Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:38, 28 April 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

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

Centre for Intelligent Design‎

Centre for Intelligent Design‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Anupam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) appears to wish to see all scientific criticism of this organisation's views, all mention of its fundamentalist ties, and all mention of the UK government's prohibition of teaching ID (all of which is sourced to mainstream newspaper articles specifically on the topic of the Centre) expunged. Further oversight may be fruitful. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This case has currently been referred to the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal for review. Thanks, Anupam 08:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DISPUTE, it is premature to attempt "Formal mediation" before an attempt is made to resolve it on a noticeboard such as this one. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You should provide examples. I haved looked through recent edits and saw that Anupam removed, "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the arguments against the theory of evolution promoted by intelligent design advocates are invalid." That statement is taken from a comment in a Guardian article. The way it was presented was POV. It would be better to write that the Centre was criticized for asking that students be given the impression that there is a scientific controversy over evolution or the age of the Earth. Any criticism must be specific to the Centre rather than ID in general. TFD (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that the Centre was not explicitly "criticized for asking that students be given the impression that there is a scientific controversy over evolution or the age of the Earth" in the Guardian article. We had a science educator saying that these would be bad things, but did not explicitly say that C4ID had "asked" for them. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 14:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Anupam is an SPA. His edits at Atheism over the last few months have been solely to insert information that shows that atheists are somehow inferior to religious people, or that secular nations are inferior to religious nations. I think TFD makes a good general point, but I think the situation is more complicated than that. WP:FRINGE states that, Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. I think that applies here. The entry contains statements about intelligent design and as such the current level of acceptance of that theory should be stated in the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This editor is continuing to be a real headache at Atheism and at Irreligion ... consistently pushing an anti-secular pro-religious agenda. I'm unsure of where to turn for help. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll put those two articles on my watchlist, though I expect they may both be minefields. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Griswaldo has perceived an agenda rather than assume good faith, which saddens me as a longstanding editor here. I have kindly explained my insertions well on talk pages and have provided several sources for my insertions, while User:Griswaldo has provided none in favor of synthesizing information to fit his point of view. User:Griswaldo has removed much content from articles despite being referenced by reputable organisations such as the Pew Research Center. As a result of his actions, he was given a warning by an administrator who was going to block him on the spot for his actions. Rather than trusting in either of our words, however, I encourage all of you to actually examine the issues at the talk page of the Irreligion article. Thanks, Anupam 20:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes please do have a look. Anupam is trying to add information that is not actually about the topics of the entries. For instance, at Irreligion he keeps trying to add a reference to recent research by Robert Putnam. The sources is a very short piece from Religious News Service and is hosted on the Pew website. Putnam's research looks at the correlation between levels of civic participation and levels of participation in a moral community. Where the source refers to "secular" individuals it is not refering to the "irreligious" at all, but to those who are at the lowest levels of participation in a moral community. It simply doesn't relate to irreligion, but instead to things like church attendance.Griswaldo (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will explain the situation here and respond to User:Griswaldo's concern's above. With regards to the Harvard University study by Prof. Robert Putnam, the respected sources state that the dichotomy is between religious individuals and nonreligious individuals. I will demonstrate this through the titles and quotes of the sources:

Pew Research Center The title of this reference is "Religious people make better citizens, study says." The following quote is taken from the article:

USA Today The title of this reference is "Religious citizens more involved -- and more scarce?" The following quote is taken from the article:

It is evident that these sources do discuss nonreligious individuals. Not only the Pew Research Center, but also USA Today states that "The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones." I have not made any interpretation or synthesis of information but have rather, presented the information in both references, which openly present a dichotomy between religious and nonreligious individuals. I have only simply repeated this original quote, which is given in both the Pew Research Center and USA Today articles. User:Griswaldo has unfairly characterized me of pushing a position despite the fact that I have simply repeated the same quote given in both references. User:Griswaldo is confusing the premise with supporting examples. The article clearly states that:

The premise of the article discusses the behaviour of religious and nonreligious individuals, which is given in the first two quotes from the Pew Research Center and USA Today. As the references mention, church/mosque/temple attendance may be the reason for this behaviour, but it is not the finding of the study. The issue should not be with me here, but with USA Today and the Pew Research Center. As a result the information should be restored to the article. Thanks, Anupam 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

About Irreligion article - Not sure how this un-comprehensive - narrowly focused study merits inclusion in an article that deals with a concept as a whole (meaning world wide). Perhaps there is an American article that this would be more appropriate in. It would need some balance in its approach however - as there are many "American focused studies" that would contradict this statements. Moxy (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Moxy, thank you for your comments. In my opinion as well, placing the information in the article on Irreligion in the United States does seem to be a good idea. Also, I agree that if we are to place the information in the main article, we should add some balance, such as a clause that states "In the United States" or a similar phrase. I would appreciate if you could also address my previous comment above. Thanks, Anupam 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Illyrians and Illyria

Atdheu110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an IP that's likely him are single-mindedly pushing the familiar "Illyrians=Albanians" POV on that and several articles . Discussion with user seems pointless ("According to me..."). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Skeptical articles discussed in the latest Association for Skeptical Enquiry newsletter

The Quarterly Newsletter of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry discusses Levitation (paranormal), and other articles, our policy on sources, problems editing fringe articles, etc. advising skeptics not to edit Misplaced Pages. A pdf file can be found at . Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that this noticeboard goes unmentioned. Some of what Buckner says is, I'm afraid, true. Somewhere along the line the project is going to have to make commitments to cut off editing much more quickly in defending articles against cranks; it can't be that neutral without allowing the processes Buckner describes to gain the upper hand. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Doug, you are seriously deserved mention in the article as one the top fighters. Its true though the lack of motivation in fighting psudeo science is certainly an issue. We need more tools and admistrators willing to impose sanctions in the topic area when civil point of view pushing breaks out! I dont have time to argue with white nationalists who spend 12 hours a day inserting their crap on here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That article was so good it almost convinced. Who is the former ArbCom member who they say had an economic interest in NLP and who did he/she ban? Has this been sorted out since?·Maunus·ƛ· 22:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Never believe anything you read in the Skeptical Enquiry newsletter ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

? Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear as if this editor is still editing Misplaced Pages articles. Their last 50 edits - spanning 2 years - are all to user talk pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless a former member of ArbCom. He also created History of neuro-linguistic programming. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think that that particular part of the article is probably garbled. They might conceivably be thinking of Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but that's just a guess. Mathsci (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It appears I looked at the wrong page history. I have struck thru my above comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought that though the article accurately expressed a basic problem with fringe pages, it was seriously garbled and a bit alarmist. It quoted selling prices for an adminship ($1000?) and an article ($200?) as though this was an established practice, and ended on a sour "don't bother editing" note. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me note that I just placed a pointer to that article on Jimbo's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is going to be one of those megabyte threads on his talk page that goes nowhere. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note lets make this entire thing a productive discussion... What can we do to reform the Fringe topic area to cut out these problems? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Editors of this board may interest themselves in the following discussion regarding truth in our policy on WP:V. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The fringe topic area is less the problem than individual editors with in it. Both 'true believers' and 'skeptics'. If we who frequent this board keep at the nitty gritty of it and keep our personal feelings about both 'true believers' and 'skeptics' mostly to ourselves we can get articles that are not crap. This topic area always runs into problems when we veer away from en.wikipedia's 5 pillars, and when we personalize the issues. I think the author of that piece didn't mention this board as it is working to make the problem better, and doesn't fit into the overall theme of 'wikipedia is evil and full of cranks'. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree it seems its deliberate assault on us in the topic area by Banned user. According to WP:OUTING we cant say his user name and two mentions of such have been oversighted just today. Go on Google (S)he is quite proud of the ruckus. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly don't care who. There are more than a few people who feel that way, I'd imagine. There have been lots of users banned for their own behavior and inability to play well with others. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages review: . Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

New and possibly fringe articles

• Periannan Senapathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parallel Genome Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both are recent creations by User:Rahulr7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who appears to be a WP:SPA on the topic. Both are cited purely to (generally related-party) unreliable sources (PR releases, Nature Preceding articles, blogs, etc), and I cannot find much in the way of substantive coverage in mainstream sources (this 25yo New Scientist article was the best I could find). I thought I'd post them here for comment, prior to AfDing them. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

afd'd Periannan. lots of edits after requests for reliable sources, none found. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Measuring rod

This new article was being used as a vehicle for Egyptian measurements being used to build megalithic monuments, can others please keep an eye on it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Egyptology is weak point but I thinks its correct for the most part as is; though I can see it going down hill fast. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see some one more knowledgeable is raising points on the talk page The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed that this be merged into ruler as historical material - seems like the right move to me. feel free to comment over at talk:ruler#Merge discussion. --Ludwigs2 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement analysis again

Homosexuality claims another victim

This time it is the Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip baptizes in the Acts of the Apostles. Perhaps it has become the case that every outing of a historical figure by a queer theorist is notable, but the article spends almost half its length on this extra-textual speculation and doesn't even mention that this is traditionally claimed as the origin of Ethiopian Christianity. So assistance on this would be appreciated. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise also bringing this up on the Oriental Orthodoxy Project Page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

First) The header of this section is extremely offensive, and the OP should change it; Second) Here are the WP descriptions of the two authors cited for this interpretation, which does not fit the definition of "fringe theory":

Jack Bartlett Rogers is a Presbyterian minister, seminary professor emeritus, and author. He taught at Westminster College,Pennsylvania, at Fuller Theological Seminary, and at San Francisco Theological Seminary. He also served as moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Publications

Worldcat lists 48 published works by Rogers. Among them are:

The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach, (with Donald McKim) Biblical Authority Claiming the Center: Churches and Conflicting Worldviews Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical Introduction to Philosophy: A Case Method Approach (with Forrest Baird) Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions Presbyterian Creeds: Suplement on the Brief Statement of Faith Reading the Bible and the Confessions: The Presbyterian Way

John J. McNeill was ordained as a Jesuit priest in 1959 and now is a psychotherapist and an academic theologian, with a particular reputation within the field of Queer Theology. He obtained a Ph.D. from the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium in 1964 and has taught at LeMoyne College in Syracuse, NY and Fordham University in NYC. In 1972, he joined the combined Woodstock Jesuit Seminary and Union Theological Seminary faculty as professor of Christian Ethics, specializing in Sexual Ethics.

Published works The Church and the Homosexual Taking a Chance on God Freedom, Glorious Freedom Both Feet Firmly Planted in Midair Honours Grand Marshal of the New York City Gay Rights Parade in 1987; The National Human Rights Award in 1984 for his contributions to lesbian and gay rights; The 1989 Distinguished Alumnus Award from Blanton-Peale Institutes of Religion and Health; The Humanitarian Award in 1990 from the Association of Lesbian and Gay Psychologists; The 1993 Distinguished Contribution Award of the Eastern Region American Association of *Pastoral Counselors for outstanding contribution to pastoral counseling; The United Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches Special Award for his "dedicated work in spreading the Gospel to the lesbian/gay community"; The 1997 Dignity/USA Prophetic Service Award "In Recognition of over 25 years of extraordinary work on behalf of the Catholic Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgenered Community"; The 1999 Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco "Living Saint" Award. 63.17.61.86 (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Megalithic Yard

This was a redirect to Pseudoscientific metrology. The redirect has been removed and it now is asserting its existence as fact, worse than that as based on an Egyptian measurement based on what I don't believe to be a reliable source. It says "A Megalithic Yard is the diagonal of a rectangle measuring 2 by 1 Remens..... Objective studies by statisticians have now established it as a fully accepted unit of measurement." - one of the sources for this last sentence says, on the page cited, "Ihc some ideas can be applied to Thorn's concept o£ the prehistoric unit of length, the 'megalithic yard'; to accept it says Heggie (1981 , 39) one must find out how well a 'quantum hypothesis' (the idea that a certain unit of length exists) fits a random set of data and then see whether the same unit fits the set of diameters of stone circles better. If it docs the prehistoric 'yard' is acceptable. The alternative practical scientific test of this hypothesis is to look for measuring rods of the right length on archaeological sites, and for historical evidence of the use of the same or a similar unit elsewhere (MacKie 1977a, 53)." and then on p.263 "Professor Thorn's geometric designs and megalithic yard are, in our opinion, somewhat extravagent extrapolations of the evidence available. ..." Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Same editor as Measuring rod by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also need some referencing on Alexander Thom. And not by a skeptic, or so we are ordered in the edit summaries. Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:WLRoss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Apostle12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This case has been brought up for RfC/U here where it's about to die for lack of a second certifier. However, there are several Wikipedians who have had similar problems with the same editor WLRoss (talk · contribs) over a period of several years on 9/11 related articles. And they have endorsed the discussion of the behavior of WLRoss without being able to certify it.

The fact that RfC/U is about to die for lack of a second will be understood by WLRoss to be an official endorsement of his behavior by the Misplaced Pages community. This result must be avoided. The number of people who have endorsed the identification of WLRoss as a conspiracy theorist and POV-pusher is significant. Perhaps the RfC/U is the wrong venue and I should have started here.

Essentially, in Franklin child prostitution ring allegations there are two opinions:

1. The grand jury ruled properly by not indicting anyone for child prostitution and kidnapping, and declaring it was all a "carefully crafted hoax." The principal accuser, Alisha Owen, was appropriately found guilty on eight counts of perjury for making these false accusations. The chief investigator, Gary Caradori, died in an aircraft accident when the small plane he was piloting broke up in mid-air.
2. The grand jury proceedings and the perjury trial of Alisha Owen were rigged. The accused really did run an elaborate child prostitution ring reaching from Omaha to Washington DC, and sacrificed child prostitutes in satanic rituals. The chief investigator, Caradori, was murdered when his plane was sabotaged. Dozens, if not hundreds of people ranging from the grand jury to the trial court judge and prosecutor have participated in the cover-up and not one of them has leaked in all these years.

I think #1 is the majority opinion, and #2 is a minority/fringe opinion per WP:FRINGE. The only official government body that has not adopted or endorsed #1 is the "Franklin Committee" of five Ohio state legislators, who also refused to endorse #2. They just said that some more investigating should have been done. Opinion #2 is, however, embraced enthusiastically by known conspiracy theorists and political extremists such as Lyndon LaRouche, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin.

The article's Talk page and its Archive 2, and the aforementioned RfC/U provide sufficient discussion although more discussion here may be chosen as appropriate. But my suggestion is that WLRoss should receive a topic ban from all articles where a conspiracy theory has been alleged, specifically including all 9/11 related articles and Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. The length of the topic ban should be determined by the community but I suggest one year. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that this falls within the remit of the fringe theories noticeboard, and even if it did, making suggestions as to how it should be dealt with (i.e. advocating topic bans etc) might possibly be seen as canvassing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Phoenix and Winslow is hardly shy about canvassing; he does so regularly. Apostle12 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll get a decision here from the community on whether #2 is a fringe theory, a minority opinion, or as WLRoss claims, simply "one of several significant opinions." Then if it isn't the third of these, and he continues to push it like a bulldozer, I'lll seek sanctions against him at WP:ANI. Fair enough, Andy? But the remit of WP:FTN specifically states that this is the venue to "Report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories." And in my opinion, that's what is happening here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You have framed the two opinions incorrectly, further tainting the second opinion by linking it to Lyndon LaRouche, Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin--I agree that these three do support fringe theories, and I have advocated removal of their mention in the article; it is you who have insisted that they remain, even that LaRouche be highlighted in the lede, despite objections by ALL the other current editors.

You have been invited to participate in our ongoing discussion of the disputed sections of the article, based on sourcing that you yourself accept, yet you have consistently declined participation, most recently insisting that it is a waste of your time. After experiencing continual reverts of very thoughtful editing, we attempted to limit our discussion to specific sections of the article--the lede, for example, where we were close to consensus--so that we might make some progress. Without participating in such targeted discussions AT ALL, you wrote the following:

I have no trouble at all with discussion. I have trouble with completely pointless and unproductive discussions; my time is valuable and if I'm going to waste it, I'd much rather be playing a computer game than arguing with the two of you over your latest WP:FRINGE violation. It appears that WLRoss has a long and colorful history of POV-pushing on behalf of conspiracy theory, and unfortunately, presenting his behavior in an RfC may be the most productive way to finally resolve this dispute. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no possible way to characterize our targeted discussion of two specific points in the lede (the party affiliation of Lawrence King, and whether or not to include LaRouche) as "POV-pushing on behalf of conspiracy theory."

You seem to have unlimited time to invest in a search and destroy mission to unfairly eliminate your chief adversary, WLRoss, first through a now-failed RfC/U (which you threatened me with also) and now by seeking sanctions against him at WP:ANI. For now you have successfully distracted all of us from further development of the article, because we have needed to mount a defense against your unwarranted attacks. And you have asserted ownership of the article, constantly reverting to the version you prefer in violation of WP:OWN.

My time is limited today and tomorrow; even penning this short response has made me late for a scheduled appointment. Come the weekend I will reframe the dispute as I, and I am sure others, see it. No one--neither WLRoss, myself, or the other involved editors--are "pushing fringe/minority theory." You, however, are relentlessly pushing your own point of view, and you have amply demonstrated your unwillingness to participate in discussion, despite our every attempt to engage you. Your constant, wholesale, sterile reverts constitute disruptive editing at its worst. More later. Apostle12 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This notification as well as the Rfc should hopefully be indication to WLRoss that there are multiple editors in various arenas that have had issues with some of his focus. My perspective on WLRoss is in regards to 911 related articles where his editing overall seems to try to enhance, lets say, the skeptical or fringe viewpoint. I have never bothered to see where else WLRoss has been editing, so to find out that he has been promoting the skeptical and or fringe viewpoint in articles outside the scope of 911 indicates to me that WLRoss has a pretty sleptical nature...that in itself is fine...where it isn't fine is where this skeptical nature leads one to try and manipulate articles to jive with that trait...especially when it begins to violate NPOV policy and in particular the section regarding due weight. Apostle12, I have looked over the editing history of the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations as well as some of the talkpage history and I don't see that your rebuttal is supported by the facts.--MONGO 23:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If MONGO has not "bothered to see where else" I have been editing, how can he claim I have "been promoting the skeptical and or fringe viewpoint in articles outside the scope of 911"? A look at my editing history will show my original involvement with the Franklin article was in a RFC to determine a name for the article. My next involvement was seeing the article turn up in my watchlist three months ago indicating deletion of material. I believe this is the only article containing "conspiracy" claims, apart from 911, that I have edited since joining Misplaced Pages. Claiming that Apostle12's rebuttal is not supported is unbelievable and I'm beginning to wonder if his involvement here is due to a personal animosity towards me.

Phoenix and Winslow has yet to provide any diffs that support that I have promoted conspiracy theory in this article and I believe he will never be able to do so as I have never added anything to the article implying that children were sacrificed in satanic rituals or that Caradori was murdered as he is implying. I also have not edited that the jury was rigged despite evidence (signed affadavits from jurors and other parties) supporting that it was compromised. A perusal of Phoenix and Winslow's edits will show that he is objecting to including all the Grand Juries findings (because to do so would require including mention of what else they investigated), some of the Franklin Committees findings, the Franklin Committees brief, mention that Caradori died and basically anything that may cast the slightest doubt on the Grand Jury. He has even insisted that the text say that the Grand Jury threw out all of the allegations despite the jury finding that some were proven and reccommending that some of the accused be charged. It should be noted that Phoenix and Winslow is aggresively supporting the inclusion of fringe theories despite efforts by editors, including myself, to minimise mention to avoid the implication that the Franklin Committee endorses them. Phoenix and Winslow states that the article is only about the Grand Jury findings and that everything else is WP:UNDUE. Phoenix and Winslow also insists that all edits have 100% consensus with the exception of deletion for WP:UNDUE which in effect gives him ownership of the article and is the source of the dispute. Phoenix and Winslow has been invited to participate in consensus building many times by several editors yet continually declines which is not constructive. Phoenix and Winslow appears to have a battleground mentality which is shown clearly in the first two paragraphs of his opening statement. He brings up my 911 editing despite me having no significant involvement in those articles for almost two years and he considers partisan support that he has personally canvassed as "significant" proof that I should be banned. The fact that Phoenix and Winslow failed to find a second certifier for the RFC should be a sign that my editing was not the root problem with the article. Wayne (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely refuting all the inaccuracies presented by Apostle12 and WLRoss would take an enormous amount of time and words. I have already linked the article, its Talk page, and the RfC/U which was well supported by a half dozen editors, but only one certifier where two are required. At the RfC/U plenty of diffs are provided. As a subtle POV-pusher with many years of experience, WLRoss has been careful to avoid creating more than one certifier for RfC/U, and has skillfully stopped at a point just short of what he believes would alert the Misplaced Pages community to his agenda. Nevertheless, the pattern is clear. He steadily and relentlessly — give him an inch, he'll ask for another — increases the amount of space and weight devoted to details that support fringe theories, and seeks to introduce sources that are not reliable so that he can add even more of such details, even though they're unreliably sourced. He removes material that tends to undercut the credibility of fringe theories or support the majority opinion, and demands rock solid sourcing for it.

• WLRoss added material about Caradori telling some other person that he suspected his plane would be sabotaged, and demanded rock solid sourcing for the official NTSB finding that the plane crash was an accident, so his claim that he has not " that Caradori was murdered" is false. If he chooses to deny it, I'll find the diffs and post them.

• WLRoss seeks to remove any mention of Lyndon LaRouche, Anton Chaitkin and Webster Tarpley from the lede, reduce any mention of them in the body of the article, and remove the entirely appropriate description of them as conspiracy theorists. The logical inference, in light of his other behavior, is that he believes association with these gentlemen and properly identifying them would discredit the fringe theory he seeks to promote. So his claim that he has never "promoted conspiracy theory in this article" is false; removing any indication that it is, in fact, conspiracy theory is a form of promotion. Again if he chooses to deny these edits, I'll find the diffs and post them.

• WLRoss has repeatedly added poorly sourced material about some alleged affidavits from jurors, claiming that the jury "was compromised." So his claim that he has never "edited that the jury was rigged" is false. Again if he chooses to deny these edits, I'll find the diffs and post them.

• The "partisan support" that I have allegedly "canvassed" consists of editors whom I have noticed in the edit histories as having dealt with him in the past. I did not notice any position for or against him. To completely destroy any possible credibility behind his predictable WP:CANVASS accusation, for several hours I was careful to notify only those editors who spoke out supporting him at RfC/U. Only after Apostle12 had posted (at substantial length) in his defense here did I notify anyone else.

Along the trail, such bedrock Misplaced Pages policies as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and of course WP:FRINGE lay broken. His favorite unreliable source was found unanimously (by previously uninvolved editors) to be unreliable at WP:RSN even though WLRoss simply " see that happening." I ask only that anyone reviewing this take all of the facts into account before deciding what to do about all of this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting tedious and is wasting not only my time but that of other editors. If Phoenix and Winslow was supported by " a half dozen editors" why could he not find a second certifier for the RFC/U? Phoenix and Winslow has linked the article and its Talk page as proof? Please provide diffs for my edits only without including those that were the reversion of everyones edits to an earlier page as you did for the RFC. Concerning your specific claims:

• The reference to my editing 911 articles is a straw man argument. I have made only three edits to 911 articles over the past 18 months. The "several Wikipedians" Phoenix and Winslow claims had similar problems is false as I have had disputes with only one of those named (three years ago) and three of those named dont even edit 911 articles so cant have any experience with my behaviour.
• I did not add any material about Caradori. I actually deleted some of the existing material about him, for example, I deleted that the plane crash was unexplained and also deleted mention of the sabotage and death threats against him.
• Phoenix and Winslow claiming to read my mind (which he calls a "logical inference") is not evidence of anything. I gave my reasoning for not mentioning LaRouche in the lead and was supported by four editors. Phoenix and Winslow was the only editor opposing and due his continual reverting of its removal the edit is currently under discussion in Talk. Rather than reduce mention of LaRouche in the article body I expanded it by adding a sentence. I only mentioned in Talk that the mention may be too detailed. Is Phoenix and Winslow seriously claiming that removing conspiracy theory from an article is a form of conspiracy theory promotion?
• I have not "added poorly sourced material about some alleged affidavits from jurors" to the article. I mentioned in Talk that the affadavits existed, Quote:Claims of a some form of "coverup" are supported by affidavits from reliable sources (including jurors from the Grand Jury).. If Phoenix and Winslow has any interest he could easily find photocopies of those affidavits.
• Phoenix and Winslow claims to have canvassed editors who have dealt with me in the past stating I did not notice any position for or against him. Is it then merely coincidence that he only canvassed those who opposed me and neglected to canvass those who supported me? Claiming that by now including in this new noticeboard those who supported me, destroy any possible credibility behind his predictable WP:CANVASS accusation is rather transparent and a bit too late to mitigate his original canvassing of editors he could count on to support him.
• I ask only that anyone reviewing this actually read the edit diffs instead of taking Phoenix and Winslow's word on my editing.
• Edit conflict; I just noticed that Phoenix and Winslow has added, Quote:His favorite unreliable source was found unanimously (by previously uninvolved editors) to be unreliable at WP:RSN. In the first place I rarely used that source in the article (I'm not even sure if I actually did use it) and only argued that the author was reliable. There was originally no consensus (I believe it was 4 for yes and 3 for no) at the RSN on whether the publisher, which is used in many other articles, was a reliable source after which Phoenix and Winslow canvassed for more editors to comment. The result was five more votes for unreliable. I also point out that the diff Phoenix and Winslow posted proving I did not accept the RSN was written by me eight days before the RSN concluded. Wayne (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As it may be confusing to uninvolved editors as to what Phoenix and Winslow considers WP:UNDUE that supports conspiracy theories, this diff shows the disputed text that Phoenix and Winslow deleted which initiated his filing of the earlier WP:RFC and this WP:FTB. Wayne (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss or Wayne...it does appear he is trying to keep the innuendo at bay, whereby you're trying to add to it. This is the same pattern you have attempted on 911 articles....as I explained earlier, but will rephrase now, it was a revelation to me that fringe issues for you extended beyond the scope of 911 articles.--MONGO 03:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a matter of interpretation - from my reading, mostly WLRoss was providing greater context, while P&W was removing that. It doesn't necessarily look like a fringe theories problem. - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation, Bilby. Mongo's attempt to reframe it, below, is not accurate. Sufficient context for the story to be discernible to Misplaced Pages readers; that is WLRoss' only goal, as it is mine. Apostle12 (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Greater context in the sense of innuendo and fringe theories...yes, that is what WLRoss was trying to add.--MONGO 15:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused - which specific changes do you have a problem with? From what I can tell, the additions being disputed are sourced as well as other material in the article and often seem to be part of the Grand Jury findings. Perhaps I'm missing something? - Bilby (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What you're missing is that the details which WLRoss and Apostle12 always seek to add tend to support WP:FRINGE theory. See my first post on this thread. Two theories are presented. Notice how Theory #2 sounds like a fringe theory, and notice how Apostle12 and WLRoss consistently add more and more and more material that tends to support the fringe theory. MONGO has had extensive previous experience with WLRoss on articles related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and has confirmed that this is the modus operandi of WLRoss: subtle POV-pushing in favor of a fringe theory, also known as a conspiracy theory, in violation of WP:FRINGE.

One detail of the fringe theory claims that the chief investigator, Gary Caradori, was murdered when his plane was sabotaged. WLRoss and Apostle12 have consistently introduced material tending to support this ludicrous sabotage claim, and exclude material showing that the National Transportation Safety Board explicitly found that the plane crash was an accident. For example, Apostle12 added material reporting that Caradori told someone he thought his private plane might be sabotaged. It doesn't prove anything, but it tends to support the WP:FRINGE theory. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow is going too far. I have requested he post diffs to prove his claims regarding my editing yet he repeats the claims without providing them. I already posted that I have never added Caradori material to the article and I provided these two diffs showing that I deleted the sabotage and "murder" implications. The Transportation Board finding was only deleted (inadvertantly) when I reverted the page to an earlier version (three days older) in an attempt to stop the edit war, that page version also had no mention of sabotage or murder. Can he explain how adding the Grand Jury finding supports a fringe theory. Can he explain how naming the Webbs supports a fringe theory, especially when it was the Nebraska's Foster Care Review Board's investigation of the Webb case that was the primary reason that the Grand Jury was eventually called with the Webbs being one of the few people actually determined to be guilty by the Grand Jury. Note:Phoenix and Winslow not only wants mention of the Webbs excluded but the text changed to state that the Grand Jury threw out ALL the allegations. As Jarred Webb was subsequently charged on the basis of those allegations as were several others, this is obviously untrue. This dispute has nothing to do with numbered theories, it is just Phoenix and Winslow's way to put a spin on what are NPOV and non fringe edits that he doesn't like. I've already detailed my unrelated 911 editing yet Phoenix and Winslow continues to bring it up out of context. MONGO may have "extensive previous experience" with me but that is primarily in content disputes with me that he often loses. I stand by my record, most of my 911 edits are still in the articles despite my not being active in 911 articles for almost two years. I expect an apology for his false claims regrding my editing, his behaviour in this noticeboard, overall attitude in the previous dismissed noticeboard and yes...for his undisguised claims of page ownership. Phoenix and Winslow is the only editor of the four editing the article that is arguing for exclusion of those edits, he asserts that every edit must have his approval or go to mediation, this is clearly WP:OWN and inappropriate, it is time for an admin to bring this waste of time to an end. Wayne (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay...we can do that...consider any further conspiracy theory POV pushing on your part to result in arbitration...we'll let the arbs decide it.--MONGO 04:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it will be turned down, as there seems to be a lack of evidence. Is there a diff which shows this? So far there are a lot of claims of conspiracy pushing, but looking at the diffs provided I don't see examples, except as explained by Wayne above. Lots of hand waving and accusations, but nothing concrete to look at. - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite Bilbys statement MONGO now posts the following in the Franklin article Talk:
"Not if that view is based on innuendo and speculation...you're bordering on BLP violations by adding such innuendo and you're making this article a coatrack with your constant POV pushing of such stuff.--MONGO 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)"
I dont believe any of the proposed edits contain any BLP violations (Jarred Webb was charged so you can say he was), the accusations are tendentious and it seems likely that MONGOs decision to now edit the article may prevent constructive editing if he maintains this attitude. Wayne (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an odd coincidence I live in Omaha...I intend to eliminate the fringe theories you and your ilk have been adding...whether you like it or not.--MONGO 17:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re MONGO. I rest my case. Wayne (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And now MONGO has begun to edit war in the article and edit disruptively, such as adding cite tags then deleting several hours later for no cite and deleting findings made by the Franklin Committe. He is also threatening editors with 3rr if they revert him and asks for the page to be locked which wasn't even needed when the original dispute was at it's worst. Such behavviour is unacceptable. Wayne (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I welcome the temporary locking of this page, as this may inspire some constructive dialogue. I now understand that editor Mongo's aggressively disruptive editing was likely inspired by his residence in Omaha, Nebraska where events connected with the Franklin case occurred. His statement, "I intend to eliminate the fringe theories you and your ilk have been adding...whether you like it or not," makes it clear we are in for a tough time here, since dispassionate editing is already in short supply on this article.

I would suggest that we take this opportunity to look carefully at what constitute's "fringe" and what does not.

This is not a typical case, because we have two official bodies--the Franklin Committee, composed of five Nebraska state senators, and a Douglas county grand jury--who offered diametrically opposing views regarding the allegations of child sexual abuse and child prostitution as they affected average citizens, children, and prominent community leaders in Omaha, Nebraska. To accurately relate what happened in the Franklin case, the viewpoints of BOTH official bodies must find full expression in the article; neither viewpoint can be considered "fringe theory."

Because of Lawrence King's role as a prominent Republican, both in Omaha and in Washington D.C., some mention of his role as a high-rolling host of the Washington D.C. party scene, including connections to the Washington D.C. prostitution rings that came to light during the late 1980s, is probably legitimate. There were connections between what happened in Omaha and what happened in Washington D.C., and well-sourced description of these connections cannot be considered fringe theory.

That there ARE fringe theories associated with the Franklin case is undeniable. Mostly these have been associated with the larger implications of the case as it affected national events, especially in Washington D.C., extending into CIA involvement and international espionage. Allegations of child abduction for the purpose of recruitment into national and international child prostitution rings for the purpose of political extortion, espionage, and blackmail have dogged the Franklin case from the beginning. Some space in the article is already devoted to mention of several primary promoters of such fringe theory, specifically the Schiller Institute and authors Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, all of whom are associated with Lyndon LaRouche. I would propose that mention of these fringe-theory promoters be reduced or, preferably, eliminated altogether.

I have seen no indication that anyone editing this article wants to promote "fringe theory." Just presenting the facts of this very complex case will be challenge enough. Apostle12 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The NTSB finding of the airplane crash being an accident must be accepted as the last word. There is no need to add conjecture about sabotage as the NTSB determined that was not the case. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

But conjecture is what they thrive on...that is the point here...Apostle12 and WLRoss have shown they are mostly interested in overemphasizing the conspiracy theory even to the point where the real facts are lost in the shuffle...the page is now protected till May 1, so we'll see if they are capable of figuring out what the undue weight parameter of NPOV policy means..but I'm not holding my breath...this article is a horrible disaster thanks to Apostle12 and WLRoss....best thing might be to delete it and start over.--MONGO 02:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that represent your best effort, Mongo? To delete the article and start over? Is that what you intend to do, rather than discuss the various issues on the talk page?Apostle12 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual MONGO is all talk and no substance. Where are the diffs showing promotion of conspiracy theory? I'll give him a helping hand by posting the relevant diff and requesting that MONGO (or anyone else) point out the WP:UNDUE or anything romotely resembling a "horrible disaster" in the state of the article now compared to when Apostle12 and myself began editing the article. Go for it MONGO...we are all waiting. Wayne (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Ever since being exposed as a POV-pusher and fringe theorist in the 9/11 ArbCom, WLRoss has learned how to be more subtle and incremental. But POV-pushing is still POV-pushing, and fringe theory is still fringe theory. The grand jury issued indictments against some defendants, but not against others. They called the case a "carefully crafted hoax." The accused child prostitution ringleaders, kidnappers and Satan worshippers were indicted on precisely none of those charges. However, the only two accusers who did not recant were indicted on multiple counts of perjury. One was found incompetent to stand trial, and the other was found guilty on all eight counts and sent to prison.

For those of us who believe in the rule of law, that says it all.

On the other hand we have the Franklin Committee, which did not take a "diametrically opposing view" as claimed. Instead, they merely questioned some of the grand jury's findings. They felt that indicting King on child prostitution charges would lead to more investigation and find "The Truth" of the matter. They realized that the accusers were lying, but simply couldn't be sure of the extent of their lies. The governor of the state of Nebraska did not pardon the convicted perjuror, Alisha Owen, or commute her sentence. The appellate court upheld her conviction. Neither the Nebraska Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court intervened in any way. The Nebraska state legislature did not pass a resolution condemning or denouncing the grand jury findings, or the trial verdict against Owen.

Actions, and inactions, speak much louder than words. By their inactions, all of these official government bodies support the grand jury and its results. So believing the Franklin Committee was opening the door to "The Truth" is a fringe theory.

WLRoss couldn't envision his favorite unreliable source being declared an unreliable source and yet that's exactly what happened. Each and every editor at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard who was previously uninvolved with the article agreed that the Bryant book was an unreliable source.

WLRoss and Apostle12 are engaged in pushing a fringe theory. I've described their methods many times. Any material which tends to advance the fringe theory is added and expanded, regardless of weak sourcing or BLP concerns. No detail is too small. But any fact which undercuts the fringe theory gets deleted, sometimes "inadvertently." Reliable sourcing for any such detail is then demanded. These two editors are using the long, convoluted, multi-venue nature of all the related discussions as camouflage.

I think that the many discussions at the article's Talk page, the NPOV Noticeboard, the Content Noticeboard, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, RfC/U and here have gone on long enough. These discussions would fill a book. I ask the previously uninvolved editors to consider how these two editors were refuted at WP:RSN, and deny them this alternative avenue for promotion of their conspiracy theory. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A remarkably self-serving "summary" that describes, in reverse, the character of Phoenix and Winslow's own tactics. Apostle12 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow's continual repetition of already proven lies and exaggerations (and previous canvassing in violation of WP:canvass) is outrageous and is sailing close to RL defamation charges as my Wikpipedia identity is widely known in my home city. How could the 9/11 ArbCom expose anything if I was not involved in it other than being invited to comment. I have no "favourite source" and rarely used Bryant at all and then only when he was supported by a primary RS, as he well knows. I seriously suggest that Phoenix and Winslow modifies his tendentious and inappropriate behaviour. The ONLY reason Phoenix and Winslow supports that "these discussions" at various noticeboards (a violation of WP:ADMINSHOP) have "gone on long enough" is because Phoenix and Winslow has failed to get support. I have supplied a diff that shows the edits disputed for this noticeboard and also a diff for the entire page since I started editing yet despite several requests Phoenix and Winslow declines to support his written accusations. I again challenge Phoenix and Winslow to produce diffs to support his claims or apologise for his behaviour. Wayne (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss: Be careful of what you say. Making legal threats can get someone blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow has gotten the idea in his head that he can ignore noticeboards that dont go his way and say whatever he likes without the need to support his claims. I have warned him several times over the last few months in regards to this behaviour, but no one with authority seems to be warning him so I await your suggestions on how we can stop Phoenix and Winslow's personal attacks. Wayne (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss: Post something at WP:ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont want him blocked (yet) as he does sometimes make a good point and an article benifits from having editors with different views, if they can discuss edits intelligently. Cant an admin just request he behave? The fact that none have so far has resulted in him falsly believing that he has succeeded in having the disputed edits declared fringe. We also now have MONGO posting threats based on that false premise. Wayne (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

additional summary

The conspiracy theory discussed here is a fringe theory. It seems to be a notable fringe theory and therefore should be covered. WLRoss and similar folks really need to stick to that. There are plenty of folks who want all fringe theories out of the encyclopedia altogether, please don't give them more fuel for their fires. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There are BLP concerns...as well as the issue with Misplaced Pages being a reliable witness and the issues regarding due weight as part of the NPOV policy. The fringe theory here revolves around the supposed coverup, which is all smoke and mirrors perpetuated by conspiracy theorists.--MONGO 23:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP is not a concern when the subject is named in court as long as we keep to what the court said and the media reported. NPOV policy requires that the Franklin Committee report be given weight in accordance with it's notability. This is the second notice board to have failed to support that the Committees official report is a fringe view. No material is sourced from Tarpley or Chaitkin and I agree that their view is fringe. Wayne (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Franklin Committee, in their final report, roundly disagreed with your "smoke and mirrors" assertion. The Franklin Committee met for much longer than the Douglas County grand jury. Based on the testimony they heard and the evidence they reviewed, they recommended that Douglas County convene a grand jury. After the grand jury issued its report, the Franklin Committee took great exception to the grand jury's methods and the conclusions they reached; the Franklin Committee took the unprecedented step of sharply criticizing the grand jury's report by issuing a final report of their own. Their objections are on record, and we have an impeccable source for exactly what they said.

Would that we had such an impeccable source for the Douglas County grand jury report itself. Initially it was released to the public, then after this release it was sealed, supposedly "for procedural violations"--no copies of the Douglas County grand jury report are presently available. We do know, however, that the grand jury did not even call Lawrence King as a witness, despite the fact that many of the nearly 60 children, whose sexual child abuse complaints the Franklin Committee reviewed, identified him as involved in their abuse. We also know that the grand jury did not review the vast archive of information compiled by Gary Cardiori, whose records were seized by the FBI; these records became unavailable to the Douglas County grand jury, and they never reviewed them.

This story "has legs," as the saying goes, precisely because it is NOT all "smoke and mirrors." The least we can do, a quarter of a century after sexual child abuse complaints first began to appear before Nebraska's Foster Care Review Board, and more than twenty years after the Douglas County grand jury decided not to indict most of the alleged offenders, declaring that the whole matter was "a carefully crafted hoax," is to make it known that Franklin Committee Chairman Senator Loran Schmidt went public, calling the grand jury report--"a strange document." After fully reviewing the grand jury report, the Franklin Committee took the unprecedented stop of of issuing its own final report in response to the grand jury. In this final report, FIVE duly-elected Nebraska State Senators UNANIMOUSLY denounced the central conclusion of the Douglas County grand jury, stating categorically in the Franklin Committee's final report:

“After carefully considering the matter, reading and rereading the grand jury report, discussing the matter thoroughly, we fail to see how the general allegations of child abuse on children and illicit sexual activity by prominent Omaha personalities, was “a carefully crafted hoax.”

Full exposition of the known facts is as close to justice as we are likely to get with respect to the Franklin case, and this has nothing to do with supporting "fringe theories," which go much, much further. ALL INFORMATION THAT WE WANT TO USE IN THE ARTICLE IS IMPECCABLY SOURCED, and there can be no justification for deleting it

The Franklin Committe perspective was that there was NO "carefully crafted hoax" and that the allegations of sexual child abuse were covered up for reasons we do not know and cannot speculate about. The committee's perspective became a MAJORITY perspective among Nebraska citizens who witnessed this drama unfold. In writing our Misplaced Pages article, we have no right to bury this perspective. To call their perspective a "fringe theory" is to insult the five courageous Nebraska State Senators who took the unprecedented step of going public and unanimously denouncing the grand jury proceedings. Apostle12 (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

At last you have acknowledged that Tarpley and Chaitkin present a fringe theory. DeCamp also presents precisely the same fringe theory. All three of them base their fringe theory on the Franklin Committee report (as you have done), pretending that it differs more sharply from the GJ findings than it actually does (as you have done). The only area where the committee was 180 degrees removed from the GJ was Caridori's honesty and whether he had been "duped" by Michael Casey, who was clearly a con artist looking to make a fast fortune from these false allegations.

In direct contradiction to your claim, the Franklin Committee did not deny that it was "a carefully crafted hoax." They just "failed to see" it. They couldn't tell how much was true, and how much was a hoax. And they said exactly that, so you shouldn't try to misunderstand them. Like Tarpley, Chaitkin and DeCamp, you are spin doctoring the committee report by cherry picking only those quotes and segments that most strongly support fringe theory.

The Franklin Committee agreed that the accusers were lying. They just couldn't be sure how much was true and how much was a lie. They believed that indicting King for child prostitution would produce more investigation resources, and perhaps uncover a real child prostitution ring. They forgot that even King has constitutional rights, and therefore could not be indicted without probable cause. The only person or group with the power, the legal authority and the resources to determine whether probable cause existed was the GJ, not the Franklin Committee. The possibility of political motivation also arises whenever a political body like the Franklin Committee takes any action at all. And of course, you forget that King not only had a right to refuse to testify before the GJ but that the prosecutor had the power to refuse to call him as a witness. You seek to infer some sort of sinister motive or incompetence on the GJ's part from this.

The fringe theory that you have finally acknowledged gets all of its fuel and oxygen from the Franklin Committee report, the Bonacci default judgment and all of the tiny, cherry-picked details from those documents that you have constantly, relentlessly campaigned to stuff into an encyclopedia article that by its very nature is supposed to be neutral and concise. Misplaced Pages does not exist for the purpose of providing a resource pool for conspiracy theorists. It exists to provide a clear, concise and above all neutral exposition of the most salient facts.

It is not the goal of Misplaced Pages to "get justice" or "provide a fair hearing" and editors who come here seeking that often run into not only frustration, but serious trouble. Even with good sourcing, there are WP:WEIGHT concerns; and what we have seen in this article is certainly not "impeccable sourcing."

Regardless of the conduct of Apostle12 and WLRoss, it is obvious that Tarpley, Chaitkin and DeCamp present a fringe theory; that the Franklin Committee provides the fuel and oxygen for that theory; and that anyone who seeks to include more and more details from the committee's report is therefore using Misplaced Pages to encourage and develop a fringe theory. Therefore I ask previously uninvolved editors and admins who read this to share my determination that there must be a bare minimum of details from the Franklin Committee report, or anything else that would tend to promote or propagate this admitted fringe theory. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

When does Phoenix and Winslow intend to stop his POV pushing manipulation and bad faith editing? I apologise for the length of the following but Phoenix and Winslow can not be allowed to lie unchallenged.

• Quote:At last you have acknowledged that Tarpley and Chaitkin present a fringe theory.
  Apostle12 and I have both argued from day one that they were fringe and shouldn't be given weight. Phoenix and Winslow is the only editor pushing for an exapanded mention.
• Quote:Michael Casey, who was clearly a con artist looking to make a fast fortune from these false allegations.
  Phoenix and Winslow should provide a RS for this claim.
• Quote:In direct contradiction to your claim, the Franklin Committee did not deny that it was "a carefully crafted hoax." They just "failed to see" it...And they said exactly that. you are spin doctoring the committee report by cherry picking only those quotes and segments that most strongly support fringe theory.
  Unbelievable. The "failed to see it" quote is the quote we have consistently supported for the section and we did not edit to say the Committee denied anything, we used the exact quote for what they said. It was Apostle12 and myself that wanted to change the text denounced the grand jury findings to something less all encompassing. Apparently English is not your native tongue, the Franklin Committee saying that the evidence seen by the GJ does not support it being a hoax is the same as denying. That is called a tautology.
• Quote:The Franklin Committee agreed that the accusers were lying. They did not. They agreed that the accusers exaggerated and misremembered some points but accepted the basic truth of their claims. Regardless, neither Apostle12 or myself have edited to say they were not lying and neither have we edited to say there was any truth in the accusers claims. Phoenix and Winslow on the other hand continually edits to reinforce that they were lying. For example, Owens appeal was denied on the grounds that her lawyer did not object to hearsay evidence being presented in court. Phoenix and Winslow edited this to read "Owen appealed her sentence on multiple counts of judicial, prosecutorial, and jury misconduct, but all of her appeals were denied." As all the counts were based on the use of hearsay evidence, the deletion of the reason the judge dismissed the appeals reinforces the implication that she was lying beyond what the source allows. The reader should be left to make up their own mind. Phoenix and Winslow's justification for the deletion was that if a reader wants to know they can follow the links.
• Quote:The possibility of political motivation also arises whenever a political body like the Franklin Committee takes any action at all.
  The Committee was comprised of both Republican and Democrat senators. The Committee was in fact an investigative body appointed by a political body. It is not up to editors to decide on motivation beyond what the sources say.
• Quote:You seek to infer some sort of sinister motive or incompetence on the GJ's part.
  Phoenix and Winslow, despite repeated requests, declines to provide diffs to support this claim.
• Quote:you have finally acknowledged gets all of its fuel and oxygen from the Franklin Committee report.
  HUH?
• Quote:Regardless of the conduct of Apostle12 and WLRoss, it is obvious that Tarpley, Chaitkin and DeCamp present a fringe theory; that the Franklin Committee provides the fuel and oxygen for that theory; and that anyone who seeks to include more and more details from the committee's report is therefore using Misplaced Pages to encourage and develop a fringe theory. Therefore I ask previously uninvolved editors and admins who read this to share my determination that there must be a bare minimum of details from the Franklin Committee report, or anything else that would tend to promote or propagate this admitted fringe theory.
  I repeat. Neither Apostle12 or myself have used Tarpley, Chaitkin and DeCamp as a source, ever. As Tarpley, Chaitkin and DeCamp are not used as a source, the Franklin Committee inadvertantly providing "the fuel and oxygen" for "thier" theories is totally irrelevant. It is dishonest to delete nuetrally worded material solely because it has been used by them.

The above accusations have failed before two separate notice boards now. Phoenix and Winslow's continuous long winded personal attacks without supplying any proof for his claims are tendentious. For someone who repeatedly claims ad nauseam to follow the letter of WP policies to justify his deletions, this behaviour only displays his contempt for those policies. Time for Phoenix and Winslow to now work with the community to improve the article and accept that his claims may have been an over reaction or incorrect. Wayne (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What's your point?--MONGO 22:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What the Franklin Committee actually said

Perhaps instead of arguing endlessly about terminology (e.g. “Did the Franklin Committee ‘partially accept,’ ‘partially reject,’ ‘reject,’ or ‘denounce’ the grand jury report?"), we might best concentrate on what the committee actually said in their final written report, which was signed by all the committee members. With full access to this written report (especially since the Douglas County grand jury report has been sealed, and the records of Alisha Owen’s perjury trial have been “lost”), this remains our best hope of arriving at consensus. Here’s what I get from the Franklin Committee report:

1./ The grand jury was charged with investigation of the Franklin Community Credit Union, alleged illegal activities by Lawrence E. King and others associated with the credit union, and activities involving drug use, drug trafficking, child pornography, illicit sexual activity and sexual child abuse.

2./ A primary reason for the empowerment of the Franklin Committee were the longstanding (since 1985) allegations that matters involving child sexual abuse were not being adequately investigated by the authorities normally charged with such investigations. The Franklin Committee was concurrently charged with investigating matters associated with the credit union’s collapse.

3./ The Franklin Committee and its chief investigator, Gary Caradori, did everything in their power to keep the investigation confidential. Mr. Caradori did share the results of his investigation with law enforcement.

4./ After the Douglas County grand jury made its report public, the Franklin Committee commented that this was “unprecedented” and no longer saw merit in keeping matters associated with the investigation confidential.

5./ The Franklin Committee investigated matters under their purview for 540 days; the grand jury investigation lasted 82 days. Given this fact, the Franklin Committee considered itself qualified to comment on matters included in the grand jury report.

6./ The Franklin Committee agreed with the report as follows:

a./ They agreed with the grand jury’s finding of probable cause with respect to Lawrence King’s solicitation of men in their late teens and early 20s to engage in acts of prostitution and other illicit sexual activities. The Franklin Committee agreed that it might be expensive to prosecute King for these and other crimes, however they disagreed with the grand jury’s decision not to prosecute him. The Franklin Committee thought King should have been indicted.

b./ They agreed with the grand jury’s finding that the Washington County district attorney should have filed criminal charges against Jarrett Webb in connection with his sexual abuse of foster children in his care. They also agreed with the decision of the new Washington County district attorney to file such charges.

c./ They agreed with the grand jury’s finding that the Omaha Police Department did not adequately follow up on allegations of sexual abuse and cult activity, which led to a lack of public confidence in the Omaha Police Department. They agreed that the Omaha Police Department handling of continued complaints of sexual abuse against children was “flawed” and marked by “indifference.”

d./ They agreed with the grand jury that the media had been irresponsible in printing material leaked to them about the Franklin case and the personalities associated with the case.

e./ They agreed with the grand jury finding that more than 500 pedophiles lived in the Omaha, Nebraska area and regularly preyed on young children. Here the Franklin Committee raised a critical question: “Why, given all this illicit sexual activity with children, were there so few complaints registered, why was so little attention given to the sexual abuse complaints that were submitted, and why was the rate of conviction so low?”

f./ They were disappointed that so few victims of childhood sexual abuse were willing to cooperate with the authorities, however they agreed with the decisions, following the grand jury’s recommendations, to prosecute Jarrett Webb, Alan Baer and Peter Citron.

g./ They agreed with the grand jury recommendations for constructive changes in the laws governing child sexual abuse.

7./ The Franklin Committee expressed “profound disappointment” with the grand jury conclusions with respect to the following:

a./ Their stated conclusions about the Franklin Committee.

b./ Their stated conclusions about the integrity of individual Franklin Committee members.

c./ Their stated conclusions regarding the integrity of investigator Gary Caradori.

d./ Their stated conclusions regarding the videotaped testimony of three witnesses interviewed by investigator Gary Caradori.

e./ The overall tone of the grand jury report and its apparent eagerness to find fault with the Franklin Committee, even to the point of questioning the validity of the committee’s existence.

8./ The Franklin Committee was particularly appalled that the grand jury criticized them for “straying” in pursuing allegations of child sexual abuse, and it pointed out that the committee had specifically been charged by the Nebraska Legislature with investigating allegations of child sexual abuse; they stated that the committee would have been derelict in its duties had it not done so.

9./ The Franklin Committee expressed consternation that the grand jury criticized them for lack of due diligence, with the grand jury going so far as to claim that had the committee done its work it would not have been necessary to convene the grand jury.

10./ The Franklin Committee went to great lengths to clarify that grand jury criticism was groundless, especially with respect to the committee not following proper protocol in conducting its meetings.

11./ The Franklin Committee reserved its strongest condemnation for the grand jury’s stated opinion that the Nebraska State Legislature, and its appointed committee, should not be involved in the investigation of alleged crimes, citing as national precedents the Watergate investigation, RICO investigations into organized crime, investigations that centered on the Iran-Contra affair, and Congressional investigation of the U.S.S. Iowa tragedy. They rejected completely the grand jury’s assertion that "The Legislature is not in the business of investigating alleged crimes.”

12./ Most relevant to our discussion here were the Franklin Committee statements regarding the grand jury’s conclusion that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.” With regard to this conclusion the Franklin Committee, in its typically understated (and sometimes droll) way, said the following:

a./ They said they were “puzzled by the choice of words and the basis for the conclusion.”

b./ Quoting the Franklin Committee report: “As Committee members who viewed the tapes, interrogated our investigator (Caradori), and looked at other corroborating circumstances, we wonder how the grand jury was able to differentiate between “a carefully crafted hoax” and the truth. To the extent that the grand jury relied on allegations against Mr. Casey and the claims of movie rights to the ‘scandal,’ these allegations were known to the (Franklin Committee), and we found them unsubstantiated and unpersuasive. Apparently the grand jury did not take testimony from Mr. Casey. To the extent the (grand jury) conclusion was based on the now famous recantation by Troy Boner, perhaps it was the grand jury that was the victim of the hoax. Mr. Boner has now betrayed himself as a pathological liar. If the grand jury believed Mr. Boner over Alisha Owen, who stands by her story, the hoax may well have been perpetrated on the grand jury.”

Please note that taking certain sections out of context from the above-quoted text (b./) of the Franklin committee report cannot support an argument stipulating that the Franklin Committee agreed that there was “a carefully crafted hoax.”

The Franklin Committee went on to say “We assume from their choice of words—“a carefully crafted hoax”—that the grand jury was persuaded that the testimony of the witnesses corroborated each other, and included facts and circumstances that were readily verifiable and attested to by other witnesses. Otherwise it could not logically be deemed “carefully crafted.” If it was “carefully crafted,” who crafted it and when?”

The Franklin Committee continued its commentary before issuing a final rejection/condemnation/denunciation of the grand jury’s most central finding—that the Franklin case was “a carefully crafted hoax.” Lest there be any doubt as to where the committee stood, it stated unequivocally “After carefully considering the matter, reading and rereading the grand jury report, discussing the matter thoroughly, we fail to see how the general allegations of child abuse on children and illicit sexual activity by prominent Omaha personalities, was “a carefully crafted hoax.”

The Franklin Committee closed by showing a certain faith in the judicial process, with Paul Bonacci and Alisha Owen standing by their videotaped testimony (even as Boner and King had recanted) and Owen facing her perjury trial. The committee roundly criticized the grand jury's choice to award Boner and King for having recanted. And their faith in the judicial process turned out to be unwarranted; Paul Bonacci, prior to his death (which occurred under suspicious circumstances), stated that the FBI pressured him with threats to recant his testimony just before the perjury trial (he swore in an affadavit that his videotaped statement, and Owen's, were absolutely true), leaving Owen alone and defenseless before prosecutors who had much to lose if she were found innocent. Apostle12 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion

How many words was that? Is there any doubt remaining in anyone's mind that these two are as obsessed with this conspiracy theory as any 9/11 Truther? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's almost as long as the article itself...but even more poorly sourced.--MONGO 22:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Obsessed? Poorly sourced? What in the world are Phoenix and Windslow/Mongo talking about?!! I put this summary together using the actual text of the Franklin Committee report so we could properly edit that section of the article and stop arguing about terminology--e.g. whether the Franklin Committee ‘partially accepted,’ ‘partially rejected,’ ‘rejected,’ or ‘denounced’ the grand jury report. Apparently you feel free to comment on the Franklin Committee report without ever having read it; no wonder your misrepresentations are so egregious.

Full text of the Franklin Committee response to the Grand Jury report. Scanned pages from Omaha World Herald Pgs 12-13 July 30, 1990

No one is suggesting including all of that. Only the main points for context. The edits being specifically discussed here are these. Please post evidence to show which of these edits are conspiracy theories or accept that they are not. Wayne (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is in the two books published by DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin, and in related articles published in Executive Intelligence Review. I've read both of the books. They focus exclusively on any details, reported anywhere by anyone, no matter how badly they lack credibility, that tend to undercut the findings of the GJ, the Owen perjury trial, and the appellate court. And these are precisely the details that the two of you have chosen to add and expand in the article mainspace. When the two of you started putting in suggestions that Caradori's Cessna was sabotaged, that was a huge red flag for me because both DeCamp and Tarpley/Chaitkin dwell on that at some length. The single "main point for context" is that the Franklin Committee disagreed with several aspects of the GJ's findings. One paragraph and one blockquote would normally be sufficient, since the source for that is one — count it, one — article in the OWH, a small circulation daily newspaper. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told that DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin ARE NOT USED AS SOURCES so are not evidence of anything! POST EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many times do you have to be told not to lie! No one suggest Caradori's Cessna was sabotaged. Apostle12 added only that he had received threats and I deleted that. Would you like me to tell you this a fourth time? The Omaha World Herald is NOT a small circulation daily newspaper, it is the primary daily newspaper of Nebraska and has won three Pulitzer Prizes. It has the highest subscription rate of any newspaper in America and more than 85% of the population of Omaha read it. Do you believe that if you repeat unsupported garbage long enough people might believe you? Do you honestly believe anything you write here? Wayne (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate to state the obvious, but neither the article nor this noticeboard discussion is about the books authored by DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin--nor are they about article published in Executive Intelligence Review. That you would dwell on sources that we are not using to bolster your claim that we are pushing conspiracy theory is quite absurd. Apostle12 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My point (which both of you are so careful to avoid) is that the material you keep adding is precisely what the books by DeCamp and Tarpley/Chaitkin (and conspiracy theory websites) prefer to dwell upon at great length and with such ludicrous, connect-the-dots claims. In other words, even as you deny and condemn DeCamp and Tarpley/Chaitkin, you are making the article mimic their conspiracy theory work. And yes, compared to the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post, the Omaha World-Herald has a small circulation. Would you care to respond directly, or show us another shiny object? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a joke right? Are you seriously suggesting that any reliable source that is cited by conspiracy theorists cant be used? I notice that DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin also use the Grand Jury findings in their "ludicrous, connect-the-dots claims" so why have you exempted them from your rediculous conditions? The only "shiny object" around is the tin foil hat you are wearing. Wayne (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that when a particular reliable source — in this particular case, a newspaper article entitled "Franklin Panel Faults Grand Jury's Conclusion" — is the centerpiece of two books by conspiracy theorists, as well as a number of CT websites such as Wikispooks.com and FranklinScandal.com, using it as the centerpiece in the related Misplaced Pages article and writing half of the WP article in a manner that strongly resembles those two books and those CT websites is reasonably inferred to be a promotion of fringe theory.

That particular newspaper article is cited as a source in the article mainspace no less than 12 times. Another favorite of the conspiracy theorists, "Bonacci Gets $1 Million in King Lawsuit," is cited three times. No other source is cited more than twice.

And when two editors keep adding material from those two sources, and edit warring to keep it in, and adding other material from other sources that (not so coincidentally) was also used by conspiracy theorists for their books and websites, it rises from a reasonable inference to a near certainty. It's this innuendo you and your friend constantly labor to build, Wayne, by adding all of these little marginally-notable details from marginally-reliable sources. Given your personal history with the 9/11 related articles that MONGO has mentioned, it becomes even more certain.

The grand jury findings and the results of the criminal trials represent the majority opinion. The Franklin Committee didn't even present the fringe theory, as much as you've tried to spin doctor the facts into "proof" that they did. They merely expressed a certain degree of skepticism about the majority opinion in some areas, and disagreement with it in one other area (Caradori's credibility), thereby leaving the door open for the fringe theory to develop in the minds of such people as DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin. Elements supporting the fringe theory shouldn't be carefully inventoried in this article. That is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss and I want to discuss the article. We have proposed doing it section by section, arguing the points so that we can arrive at consensus with the other editors. We began by discussing the lede and the sections called "Franklin Committee Report." Rather than discuss the points within these sections, as proposed, we have been met with a barrage of accusations that have become endless. NOT A SINGLE CONTESTED POINT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN GOOD FAITH!!!

My questions are these: "Do you intend EVER to discuss the article in good faith? Or do you intend to distract us from our purpose forever, making editing of the article impossible?" Apostle12 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that uninvolved editors have long ago given up the thought of engaging with this debate, which impossible to follow without immersing oneself in endless detail, so I suggest that you now take it away from this board and return it to the talk page where it belongs. Paul B (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rothschild family

I hope this is the right place. So, I had no clue what was special about Rothschild family when I first began reverting an IP editor who claimed the article to be one big racist conspiracy theory. Since then the article has drawn IP attention saying that it's a whitewashed piece of propaganda, and saying that there's a cabal protecting the article. Because the article seems to have a fair potential to attract extreme opinions, I'd like a few extra eyes to ensure it stays neutral. Zakhalesh (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking: Modern banking methods makes the money multiplier a very unsatisfactory economic tool

Is the following fringe?

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

I don't know enough about the subject to say whether this is fringe or not, but I can say that it is written in essay form, and uncritically presents a particular viewpoint on the topic. It is therefore unsuitable for use as an encyclopaedia article in its present state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

At the moment the main page uncritically presents an alternative viewpoint supported by so called mainstream economists and refuses to include a neutral wiki voice. It simply says here is how it works without demonstrating there is a long standing dispute. So the other point of view is already presented elsewhere.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Juddward, if you have that in your userspace, I could try and help edit it there. Ocaasi 13:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks i tried contacting you but could not find a method......and then got side tracked. All of my stuff is currently in my user space as of yesterday. The issue really is are you able to edit the existing "deposit multiplier" 'how it works' section to show NPOV without your work being reverted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Fractional-reserve_banking#Example_of_deposit_multiplication

For example i altered the text of the link for that table to show the second paragraph of citation 20 from NYFED where previously in wiki discussion it was pointed out the first paragraph was highly misleading without the second paragraph that i added. And now that citation is no longer valid on the internet but cannot be edited without a revert. The main text however continues to present the relending model as a fact. To be honest if you alter my user space it will not be very helpful unless we get together and decide what should be present to begin with. If you edit the current main page and then observe what happens i think it would be more helpful?Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Fringe? Unlikely. Minority view? Probably. Ravensfire (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. Also, while all the statements are sourced, it is not clear whether they represent academic, or whether the way they are put together reflects anyone's opinions but the writer's. It has the appearance of advocating a specific interpretation. TFD (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As i indicated above, the main page talks about the relending model as fact. The alternative view area is the only place allowed to attempt to get a balanced NPOV. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

For more context, User:Andrewedwardjudd originally attempted to rewrite the Fractional reserve banking article from this perspective, while every indication (even from his own sources) shows this to be a minority view. After attempting to do so, he was informed that he had a burden of proof to meet if he wanted to alter the long-standing coverage of the article so radically. I believe he has now ended those efforts, but recently seems to have a desire to fill the "alternative views" section of the article with an overwhelming amount of material about this viewpoint, even after being cautioned about WP:COATRACK#Fact_picking and WP:UNDUE. BigK HeX (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bigk here is one of the major problems at the moment for editors wanting to create NPOV. In black and white he has demanded that i show the minority view is widely accepted by the so called mainstream view before it is allowed to be included on wiki or by definition it is fringe. Bigk does nothing useful at all to assist in understanding why he deletes citations other than repeating endlessly fringe undue weight etc etc and demanding i prove my citations are not fringe. Even when the formost central banking economist in the english speaking world was shown to object in very strong terms to the way wiki is written, via his quoted comments, it changed nothing at all - the relending model is shown as fact. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dalmore bone

I've taken this to AfD (I should be asleep). It's one of 3 articles about very minor artefacts, all created to promote the Megalithic Yard (now at DYK which is being used to promote fringe ideas). Dougweller (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thomas the Apostle

Does the section in our article go too far towards endorsing the tradition that Thomas evangelised India? The tradition seems not to be accepted by historians and now not by the Catholic Church either. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not fringe issue per se It could probably use trimming and add a little more "traditionally believed to have." Its outdated theory but not terribly serious as most secular historians and secular religious studies scholars postulate. However it is widely believed enough especially by Christians in India and many other groups refuse to give and defend it frequently. This is difficult type of thing to cover neutrally. I would seeking help from Wikiproject Christianity with some one who is more knowledgeable about ancient Biblical nuances. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory proposed at WP:ITN/C for the main page

Some helpful eyes would WP:ITN/C for the Obama rebuttal to the Birther conspiracies The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution