sources he cites and they do seem to conclusively come down on the side of criticizing the major thrust of kind of theorizing Price was advocating. Do you disagree? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem wasn't the basic notion of focal infection, but the specific idea that oral infections were related to various systemic diseases. Clearly I agree that millions of teeth were extracted because of the specific focal infection theories going around, or else would not have written that into the new entry Focal infection theory. Of course in doing the research for that article I found out that it was the accepted belief at the time and that no one writing about it today appears to think Price was a notable proponent or "theorizer" of it. He accepted a theory that other people had come up with and that the medical establishment at the time was promoting. Did you miss the part about Charles Mayo? That's not a quack I hear, that's the sound of the medical establishment off in a horribly misguided direction. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking cross-purposes. I do not read Barrett as claiming that Price was the sole cause of focal infection paranoia. Rather, I think he's criticizing the utilization of Price because Price had ideas which, when applied by others (not necessarily because of Price), led to bad things happening. I think you are, again, reading malice into Barrett's writing where I just see criticism of an idea. To put it another way, I see Barrett as saying: "Price advocated focal infection theories. Such ideas were held by others and led to some bad practices made in the name of dental health." ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

SA, lets be completely clear here because clarity is needed. Such ideas were held by "the medical establishment". "Others" obfuscates here. When someone advocates what the medical establishment is advocating at the time there is nothing notable about stating this -- ever. If this person was seminal in advancing the theory in question then it would be notable, but that seems unlikely with Price given that my sources don't mention Price once. Barrett's own writings of course obfuscate even more than that. He writes:

• "Price also performed poorly designed studies that led him to conclude that teeth treated with root canal therapy leaked bacteria or bacterial toxins into the body, causing arthritis and many other diseases. This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid."

He states that Price performed studies and concluded X and then follows that with "this" theory. If he didn't mean to equate "Price's conclusions" with "this theory" then he has used such poor grammar that he has conveyed a meaning that he did not intend to convey. The use of "this" is unmistakable here in other words. Had he said "the focal infection theory", or otherwise actually referred to the same "ideas were held by others" (which he clearly doesn't), one might say that I misread him. I'm a native reader of English and I know that what you are claiming he meant is not what is conveyed by those words. Not even remotely.Griswaldo (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Barret is not arguing that Price's ideas weren't in the "medical establishment". That's your strawman, or at minimum, your particular spin on his writing. What Barrett wrote is correct. I'm not sure how you can say otherwise. Are you saying that Barrett is writing/implying that Price was the forerunner and only promulgator of focal infection theory? To my reading, the quote you give is not properly interpreted in this way. I can understand that someone might take Barrett to mean this if they thought, for example, that Barrett was writing an authoritative biography on Weston Price, but I don't think that's what Barrett's doing. Is he conflating "images" of Price with Price himself? Perhaps, but that's something we can tease out using other sources. A plain reading of the text is correct. It's only these secondary implications that you're seeing that are problematic, but I'm telling you, truthfully, that I do not interpret the text to imply those secondary implications at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not my strawman because I'm not claiming that Barrett has made any direct argument about the mainstream in either direction. I'm pointing out that since the theory was mainstream (you know as a historical fact) it becomes rather dubious to discuss someone's connection to it in a way that might imply something else or might leave the reader in the dark to think something else. Regarding the rest you are simply flat out wrong. That is not how the English language works. Barrett has supplied no other referent for the "this" in the second sentence other than Price's specific research. Without another referent it is the correct reading of that sentence to conflate Price's conclusions with the "this focal infection theory". If you asked anyone to read that blind that is exactly what they would do. The claims about what Barrett actually meant are complete hearsay. We have no evidence whatsoever that he meant anything else. The idea that we need to "tease out" what Barrett meant is also troubling, because it sounds like a nice way to say that we need to do our own research to understand that the primary meaning of what Barrett has written is in fact wrong. I'm done with this SA, because it is clear to me now it doesn't matter how wrong Barrett might be, this defense is going to continue endlessly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think trying to protect against possible misinterpretations by excising a reliable source is a bad move. We just need to write the article to avoid such problems. We can still use the source. As far as the rest goes, you seem to think that because Barrett said, A used B, B resulted in C he's implying A cause C. I don't think that's true. I'm not arguing for Barrett apologetics. I'm just saying that your interpretation is not the only one possible and, indeed, is not even close to my interpretation. The facts that Barrett elucidates, to me at least, seem fairly solid. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Our focal infection entry is pretty horrendous. I've started improvements based upon two dental journal articles that are available online. Of note is the fact that neither article mentions Price at all, though the more thorough of the two mentions several other doctors and dentists who were important proponents of the theory.Griswaldo (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK so I probably blundered into this the wrong way (by moving an entry instead of creating a new one initially) but I think the outcome is correct. We now have a stub on Focal infection, since this is clearly a recognized medical term today for various infections that are capable of spreading, and a longer article that I have been improving on Focal infection theory.Griswaldo (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2009 Textbook of Endodontology by Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich by Wiley page 135-136 gives a slightly different view: "...in spite of lack of scientific evidence the dental focal infection theory never died (40, 42). The references are O'Reilly (2000) "A history of Oral sepsis as a cause of disease" Periodentel 2000 23:13-18 and Pallashe TJ (2000) "The focal infection theory: appraisal and reappraisal" California Dental Association Journal 28: 194-200

Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 goes even further: "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..."

"This is why the dental and medical communities are cautiously reconsidering the biological plausibility of the 'focal infection' theory." Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) "Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology", Wiley; Page 33

These articles all by reliable sources show that focal infection theory fell out of favor as a main cause of disease but that parts of it survived.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Where we get personal

This conversation has descended into personal invective. It's probably a waste of time to click show
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bruce, your comments more and more are looking like a bald POV-push about biologic dentistry: a fringe alternative medicine that does not have evidence basis. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC) SA, sounds to me like you're throwing out bold accusation with zero sourcing to back it up. At least Bruce tries to discuss this in a reasoned manner. If you don't intend to add value, why are are you here? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC) I've provided plenty of sourcing and I don't think I've been unreasonable. If you have a problem with me, escalate up the dispute resolution ladder. Let me know when you actually want to have a conversation. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC) I guess I must have missed the point where you actually provided that. can you point me to a diff? --Ludwigs2 19:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I can. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Very clever. This thread stopped going anywhere a long time ago. We have other things to do. Heim theory, below, for example, if anyone here has a physics background. I think someone does. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC) OK then please do or else strike your accusation against Bruce. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Can you be a little more specific? Additionally, I didn't make an accusation against Bruce. I made an observation and offered my opinion of his comments. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It is clear from the requests above that people would like to see evidence of this: "your comments more and more are looking like a bald POV-push about biologic dentistry." You claim that this comment isn't an "accusation" but merely an "observation". Let's not mince words here because it doesn't particularly matter if you outright accuse someone of POV pushing when you poison the well like this. Suggesting bad faith through an "observation" is the same thing as actually accusing someone of it. It just requires a bit less backbone.Griswaldo (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I'm responding above to a comment by BruceGrubb which, to me, reads like a bald POV-push about biologic dentistry, or at the very least a push for orthomolecular medicine acceptance. See a similar type of argument at the end of this SDMB thread where the same to sources are listed together with a source from orthomolecular medicine. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Wow, guilt by an association two times removed. How ridiculous. IMJ is correct, there are better things to do here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) See WP:DUCK. I'm just calling it like I see it. I might be wrong, but I've never seen an instance where anti-Barrett fever hasn't been at least inspired by incipient fringe promotion. I'd rather nip that in the bud. If you don't want to end up in barrel of bad apples, make sure you're an orange! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) SA, you are violating talk page principles: comment on edits, not on editors. If you cannot find a decent reason to claim that bruce is wrong based on policy, then you don't get to assert that he's wrong because of some (imagined) personal characteristic. --Ludwigs2 21:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I commented on what BruceGrubb's comments looked like to me. The reasons I outlined are decent. He's not wrong because of a personal characteristic. He's wrong because he's adopting an argument that has historically been advocacy-based. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC) In that case, your language choice was tremendously poor. saying his comments are "looking like a bald POV-push about biologic dentistry" is both substantively incorrect (he is not advocating for biologic dentistry but rather questioning the reliability of a critique of biologic dentistry), and likely to be misconstrued as a claim that bruce himself is POV pushing. If in fact you were only making a comment about a vague similarity to some (undisclosed or imagined) event of bald-faced POV pushing, and had no intention whatsoever of accusing bruce of so doing, please make that explicit so that we can all laugh over a silly misunderstanding and move on with the discussion. --Ludwigs2 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC) My comments were not substantively incorrect. It is impossible for me to know whether Bruce was POV-pushing or not. I assume he wasn't, but his comments look like the many other comments I've seen where alternative medicine proponents have cried wolf with respect to Barrett's reliability. Are you laughing? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Why would I laugh? It's not like I haven't seen this reasoning before, and I find it disheartening more than funny. Your basic assumption here is that anyone who question's Barrett's credentials to critique fringe theories is ipso facto a fringe pov-pusher who should be dismissed out of hand. I can't understand why you would believe it is impossible for an editor to (in good faith) question Barrett's qualifications, particularly given how controversial he is as a figure. Every source on wikipedia is subject to verification, can have its reliability examined, and should be used under the principles of NPOV, and Barrett is no exception. You're correct that it's impossible to know what's going on in Bruce's mind. You are incorrect and operating against wp:AGF to make the worst-case assumption about him. You are way off base to assume that people are 'crying wolf' about Barrett when there are some reasonable arguments being made that he is being over-valued on project. Frankly, if the best argument you can come up with in support of Barrett amounts to ad hominems against the people who criticize him, then that in itself is a pretty good indication that Barrett is a crappy source. Find a better argument, or give it up. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I am assuming good faith. You can either believe me or call me a liar, but I don't know how you can know that I'm lying without being telepathic. The best argument I have to support Barrett is that he is an expert source according to WP:SPS. Additionally, your absolutist rhetoric and dismissive tone does not do your cause any good. That's normally what happens in these discussion between us, anyway. Thankfully, in practice, you seem to realize this and don't apply absolutist anti-skeptical rhetoric to actual editing of Wikipedia (or, at least, you've been wildly unsuccessful if that was your goal -- which I sometimes doubt in spite of what you wrote at the Request for Clarification). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mid-point break

SA, here's something from your source that I found interesting:

"What I found in the course of my research on Price, somewhat to my surprise, was that

his nutritionally centered perspective on preventing dental and physical degeneration was hardly idiosyncratic at the time. There was a diverse transnational network of respected researchers whose work was akin to, and roughly contemporaneous with, that of Price. They presented a viewpoint that was paradoxically gaining in scientific rigor and comprehensiveness even as it was being professionally marginalized and, at times, lumped in with “food faddism.” Particularly from the postwar years onward, and for reasons that had more to do with larger economic, political, and cultural trends than purely scientific merit, the disciplines that these figures saw as necessarily interconnected developed into institutionally discrete vocations with more technically centered approaches. By way of a brief explanation for why this happened, it is worth noting that implicit in the kind of argument put forth by Price was the hope that the dental and medical professions would become almost unnecessary with greater understanding of nutrition, food, and agronomic science. He was, in other words, telling his fellow dentists in the 1930s and ‘40s that the growth and respectability of their profession was merely the symptom of a dysfunctional industrial food system, and that someone truly concerned with dental health would become in essence a home economist or dietician. (The gender implications, at that time,

of such an argument could have played a substantial part in Price’s fall into obscurity.)"

I think this sinks the USS Fringe. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We've already dealt with this. What the source does is establish that pseudoscientific nutritionism was not as maligned in Price's day as it is today. Trying to claim this somehow makes Price's ideas (or, more properly, the legacy of his ideas) immune from WP:FRINGE is really stretching it. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you brought in the source, don't complain if it doesn't do what you want it to. Price's work was not fringe. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 10:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The source does exactly what I want it to do. It dovetails well with Barrett, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SA, it does not "dovetail well with Barrett". Barrett does not contextualize anything historically. There is no sense in Barrett of whether or not the critiques he levies are ones that were levied against Price at the time, or if Price's various mistakes are mistakes that he, as a dental researcher of his time, should not have made. In fact at worst Barrett implies the opposite. What this other piece does is to show exactly how historically situated Barrett's own critique is, in ways that, once again, Barrett does not himself make even moderately obvious. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "dovetail well" but I just don't see it.Griswaldo (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The two sources are doing different things. Barrett is not trying to contextualize anything historically, he's just explaining the history and antecedents of holistic or biologic dentistry. Renner is not trying to explain the history and antecedents of holistic or biologic dentistry, he's just providing a historical context for Price. That is what I mean by "dovetail": the two sources are addressing the same material from different analytical perspectives. Protrusions of one source fit in the gaps of the other source and vice versa thereby giving a better picture of what's going on. The argument is NOT that Barrett is documenting the contemporaneous critiques of Price. That's not the point of Barrett. The argument is NOT that Renner is showing how one might evaluate certain interpretations of Price's conclusions today. That's not the point of Renner. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I see where the problem is here then. I take dovetail to imply the creation of a "continuous", organic whole (as does the OED) when you seem to think it is appropriate to describe a contiguous, synthetic whole. Look, I don't want to quibble over words like dovetail but Renner's biographical narrative helps to situate Barrett's to the reader in a manner that Barrett should be doing himself but does not. Barrett's narrative adds nothing to Renner's however. You seem to be coming from the same assumption that both Barrett and the Weston A Price Foundation are coming from, that it is appropriate to situate Price's theories in a modern context. For the purposes of the encyclopedia entry on Price it is not. The briefest of mentions of those who do so, if they are notable, is appropriate in Price's entry but that is it. All the modern quibbling between fringe promoters and their detractors belongs in the entries about those contemporary entities. The cramming of his theories into the modern context, either positively or negatively does not dovetail with the sound historical narrative, it is simply separate from it.Griswaldo (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I take my cues from carpentry. We should not be in the business of trying to decide what Barrett "should" be doing with his writing. We can only control what Wikipedia should be doing. I flatly disagree that "Barrett's narrative adds nothing to Renner's" Barrett, in fact, explains how the legacy of Price has been used to promote snake oil. I do not care whether it is appropriate or inappropriate to evaluate Price's claims in a modern context. I only care that it is verifiable that such has occurred, and to that end, inclusion of the fact that this has occurred should be accompanied by an appropriate analysis of what this means in the current-day context. See Hans Adler's point about a "legacy" section. Since Price is known primarily through the "cramming of his theories into the modern context" it is appropriate that we deal with this (perhaps regrettable?) situation in his biography. Barrett helps us do that. Inasmuch as there might be plain facts about what Price did and how he did it explicated by Barrett, we can use Barrett for that too as we might use sources from the Price Foundation -- in the sense of "gleaning" that I discuss above. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett's presentation is basically the other side of the Foundations. Neither provide a well rounded picture of Price, or his theories. Both focus on aspects of them to prove a point, the one in reaction to the other. My opinion, and I guess I don't need to state it over and over, is that neither should be used to source anything in the Price entry. Barrett's usefulness comes in at the Foundation's entry, or a more general entry on holistic dentistry, as a critique of the contemporary misappropriation of Price (and others?). I do not believe that it is of encyclopedic value to dwell on these issues in the Price entry. I guess that's all I'm saying here. I'll stop being a broken record now.Griswaldo (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess, to summarize our disagreement then, it is to say how much Price's legacy inasmuch it is controlled by agenda-driven foundations should be discussed in our biographical article on Price. On one extreme we might say that we shouldn't include anything about his legacy or the foundation. On the other, we might say that his legacy is so important to modern conceptualizations that to ignore it is impossible. I think we can find middle ground. Better to do it in actually editing, IMHO. Case closed? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I feel like I wasted way too much of your and my own time on this.  :). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP/N

Due to Ronz concerns of BLP violations I have started a thread -- Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification

I've gone ahead and requested a clarification from ArbCom under the Pseudoscience decision. you can see the request and add comments [[65]]. I've only listed myself and SA as participants, since the main discussion was between he and I, but you can feel free to cast yourself as a participant or not as you choose. --Ludwigs2 22:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuck

I've removed my {{stuck}} tag, struckout the resolved tag, and added another stuck tag with a more neutral summary. I'm fine with no summary at all. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop adding these tags. It is disruptive. There is a consensus among editors other than yourself and ScienceApologist that Barrett does not qualify for an exception to WP:SPS in this instance. The fact that you both stubbornly fail to see the consensus is not an argument against its existence.Griswaldo (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans said that we could use him for a "legacy" section. I commented that segregation might not always be the best idea. So, in some sense, others are arguing he can be used for an exception to SPS if we are talking about the Weston Price legacy. This issue does not lend itself to pithy summary, nor does it lend itself to attempts at marginalization or factionalization. Let's not do that, okay? I have always agreed that better sources than Barrett's three paragraphs are available and can be used. I reject the snide insinuations that there is nothing of value that Barrett adds to a possible list of sources, and also think that proper context, which Barrett himself provides, is necessary for appropriate discussion in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to resolve a dispute in good faith is the opposite of disruptive.

Whatever consensus editors claim to see needs to be summarized with diffs or datestamps identifying the actual comments used for the summary. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans' argument is that he can be used for information concerning the Weston A. Price Foundation and it's activities in the legacy section. Hans had previously argued, rather strongly that he is not a reliable source on Weston A. Price however, and others appear to agree with this pretty much in entirety (once again except for you and Ronz). Whether or not a legacy section should be included is a separate content discussion. If it is, the idea of not segregating the legacy section is pretty much out of the question based upon the consensus about Barrett in regards to Price. It has to be completely clear that he is not a reliable source on Price, and honestly that's very difficult given that he does not provide the "proper context" at all in his essay. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Griswaldo here. Also, I don't see any "segregation" problem in having a Legacy section. It is a logical way to divide up the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Criticism sections. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Legacy" =/ to "criticism". Your point would be apt at the Weston A. Price Foundation entry where Barrett would be used as "criticism" of the subject matter, but the foundation is not the subject matter of the entry on Price. Why are you conflating the two? That's exactly what everyone else agrees that we should not be doing here.Griswaldo (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflation is not the only issue when a legacy has been co-opted. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. I think even SA would agree to having a legacy section that includes Barrett would be acceptable. that just leaves Ronz - what do you say, Ronz? --Ludwigs2 16:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some consensus-making. Can someone clearly summarize as I've requested? --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AGREE - I concur with the argument that Barrett is not a reliable source on Weston Price. If someone wants to use Barrett in the Foundation article, they are welcome to try. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary -- 1) Stephen Barrett is not a reliable source on the historical figure Weston A. Price or the historical context in which Price worked, and is therefore not an expert exception to WP:SPS on the subject of Weston Price. 2) Stephen Barrett is recognized as a notable critic of contemporary fringe medical/health theories and may be used for critical commentary on such theories. 3) Pertaining to the entry on Weston Price, Barrett's use is limited to critiquing contemporary holistic medical/health practices that claim to be based on Weston Price's theories, but not to critiquing Price's theories in the proper historical context in which they are presented.Griswaldo (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not RSN. I'm unaware of any consensus on WP:RS or WP:SPS claims.

2 and 3 seem pretty good. Is there consensus for, "but not to critiquing Price's theories in the proper historical context in which they are presented?" --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your objections, see every response here from anyone other than yourself or ScienceApologist, and see the very response I wrote that IMJ and others just now said they agreed with. Are you serious?Griswaldo (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not, 1) The three paragraphs on the historical figure Weston A. Price found on Quackwatch are meant to be critiques of the legacy of Weston A. Price and ideologies that are similar to those advocated by the Weston A. Price foundation. Other more comprehensive sources exist that describe Weston Price's historical context. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Because you're leaving out more clear directives on how to utilize Barrett in this situation. Why? The consensus among everyone but you and Ronz is that Barrett is not reliable on Price, and not simply that better sources exist.Griswaldo (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Imposing directives like this is silly and unnecessary. If tomorrow Barrett wrote a book on Price we would evaluate that book on its own merits. Trying to make unilateral and overly broad generalizations is inflammatory, unnecessary, and only breeds conflict. You can try to blame the other side as much as you want and try to marginalize us, but that's not going to move us forward. We agree on points 2 and 3. If you cannot sit down and try to work out wording that is to everyone's liking on point 1, then you are being obstructionist. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AGREE - I concur with Griswaldo's summary. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we push forward for the moment and try to state where we do agree? Does anyone object to (17:42, 26 Oct)? --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's where I think we agree:

1. Barrett is (in general) a notable proponent of skepticism, and can be used to critique the Price Foundation.
2. To the extent that the Price Foundation is is presented as part of Price's legacy, Barrett can be included as a skeptical voice about the Foundation's merits and purpose.
3. Barrett is not a historian of science or a dentist, nor does he have any other qualification that entitles him to render a critique of Price or Price's work himself. To the extent that he does render a critique of Price, his opinion is non-notable. therefore Barrett cannot be used to critique Price directly.

Are there any disagreements with this? --Ludwigs2 19:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like your #3 is even more far-reaching than that by Griswaldo. I don't see any quick consensus on this, but let's see what others say. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Good summary. I would just word the first one "Barrett is (in general) a respected researcher into pseudoscientific medical practices, and can be used to...". If he were just notable as a proponent of a skeptical POV then we wouldn't use him as a ref at all. But the Quackwatch website has been praised in various quarters and is often cited, which lends support to its reliability, e.g. in relation to homeopathy or chelation therapy. I endorse the second and third points. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Ludwigs2's summary and with IMJ's suggested change.Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

well, it's not at all clear to me that Barrett has done anything remotely resembling actual research (at least not in the medical sense of the term). At his best he does a mixed bag of synthesis from other people's research. I'd tend to place him as a respected commentator on... rather than as a respected researcher into.... and yes, even if we went with my original wording we would still use him, because the skeptical point of view is certainly a valid POV that needs to be considered on fringe articles. At any rate, I'm certainly not interested in excluding Barrett from anything, I just want to get the balance right, so that he's neither marginalized nor promoted beyond credibility. placing him as a well-informed commentator or journalist strikes me as about right, since it lets him air that particular POV without giving him undue weight as some kind of scientific wunderkind. would that language work for you all? --Ludwigs2 22:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett is a consumer advocate. He is not a researcher in the strictest sense of the word. Nevertheless, I think this business has been thoroughly discussed, and the consensus is that Barrett is an inapppropriate source for the Weston Price article, but may be a source for the Weston Price Foundation article. That is all. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How about an amalgam? (I agree with Ronz that Ludwigs2's third point has some structural deficiencies compared to Griswaldo's third point).

1. Barrett is a respected researcher into pseudoscientific medical practices, and can be used to critique the Price Foundation.
2. To the extent that the Price Foundation is is presented as part of Price's legacy, Barrett can be included as a skeptical voice about the Foundation's merits and purpose.
3. Pertaining to the entry on Weston Price, Barrett's use is limited to critiquing contemporary holistic medical/health practices that claim to be based on Weston Price's theories, but not to critiquing Price's theories in their historical context.

I could easily agree to the above.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your third point basically nullifiies our whole argument about Barrett. It allows Barrett to critique Price directly. I don't support this. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty much the same thing as Griswaldo's point 3 above. Did you miss that? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but when I wrote my points, a different #1 was included -- Stephen Barrett is not a reliable source on the historical figure Weston A. Price or the historical context in which Price worked, and is therefore not an expert exception to WP:SPS on the subject of Weston Price. If you are willing to state this as well I'm happy.Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How about, Stephen Barrett is not a historian and was not writing historical analysis of Weston Price when he penned the three paragraphs of interest posted about Price on Quackwatch. Therefore, we should not rely on Barrett as the sole source for historical analysis on Weston A. Price. I certainly agree with that. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mid-point break(2)

Let's not revisit the argument above. I liked Ludwigs 1 and 2. I liked your 2 and 3. Is there no way we can reach consensus or are we going to remain sticks in the mud? I'm trying to be as open as possible, but it seems like you just want to shut down all discussion. Zero sum games are not very productive. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I am trying to shut down diversions that make what the rest of us think is clear cut into something more ambiguous and amorphous. I get it. You don't want it agreed upon anywhere that the great Stephen Barrett is a poor source for something he wrote directly about. There is really no point in discussing this with you if you have no desire to let go of that position. You'll just continually obfuscate so that we don't agree on this fact. Let it go. He's not an expert in the relevant areas to make critiques of Weston Price. Accept this, as everyone else has, or stop wasting everyone's time. If you want to go on the record as objecting to this then that is fine too, but we're not going to acquiesce to your attempts of revisionism. Sorry.Griswaldo (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, we know what this is about. Barrett supporters want to reserve the right to have Barrett criticize Price's research. Barrett's gripe should be with the Price Foundation, but guess what? They are a living and breathing entity that could file a law suit, which Dr Price can't do. Barrett can criticize the foundation all he wants and take his chances, but he's no source on Price's research....in any manner. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 13:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

bit 'o calm, please.

Alright, here's what I'm pretty sure we agree on (trying to keep it close to policy):

1. Barrett is a respected <something> who critiques alternative and pseudoscientific medical practices, and generally qualifies as a RS on such issues
   • that 'something' varies from 'researcher' to 'commentator' to 'skeptical proponent' to 'consumer advocate' - need to work this out
2. Barrett has critiqued the WP Foundation, and his critique of the Foundation is a viewpoint which does not fail the requirements of wp:RS and wp:UNDUE
3. Barrett does fail wp:RS and/or wp:UNDUE as a critic of Price himself, because
   • Price's work in his time was reasonably mainstream, if ultimately unsuccessful
   • Barrett's comments on Price are (thus) a primary source, self-published opinion on a topic for which Barrett has no particular expertise

I think 1, 2, and 3a we all agree on (with the quibble of what to call Barrett in 1); 3b will probably cause some friction, but I can't see how that conclusion can be avoided. That still leaves open the debate of whether or not Barrett should be included on Price's biog, but I think this narrows the options to an acceptable range: if Barrett is used on the Price article, he would only be used with respect to the Foundation, and his opinions on Price himself would be excluded. --Ludwigs2 14:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As before, Ludwigs, I agree with 1 and 2. I do not agree with the phrasing of 3 at all, though there might be a kernel of agreement we can find there. I don't think it's a matter of RS or UNDUE. I think it is a matter of scope and editorial direction. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

looking at what you offered (following Griswaldo) for #3 above, I think the main difference between that and this is (in fact) a matter of scope. You seem to want to restrict this to the particular instance of Price, whereas I want to state something more general about Barrett and the way he's used on wikipedia. The result is absolutely the same with respect to the Price article (that much we agree on), the difference is whether it gets extended to a more general principle.

My reasoning for wanting it to be a more general principle is that this kind of dispute about Barrett happens all the time, and I think it's better to hash out the dispute in a general way now rather than forcing disputants to reinvent the wheel every time it crops up. That will improve consistency across article on the way Barrett is used, and obviate a whole lot of duplicate debate. I'm more than willing to work out something that is fair and balanced, but I do think we ought to work out something in a general sense rather than leave people to fight it out anew every time. --Ludwigs2 15:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a matter of scope, but I also think that there is no way around this dispute. Blanket statements, in my opinion, are not going to help matters and will need wider community input. The Request for Clarification was not proper, but we should note that in order to make a unilateral source designation like this a broader query should be made open to the community. Only a select group of people have commented on these issues and I believe that we need to have a more open forum to really address this completely. I actually don't think it is a problem to discuss these issues on a case-by-case basis. I think that's how it should be handled. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do find that a bit frustrating. there is just simply no structure on wikipedia to address multi-page sourcing issues. I suppose for the time being I'll have to accept a more restrictive language (though yours might be a little overly-restrictive). So, if we keep points 1 and 2, and make some minor rewording of your or Griswaldo's point 3, I'll be satisfied, and we can move on to actual editing. what do the rest of you think? --Ludwigs2 05:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll need to see your version, but in principle, I'm on board. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, what I was saying was that (assuming you still agree to my 1 & 2, or equivalent), then I will be satisfied with whatever you and the others work out. I'll even accept your last proposed version if that's what the consensus is (I just have a mild preference to see it expanded a bit). I think we're there, so all we need is for someone to tie a bow on it, which task I am leaving you y'all. --Ludwigs2 19:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is for the sake of WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:OR we wind up using the Weston A. Price Foundation as rebuttal which IMHO shoots WP:RS to blazes. That is not a good thing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we state where we agree at this point?

I think the discussion is drifting again. While it may need to do so, I'd like to see us continue to work to some basic agreement. We're very, very close thanks to (17:09, 26 Oct) (17:42, 26 Oct) and (19:37, 26 Oct). --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Without reading a good chunk of the repetitive arguementation, I suggest that what is agreed is: there is an article on Price that should exist, there is commentary/criticism on Price from Barrett on Quackwatch. Other than that, I havn't seen much agreement. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fringe science?

I feel silly even bringing this here but I would like some outside input (for the record at least). Is this source fringe? It attempts to make a "scientific" case for what seem to be impossibly old ages in antiquity, apparently to justify the literal reading of the ages of Biblical patriarchs. Some assessment of this source for the record would be much appreciated. More attention in general to the longevity articles mentioned above would also be appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's "fringe science", what matters is that it represents a significant POV held by millions of people about the subject (longevity traditions) and that on the point cited it agrees with an opposing significant POV held by millions of people, also cited to support the same point for balance. Since it's a mentionable (minority or majority) POV it is easy to name adherents, but what if I named them and somebody classed all of them together as fringe? This is an article about traditions from all eras and so it is appropriate to mention all POVs. This source challenge was advanced to object that the synthesis it makes (the same synthesis that the skeptical source makes), are not valid syntheses to appear in the article; so I reask my question from talk: what sourced synthesis would you accept to appear in the article? JJB 14:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It surely can't be the case that millions of people agree with Arthur Custance, the author of the source Griswaldo linked to; I doubt that millions of people have read his work. An assertion that millions of people hold a particular opinion about soi-disant longevity traditions ought to be backed up with a citation to a reliable source; Custance doesn't appear to be a good source for this purpose. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say millions agree with Custance as having read him, thanks for inviting a strawman. The POV I mentioned is Biblical literalism, which I think based on its article is safe to attribute to millions of conservative Christians, although the number is intended as round. If you'd like me to find a source for that article indicating how many adherents it has, beside the list of scholars provided, that's a bit out of my scope right now. Can we at least agree that Biblical literalism is not a fringe position when the article is about interpreting Biblical and other ancient texts? Itsmejudith, a regular here, has just proposed taking the question to WikiProject Christianity, which I think is a very considerate compromise. Did you have any comments about whether the Biblical literalist POV, without using the source for any mention of science, was proper for an article on Biblical and other ancient sources? JJB 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, posting at WikiProject Christianity is just an idea I had, hoping to get more eyes on the article, especially people with experience in editing in areas that the article currently covers. I would also like to post at WikiProject Taoism. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

On the "biblical literalist POV", this isn't the right way to approach it. There is a massive scholarly literature on interpretation of the bible. The solution is to use prominent mainstream theologians, who between them have addressed every aspect. Custance isn't in that category, is he? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree w/both of Itsmejudith's comments. If it's important to establish that there are lots of people who believe in biblical stories of long-lived Israelites because they take a literalist approach to the OT, there are better sources than Custance. (And I haven't read the article, but this doesn't seem like an important point to make, anyway.) --Akhilleus (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

there are also lots of people who believe that they are the center of the universe, built so that a giant teat will lower itself to feed them whenever they make a hungry noise. These include all the world's below-four-month-olds. The question is, is this a relevant point of view? Wikipedia is already hopelessly biased towards the US American brand of infantile redneck Christianity. Not even so much in our accounts of Christianity, but ironically in our accounts of atheism: US American atheists apparently grow up learning that Christianity more or less equals full lobotomy. In reality, of course, outside the North American steppes, Christianity has a venerable and highly intellectual theological tradition. I am saying this here because this is yet another topic where there is a danger of treating "a literalist approach to the OT" as a valid and quotable school of thought within Christianity. --dab (𒁳) 07:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Judith is the only one on point, as the (devolving) discussion is not about whether Custance should be quoted for literalist views. Custance has long been quoted in the article for the fact that he cites old-age traditions from Prichard and other sources, and nobody objected to his quotes due to his POV, because it didn't affect the data. I then added another cite to Custance and one to a skeptical source, showing only that both sources compare the Biblical data to modern data, and that was to deflect charges that such a comparison is an unsourced synthesis. It's a sourced synthesis, and since discussion has moved on from that point, I think it's settled. Therefore the discussion here is (should be) about whether Custance can be used as an example to demonstrate how various sources compare various old-age traditions, and it's really a moot discussion because it would be more appropriate to just dig up more sources that do the same thing instead. Judith's point is well-taken but the article already covers theologians on every aspect of the question in the Biblical section. Custance's mention in the main, categorizing section does not make any reference to what his POV is, other than that it's different from that of the other source (the skeptic), which needn't even necessarily be said. JJB 20:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)