Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 25 July 2012 (→Blacklight Power: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

James H. Fetzer

The article on conspiracy theorist James H. Fetzer appears to be filled with many primary and otherwise dubious sources. There seems to be a lot of puffery, but I am unsure how to deal with most of this given that WP:PRIMARY does allow the use of primary source information to fill in details. Location (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Much of this article is completely undue. We don't build massive articles solely based on primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

We just about had this article cleaned-up when the subject reposted a bunch of primary and self-published sources, as well as Amazon and YouTube links. I reverted the changes, but another eye or two would be useful to address the COI issues. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

We appear to be having an impasse at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories regarding the proper treatment of Joe Arpaio, an Arizona sheriff who has been going to great lengths to "investigate" the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Note that this entire article is supposed to be devoted to the reporting of what are generally admitted to be fringe theories, so that point is not what is at issue here. Rather, the problem involves exactly how Arpaio's claims should be described in the article.

See the recent revision history for the article, and the "Sheriff Arpaio" section of the article's talk page. I see two main areas of dispute here:

• Is it appropriate to report that, as of March 2012, Arpaio's staff had not asked Hawaii state officials for documentation regarding Obama's birth certificate — while at the same time not mentioning a trip which some of Arpaio's people made to Hawaii in May 2012, apparently in an unsuccessful effort to obtain more information? Some people are insisting that the comments from March are accurate, relevant, and reliably sourced, that the May developments add no new information (just more of the same pointless grandstanding), and that any mention or discussion of the May trip to Hawaii is giving undue prominence to Arpaio's crackpot theories. Others insist that it is deceptive to report that Arpaio's people had not asked for any documentation in March, while refusing to acknowledge that efforts to get documentation were apparently made in May.

• On a related note, is it appropriate to include a blog comment from a staff writer for the Phoenix New Times critical of Arpaio's investigation — again, from early March 2012? Aside from the first question (reporting March events without also reporting May events), it is alleged that the writer in question is not notable and that his negative opinion about Arpaio is thus not worth mentioning in Misplaced Pages.

I proposed three rewrites of the Arpaio material in the article's talk page, with little success — some other editors continued to insist that the existing material is adequate and that there is no need to rewrite it. Attempts to edit the article are descending into edit-warring misbehaviour, with accusations being traded of "content improperly removed", "possible vandalism", and editing actions based solely on "I don't like it" grounds. I'm intentionally declining to name specific individual editors here because I'm hoping to keep this matter in the realm of a content dispute, rather than cross the line and characterize it as a user conduct issue.

I will admit here that I'm partial to the idea that the May 2012 Hawaii trip by Arpaio's staff should be reported. But if it is going to be simply impossible to achieve a consensus along these lines, I would favour deleting or severely trimming mention in the article, not only of Joe Arpaio, but of other individuals and their quests — on the grounds that the article is really supposed to be about the fringe theories, and not really about the fringe theorists. This idea actually looks like it might manage to get a consensus behind it, though it's hard to tell now that people have gone back to edit-warring.

Any comments or suggestions for intervention would be welcome here. — Richwales 06:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 06:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a question of assessing the "fringe" nature of the theory, which is already given. It's a matter of due weight. That's not really an issue for this board. The article coulsd go on at great length about every action, theory, court case, blog comment etc ever made, but in factr editorial decisions do have to be made. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also: am I not correct in believing that the trip in May was not made by actual law-enforcement officers, but by Arpaio supporters grandstanding at the expense of an anonymous donor? -Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not accurate, Mike, as best I can tell. According to the sources I've been able to find, the two people who went to Hawaii in May were Michael Zullo (the lead investigator on Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse") and Brian Mackiewicz (a Maricopa County sheriff's deputy from Arpaio's "threats unit"). They visited the Hawaii state health department, showed Maricopa County Sheriff's Office badges, and said they were "authorized by the Sheriff of Maricopa County, who is conducting an official investigation". There is a controversy over the funding of the junket: Arpaio said it would be paid for by private funds, but the county Board of Supervisors voted to refuse to accept private donations to cover the expenses.

As for Paul Barlow's wondering whether this issue is best addressed here (on the fringe theories noticeboard) or somewhere else, that's a fair point; to this end, I posted a link to this discussion last night on the NPOV noticeboard, and I'll be happy to move the issue to WP:NPOVN entirely if people feel the discussion really doesn't belong here. — Richwales 18:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we may finally have reached consensus on a rewrite of this article's description of Joe Arpaio. So it should be possible to close this request for intervention. If and when problems arise again, I'll open up a new request (and presumably post it on the NPOV noticeboard, not here). — Richwales 21:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayurveda

The lead of the article on Ayurveda contains a paragraph on safety concerns, which are a major issue in the discussion in independent reliable sources. This paragraph, naturally, is loathed by proponents of Ayurveda who either delete it or try to bury it elsewhere in the article. More eyes would be apprectiated. A discussion is in progress on the article talk page. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it; watchlisted. Doesn't look too bad at this point... bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Flanagan

Patrick Flanagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If anyone has a spare moment, this bucket of miscellaneous woo and technobabble looks a prime candidate for an AfD. I must admit though that I'm impressed that someone can apparently claim that something which will "lower the surface tension of drinking water" is somehow of benefit - or significance? A little Whisky in my water (or preferably, a lot of Whisky) has a similar effect. And for teetotallers, there is always detergent, though I'd suggest that the Whisky might possibly taste better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

He may be notable, some book coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd honestly be curious to see the response at noting that the surface tension concoction is but one of thousands/millions/a more or less infinite number of surfactants... Regardless, he's sure as heck not notable for that.

Yes, I don't think a paper with a rather modest number of citations like this contributes to notability. I was referring to a mention in Life Magazine, Skeptical Inquirer and the Washington Post. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Musica universalis

It seems that the article Musica universalis is being inappropriately linked with astrology in the text and the templates on the article, when the sources don't support that linkage. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the text since I can't find anything to support it, and the references fail at basic verification. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Creationism

See and 2 similar edits (3RR given). Editor seems to think that we are calling a theory a law of science, that because evolution is not a scientific law it something or other, not sure, and that it isn't observable. So, editor is removing the word 'empirical'. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there another editor arguing recently that evolution wasn't a law and that discounted it? Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories

User: Jason from nyc deleted my newly created article on Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories and restored the terribly written Influence Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood article instead. That article was so bad it was practically unsalvagable, since it featured few to no reliable sources and openly promoted the conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood that are advanced by discredited "counterjihad" activists such as Robert Spencer, David Horowitz and Pamela Geller. I replaced it with an article with a NPOV title (since it describes the allegations for what they are, conspiray theories) which I used reliable sources to write. However, Jason from nyc reverted my changes, deleting my new article (which he ludicrously claimed had been "moved by consensus") and restoring the bad version. Misplaced Pages isn't the place to promote fringe theories, and I don't think Jason from nyc should be allowed to do so here. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, at least in theory it probably would be best to have two articles, one on the what the actual influence efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood are, and one on the batty conspiracy theories about them that seem to be all the rage in the American far right these days. However, the current Influence Operations of the Muslim Brotherhood article does need a complete overhaul, in my opinion; we need to use mainstream scholars as our sources, not conspiracy theorists or polemicists such as Horowitz et al. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Influences" was written by 18 editors and has 75 references. To just delete it and put a reference to your newly created page undoes a consensus established over time. I would have thought that both well-sourced claims and well-sourced criticism could be in that one article as it is in other articles. The debate should be on the talk page of the article. Influences was previously moved from Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories after debate among the editors. Talk to the editors involved and derive a new consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply having a large number of references doesn't prove anything about the article's merit, since most of the references are unreliable sources. Ditto for editors (see WP: Countering systematic bias and WP: Vote stacking). By analogy, if 16 members of the Flat Earth Society came over here, created an article on Reasons for a flat earth, and claimed that the article was backed by "consensus" because 16 editors support it, that doesn't give the article merit. We've run into problems before with large ideologically motivated groups of people joining Misplaced Pages in large numbers in order to give the appearance of consensus on articles, so having a larger number of authors doesn't necessarily imply an article is NPOV or of good quality. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Phillip Willis

Phillip Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure where to begin with this one. The article for Phillip Willis, who was a witness to the assassination of JFK and referred to in various conspiracy works, is filled with citations pointing to primary source material and images. There are a lot of explanations in the "References" sections that aren't backed-up by commentary from a secondary source (e.g. description of Willis in the Zapruder film). It is as though the citations need citations. Thanks! Location (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The article looks like it could be pruned and merged to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. His only notability is inherited from that. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:ONEEVENT, unless there is a lot of conspiracy/fringe writing on him that just hasn't made it into the article. Agricolae (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Combined with his membership in the Texas House of Representatives and a couple bits of information that suggests he was involved in the capture of Kazuo Sakamaki(), I think there is borderline notability; however, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another regarding keep and clean-up vs. merge. Location (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Sakamaki thing, if it happened, does not improve his status much - being a peripheral figure in two unrelated events does not cumulatively make one notable. To be notable, he has to have received coverage for himself, rather than for watching multiple notable events happen. The legislate part makes a stronger case - I overlooked that as I scanned the article, which only mentions this more significant possible claim to independent notability in passing - as written, it is ONEEVENT, but if it was recast as more of a biography rather than as 'the guy who took the pictures of the important event', I may view it differently. Agricolae (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Asebu

The article about Asebu (a region and former Fante kingdom on the Gold Coast, contemporary Ghana) reads like a fringe theory involving the Israelites in Egypt and their journey to the Promised Land. Please have a look at this. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole History section needs to be blanked and not redone without a reliable source. Agricolae (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Herbalism may be about to heat up again

I just reverted a page move of List of plants used in herbalism to List of medicinal plants. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your advice

Hello,

Perhaps not the kind of posts you usually receive here, but I need your advice if you don't mind. Would you be kind enough to tell me whether this site is a fringe site or not? The link you are looking at in particular relates to an article which was originally authored by the anthropologist David Maranz. Thank you so much for your time. Best Regards. Tamsier (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one that mentioned this. There are several problems. One, yes, it's a fringe site. Do a search for Atlantis and you will quickly come up with things such as . The site is full of such fringe stuff.

We did discuss this before, see . There I pointed to noting that at the bottom it says "(Published in Kolo Suryoyo: April-May-June issue 2002. Number 136. Page 85 -- Reproduced without permission)" - which rules it out altogether as something we can link to.

Maranz would normally be a reliable source if this is the anthropologist (which I think it is), but not in this case. For some reason he hasn't published this in a reliable source, in fact, if he actually chose to put it here, he's decided to publish it in an unreliable source. But as I said, the site contains copyvio and we don't link to such sites. " Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Misplaced Pages and its editors." Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tamsier, does Gravrand actually talk about Raampa pictographs? Because I can't find them mentioned anywhere other than phoenica.org which also seems to be the only source of claims that they represent writing, although you are citing Gravrand as saying they are writing - if he does, that's interesting but not nearly enough to claim they actually are writing. Surely there is a name for these pictographs other than Raampa pictographs, a phrase I can't find when I search. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for your help in removing the link. I've also found a number of our articles linking to a clearly copyvio article which I'll be cleaning up later (this is to do with Melkites, nothing to do with Serer related material). Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, but more so for the discussion link of 2008. I notice two editors in that discussion mentioned "convenient link", it was exactly in that light I used it, as mentioned in the Serer religion's discussion page. On the Raampa page on Phoenicia, there was nothing that said it was "...Reproduced without permission" (unless I missed it). If it did, I would never have used it. As regards to your question, "Raampa" is the local name from the Saafi language (language of the Saafi people) who preserved many of these pictographs/writing/symbols/ideographs or whatever in English, itself derived from Serer religious symbolism. It is not English, not French, not even from the Serer language. The Saafi language partains to the Cangin group, although all Cangin speakers are ethnically Serers. I mentioned this also in the Serer religion talk page. Because these works were carried out long ago by scholars and many of these scholars have died or retired, and also the word "Raampa" being a local language whose speakers form a minority among the Serer group (despite the fact that they have preserved it and contributed to it more than any of the Serer group), etc., this may explain why it is not coming up in Google searches. As such, Phoenicia is right in their assertion at the top of the references. In some sources, they are referred to as Serer symbols / Serer religious symbols, difficult to decipher unless one is initiated, and used to communicate between those who can decipher it (usually the Serer priesly class - Saltigues). It was for this reason I added it under proto-writing in the History of writing article (which you removed) and not true-writing per say. In Gravrand, "Raampa" is referred to in the general context of Serer symbols and symbolisms, its history and so forth. Here is a link which derived from his 1971 work : "Le Symbolisme sereer : Mythe du Saas et symboles", « Revue de Psycho-Pathologie » vol. 9 No 2 Dakar (1971) (Published and reviewed under the title "Le symbolisme serer" Psychopath. Afric. 1973, IX, 2, 237-265 Pyschopathologie africaine) Société de psychopathologie et d'hygiène mentale de Dakar (I have the book but it is snippits here, it is in French) , etc.,). I have also provided an external on the Serer religion talk page regarding Serer symbols and their meaning etc see  : "Tracing memory: a glossary of graphic signs and symbols in African art and culture", by Clémentine Faïk-Nzuji Madiya, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Canadian Centre for Folk Culture Studies (further snippits this time in English , ). Sorry about these snippits. I am of the old school where we use books. I have many of these books but things have changed now. If it cannot be seen on the Worldwide web then it is not true. So sad but that is modernity. These symbols/writing/pictographs or whatver, have religious and historical significance. Nothing dubious about them, nothing strange about them or anything. Thank you for your time and advice. Tamsier (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklight Power

Blacklight Power is a pseudo-science based company. The article currently doesn't seem very balanced towards mainstream opinion and the pseudo-science theories are presented uncritically Bhny (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Needs a substantial trimming, for a start. Half it (at least) seems to be sourced to the company's own press releases, and much of the rest is from primary sources and/or original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution