Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Berig (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 1 March 2009 (→Temple at Uppsala). 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 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

Bible diet

Appropriate for an AfD? LeContexte (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? It seems notable, as long as it isn't pushing it as approved science or anything it should be ok. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD? It's borderline {{db-spam}}! As it stands it could justifiably be redirected to the author (Jordan S. Rubin) of the book it's an ad for, tho possibly changed to an article on that book if it's notable? Or, if it ends up being a real (ie non-promotional) article about christian 'bible diets', it's going to need 3rd party sources etc. discussing the phenomenon/fad, rather than just the web-sites/books promoting said phenomenon. Misarxist 10:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands pretty much sucks, but Google shows quite a number of "Bible diets" of various sorts, so this topic is surely notable enough to deserve an article. Looie496 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it hits on Google, but are there any books, newspaper articles, etc. about the topic? That's the thing we need to look for. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several books called "The Bible Diet" or some variation thereof. Even Google Scholar shows 50 hits for the phrase "bible diet", although about half of them are related to something else. The most interesting is an article from Gastronomica called "Don't Eat That": The Erotics of Abstinence in American Christianity. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I redirected the author to the diet, since he's not really known for anything else, and the diet gets some paper space in printed encyclopedia, while he does not. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Panentheism

This is sort of at the edge of fringiness, but I'm getting to my wit's end with panentheism. The concept itself isn't too hard to explain, and the article does a half-decent job, at least, of doing so. The problem comes with the section where it is being identified in various religious and philosophical traditions. First, a lot of people can't tell the difference between panentheism and pantheism, and so they keep sticking in examples of the latter. Second, the perpetual controversialism between Eastern and Western Christianity has washed up in the article. It is perhaps true that panentheism is not as universally held in the West as in the East, but one can readily find western theologians who explicitly hold to it. Which brings us to the third issue: most of these identifications are analysis rather than the original sources using the term themselves. For example, we have a cited claim that the Cherokee were monotheistic and panentheistic, but the cited work supports the former and doesn't mention the latter at all. Another bit on neoplatonism has a citation, but the quote doesn't use the term and actually supports an interpretation of pantheism instead.

I'm inclined to think that the right approach is to mercilessly strip out anything that is either uncited or whose citation doesn't actually use the term itself. I'm familiar enough with the field to where I think I can distinguish the forms correctly, but it seems to me that if I rely upon that I'm going to have endless battles with the people who can't distinguish them. In any case, I'd like some other eyes on this as well as opinions as to the approach I intend to take. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"I'm inclined to think that the right approach is to mercilessly strip out anything that is either uncited or whose citation doesn't actually use the term itself." That's probably the way to go. I'll watch the page, but I won't be able to devote much time (or research) to this. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a challenge. The similar-sounding topic pantheism is also often confused with pandeism and with polytheism, often seen in new age and neopaganism philosophies as an alternative to monotheism.

Maybe it would be helpful to come up with a clear disambiguation hatnote. Maybe also add a section at the top of the article that addresses the related ideas, with an acknowledgment of the modern uses of those terms in the popular literature relating to new age. By addressing those misconceptions up front (with reliable sources), the rest of the article could strictly focus on the correct use of the topic term and might incur less distractions. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to make the distinctions clearer, but sadly, I think that material is often added by people who either can't be bothered to read, or who are too thick to register the difference between the terms. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cold reading

There's a minor edit war with one user insisting on phrasing that presumes that the vew that *all* psychics, mediums, and so on are real should be given greater weight than that they use cold reading. C.f. first sentence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sort of a moot point, because the first paragraph sucks egregiously in other respects: it gives some information about what cold reading can be used for, but neglects to tell the reader what it actually is, which is the true job of the first sentence of an article. Both versions are equally bad in this respect. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rheinwiesenlager - opinions & input needed please

At Rheinwiesenlager, another editor is seeking to add to the infobox the fringe theory - labelled as "later scholarly estimates" - that up to 1,000,000 German POW's died at Prisoner of War Temporary Enclosures (PWTE). These were a group of about 19 transit camps for holding German POWs after World War II. The theory, which was propounded by James Bacque, and is debunked both on the talk page of this article and at Bacque's article itself, is that Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower deliberately caused the death of 790,000 German captives in internment camps through disease, starvation and cold from 1944 to 1949. I have reverted the change citing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, for which the editor in question has labelled me a Communist. I would be grateful for some external input. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved Eisenhower and German POWs to Other Losses since the article is essentially only about Bacque's claims in that book. Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

... and I could use some help cleaning up after myself. Many, many references were there to support claims about Allied food policies and malnutrition. I tended to just de-link these; however, the claims need to be cited, preferably to outside sources. If anyone could assist me please drop a message on my talk page. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed, for the third time, Bacque's claim from the infobox. It is a classic fringe theory, it enjoys no mainstream support, and it is mentioned in the body of the article. However, I fully expect to see Smith2006 reinsert it, and would be grateful for others' views on this. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Qur'an and science, Islam and science, and possibly Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts.

There's a couple articles that could probably use some experienced editors. These aren't in a terrible state or anything, but they may be giving undue weight towards certain views. Qur'an and science, Islam and science, and possibly Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some outright lies in the first. Dr. Keith L. Moore is quoted as saying "I have no difficulty in accepting this", in reply to the question of whether Quranic knowledge of the embryo must derive from God. The full sentence is "I found no difficulty in accepting this as a seventh century echo of Aristotle and Ayurveda." The sentence is chopped up with a full-stop added to misrepresent it. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The secondthird is just a mess, bordering on an essay. It's hard to tell whether this idea is creationist/"fundamentalist" claptrap, or atheist intellectual snobbery, especially as it brushes up against natural theology (another deeply problematic article) without acknowledgment. From what I can tell, there is a specifically creationist version of this idea (cited from Creationwiki, of all places), but throwing William Harvey into the mix doesn't help. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I snipped a big part of the first, where it droned on endlessly about some Dr. Moore's ideas for ages and ages, without any sign that they were particularly notable views, or that he was someone worth listening to on the subject. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The first two articles are propaganda by a few hard-core sectarian SPAs. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has taken a look - a lot more work to be done, some of which I'l try and do myself. ClovisPt (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This material is pretty far outside of my own knowledge base - does anyone have a suggestion as to where to look for editors with a better grasp of the issues? ClovisPt (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Eye on contributions by User:Uruk2008

I'd like to ask for some additional eyes to review contributions by Uruk2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He has some sort of background with explosives, but has added a lot of misinformation, fringe theory, and explosives-related pseudoscience over the last few months too. I've started reverting some stuff and mentioned it on his talk page, but I think more eyes to look at all his contributions may be helpful so that it's not just me. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Monogenesis (linguistics)

This is an odd article, currently wholly unreferenced, which defines linguistic monogenesis as "the idea that all spoken human languages are descended from a single ancestral language spoken many thousands of years ago in the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age". Fair enough. It then goes on to assert that "Monogenesis was dismissed by many linguists in the late 19th century. It is scarcely more popular today. It is probably fair to say that most historical linguists at the present time (2008) do not view monogenesis as a respectable theory." It seems odd that the article is in effect claiming that this is a fringe theory. I think the author is conflating the central assertion (that all spoken human languages are descended from a single ancestral language) with the fringe claims of those linguists who have sought to model it. The author's attempt to introduce evolutionary theory also seems confused. The article claims that "if all recent human populations on Earth (including, for example, Australians, appearing 40,000 - 50,000 years before the present) stem from a single out-of-Africa migration, linguistic monogenesis becomes a conceivable hypothesis." Since this is the dominant view, it seems odd to portray it in this way. In any case, even multiregionalism is not logically inconsistent with linguistic monogenesis. However, editors with knowledge of this topic seem to be needed. Paul B (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My impression (but I'm not a linguist) is that linguists generally view this as a fringe hypothesis, not so much because it is totally implausible as because the people who write about it cite "evidence" that most linguists think is bogus. Looie496 (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the distinction I was trying to make. It's the models not the concept itself that are fringe. Paul B (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be merged with Proto-World language or Origin of language. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified flying object (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm trying to clean up this grossly biased article. There is considerable opposition from some people who think the extraterrestrial hypothesis should have a section outlining support for that hypothesis. There is in fact little if any support for the hypothesis within the scientific community. - This article is very popular and I think some attention to its terrible biases would improve Misplaced Pages's reputation for taking science seriously. -TS 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience

Yet again people are trying to demote the NPOV/FAQ from policy status, this time by simply edit warring to make it so. Less than 24 hours of discussion since they necromancied an old thread, and already they've demoted it four times.

God help me, what's with these people? Simply saying that an RfC should be run before you demote a long-standing policy is being met with claims that it never was meant to be a policy to beggin with (how stupid of us not to have realised in the 7 years it's been part of Misplaced Pages policy, originally as part of WP:NPOV, and that there never was consensus for it to be policy. What's going on here? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this involve some kind of Fringe Theory? q141.152.51.234 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience is one of the the main policies on fringe theories. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should be asking this at the FAQ talk page, but I don't understand what's at stake here. Why does it matter whether this is policy or not? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, having a clear, policy-level statement that science is priveleged over pseudoscience was godsend in the evolution-creationism debates, and probably one of the only thing that really helps when trying to clean up the Alternative medicine and other problematic parts of the Wiki - without an explicit statement, it would be hard to convince people. Having to show them four different policies and a couple Arbcom rulings really doesn't have the same effect as a clear, concise statement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a POV statement."without an explicit statement, it would be hard to convince people". We don't try to "convince" our readers of anything.(olive (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

...The editors, Olive. Not the readers. There are some people who seek nothing but to promote fringe theories. Without this, it becomes dificult to, for instance, have any chance of convincing a creationist that his surveys about belief in evolution in Hicksville, America are not the relevant metric. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict:

Whew! Now there's a statement about people that rubs me the wrong way...Hicksville, America? What kind of agenda is that? No further comment.(olive (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

It seems rather evident to me at this moment that the FAQ section should remain at the policy level. It seems to provide answers to policy questions which are frequently asked. These answers are ostensibly agreed upon by the community at large. The answers are binding as policy so long as the community at large agrees on the answers. That said, I haven't read a good reason as of yet to demote FAQ. -- Levine2112 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oliveoil, I hope we can all agree that we don't want an encyclopedia tainted by the prejudices of "Hicksville, America". Those who want that have their own encyclopedia, and they're welcome to it. --TS 21:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want an encyclopedia tainted by any prejudices, and prejudice is anywhere, and everywhere ... even here.(olive (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

And thus Misplaced Pages becomes still more out-of-touch with, and alienated from, Hicksville, America. Good job, editors! 141.152.51.234 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages was always intended to be a high quality 💕 based on the neutral point of view. Reflecting the prejudices of the stupidest people, of whatever nation, has never been an aim of this project. --TS 22:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Right.... And they believe that the Earth was created, so therefore we know they're just stupid, right? 141.152.51.234 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Belief in creationism is, in fact, inversely correlated with level of education. In short, the less educated you are, the more likely you are to be a creationist. The correlation with study of science is even stronger. - Nunh-huh 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Stupidity,ignorance and arrogance all inhabit the cities as well as the small towns, as does intelligence. Equating stupidity with small town people, and attempting to judge who is stupid and who is not can only lead to pigeonholing and subsequent misjudgment.(olive (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Amen! -- Levine2112 23:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we move on from attacking a poorly-chosen wording to actually deal with the relevant issues I raised? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with Hicksville? Its the finest little town in Arkansas, just down the turnpike from Dead Pig! Why we done got ourselves some of that there electricity stuff just three year back, and now I see Jerome's Hardware done even brung in a machine for doing the laundry for me, though it costs about six years wages so I can't see my no-good husband staying sober long enough to save up for one, though I injured my back something fierce fighting off them foreign fellers last time their saucer landed near here and bending over the creek for hours to get his britches clean surely does make it ache a packet! 41.245.54.216 (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hicksville, AK is fine... it's Hickville, NY that you have to worry about! Seriously... Shoemaker has asked us to forgive his poor word choice and focus on the issue... should NPOV#FAQ be considered part of the policy or not? Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I grew up in a farming community in the Appalachian foothills and have several relatives poor enough that they have no choice but to hunt for food. Seriously. Move on, people. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I live in Africa. Folks around here wish there were edible animals left to hunt. They would happily swap lives with your Appalachian relatives. Wdford (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile back at the ranch. Maybe we could take the pertinent aspects of the discussion :o) back to NPOV/FAQ where the status of the FAQ is being discussed.(olive (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Homeopathy

Problems at homeopathy. I don't want to revert any more. User is refusing to enter into discussion, and I suspect it is a banned editor. Please can an admin or AE admin, or someone take a look and help out if required. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, Homeopathy was last week's featured article on Citizendium. Dana Ullman (who played the main role in writing the Citizendium article) has been pointing out to the alt med community how much better the CZ article is than the Misplaced Pages one. So, we're apt to see an upsurge in activity at homeopathy for a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And that is why citizendium fails. Verbal chat 17:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this thread is evidence that homeopaths aren't welcome on wikipedia. I dispute both claims. See Talk:Homeopathy. Verbal chat 17:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes... it is all a great big conspiracy to silence homeopaths and keep the "truth" from the public... Seriously, homeopaths are welcome on Misplaced Pages, but just like everyone else they must abide by the rules. POV pushing and edit warring are not acceptable, no matter what your agenda. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Free energy

A user would like to have perpetual motion figure prominently at the Free energy dab page. I believe this is giving undue weight to the term and violates DAB standards. Please have a look at the talk page. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

POV issues on two related articles

Some POV issues here, if any editors who feel like dealing with them: Charles Fort and International Fortean Organization. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama conspiracy theories

Outside input is requested here. Sceptre 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sort of ironic to bring this issue here, since that article was actually created as a result of a discussion on this noticeboard. Looie496 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Never the less... we should keep an eye on it. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be fucking kidding me, right? FTN is normally quite anti-fringe theory, so why would a discussion yield that the consensus was to create an article for this? Jesus Christ, was everyone's brains on holiday that day? Sceptre 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the top objective at the time was to get the stuff out of Barack Obama, where it was before that. I should add that my opinion is different than yours: I think it's a great article, one of relatively few where I'm happy to point people to Misplaced Pages as the best way to learn about a topic. (By the way, if you don't believe me, just look at the edit summary for the first contrib to the article.) Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Venetian People

I came across this article today. It contains a list of references, but no in-text citations. Some sections (Etymology, Origins, 1000 BC) may contain fringe ideas or inaccuracies. There seem to be examples of confusing modern Venetian people with the ancient Adriatic Veneti, giving the impression that the latter are somehow ancestral to the former or as if the two are one and the same people. I removed some OR (a lay comparison of ancient Venetic with modern Venetian language) and tagged some of the most contentious sections as unreferenced: . The article needs a cleanup as some bits are written in poor English. --Jalen (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don;t see that as the main problem: the main problem is the uncited and POV sections on "venetian genocide" and following. I've tagged them. DGG (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Electro Muscle Stimulation

Seems to vouch for the effectiveness of these products and stuff like that, more than is justified by scientific/regulatory opinion. All checking and WP:NPOV appreciated. Sticky Parkin 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic there -- there's nothing fringe about the concept that electrically stimulating muscles will cause them to contract. If anything is missing, it might be an alert that accidentally stimulating in the vicinity of the heart could be dangerous. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It involves devices such as Slendertone , who have been told off, particularly in Australia in the past for making exaggerated claims. Far from having a possible effect on the heart, the problem with these devices is the contraction is too small to have much effect, at least where cosmetic results are concerned. So the thing with the article is whether it makes that clear enough, or not. It does say that only some of these devices are accepted by the FDA or something. Sticky Parkin 21:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the (Electro_Muscle_Stimulation#Use) section, you will notice that it clearly explains why certain manufacturer's claims were over the top. So it's not at all expressing a biased point of view. While Slendertone is clearly a toy, i.e. its contractions are too small, as pointed out by Sticky Parkin, there are professional devices that cause very strong training contractions. I suggest that you read an article that reviews the early history of EMS: Russian electrical stimulation: the early experiments. You know how the Russians were extremely serious about their Olympic athletes. If they used it to augment their training they must have given EMS some serious thought. There are tons of sport/medicine articles with findings about fatigue induced by EMS, force gains induces by it etc. I think the only honest way of countering the overwhelming research would be finding and equal number of research articles that prove the contrary.--Gciriani (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychic, et al

I feel that heavily disputed things should not be stated as fact. Psychic, Medium, Mediumship and so on should call them "proposed" abilities, or "claimed" abilities. Am I in the right here? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although the wording should be flexible: "purported", "nominal", "supposed", etc., could also be used. Discretion should be taken to make clear the qualification, but without introducing a disparaging or ridiculing tone. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"purported' is in my opinion disparaging. DGG (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. If you are asking if the lead to these articles should begin with "Foo is a qualifier ability"; then the answer is no. If you are asking if qualifiers should be used when referring to specific incidents or people connected with these concepts; then the answer is yes. Try to use time travel as a yardstick. We don't generally feel the need to qualify all discussion of time travel, nor would we ever let a bare-faced claim of someone traveling through time slip through the cracks. When trying to be neutral with these issues I suggest picking a similar concept that no one makes money off of as stand-in.--BirgitteSB 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that before bringing these kind of discussions over & over in again, editors can search/browse arbitration committee outcomes (, ). So that muda can be reduced as much as possible. Logos5557 (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No one should feel that they should not start a discussion here merely because arbcom touched on the issue during a particular incident of poor behavior. It isn't wasteful to encourage deeper understanding rather than pointing out a rule to blindly follow. Human descion-making is a vastly different operation than computational programs.--BirgitteSB 15:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The incident that resulted in that arbitration request may be counted as particular but the outcome is general and binding. To me, the decision here is so blatant that it is a waste of time and space to pursue a deeper further otherwise understanding. Editors are expected to follow[REDACTED] policies, rules and arbcom results. Until there is no arbcom outcome stating otherwise, I believe previous outcomes should hold true. Human decision-making is indeed a different operation than computational programs and that's why we elect humans for arbitration committee, not computer programs.Logos5557 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the arbcom ruling answers the question of how describe these items. It says these abilities in people are non-existent. It does not give any specific guidance on how to describe these items, just a singular example of how not describe them (i.e. don't describe people as actually possessing these abilties). There is certainly a wide range of appropriate ways to describe these things which would be in line with the ruling, as well as additional inappropriate ways which would not contravene that ruling. If you feel the discussing these possibilities is a waste of time then don't participate.--BirgitteSB 18:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

May be you should first look at the very beginning of the case; involved parties, statements by them, arbitrators' opinions etc. here . As you will see, there are editors thinking, the use of psychic and similar terms as if those are accepted facts, being NPOV violation, undue weight, etc., which is similiar to the case here. I guess editors/administrators can discuss endlessly in favor of their deeper understandings. What I believe is, those discussions can go nowhere if there is prior ruling on the subject. I will sure not be a part of this discussion, my "mission" was to point out arbcom outcome on the subject, which editors discussing the matter here are seemingly not aware of.Logos5557 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the argument about "the use of psychic and similar terms as if those are accepted facts, being NPOV violation, undue weight, etc." being used here at all. I see a discussion about whether specific qualifiers are appropriate followed by you complaining about people bringing such a discussion here. Frankly I don't even understand if you agree, disagree, or do not have an opinion about anything of substance in this discussion, all I understand is that you disapprove of the discussion entirely. And I can't, in good conscience, allow such a discouragement to pass unremarked.--BirgitteSB 19:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom ruling on the case says there is no need to qualify/temper psychic or similar terms with "purported", "nominal", "supposed" etc., and I fully agree with that outcome. You simply are not in an allowing or disallowing position. Logos5557 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you misread me. All I claim to be able to allow or disallow is my own comments. "Allow . . . discouragement to pas unremarked" = Me personally declining to comment. If you really think I am not in a position to do that I don't have anything further to say to you.--BirgitteSB 20:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I became unsure how to read you. You may have misunderstood the arbcom ruling. Because you stated above "It says these abilities in people are non-existent" while arbcom ruling exactly says "Psychic or clairvoyant and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist". As it is clear as glass, arbcom ruling does not say these abilities are non-existent, it says "since these abilities may not exist in a person, the use of the term does not imply such abilities exist, therefore there is no need to qualify/temper such terms". Logos5557 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing in this matter

This whole thing involves a fairly new (but previously blocked) editor who seems to believe it is his/her duty to prevent mediums and such like from getting their feelings hurt. (Take a look at their talk page. They are going around to a number of paranormal articles and whitewashing them so that it is implied that paranormal abilities are reality, contrary to WP:FRINGE. They are using Misplaced Pages to "right great wrongs" and as a "battleground", even using the word!

Now they are canvassing for support:

• Hey, you seem to have similar beliefs to myself. If you have some free time, could you please cast your eye over articles such as John Edward, Colin Fry, Psychic, Mediumship and even cold reading. The reason i ask this is that there seems to be some kind of atheist/skeptics crusade against the paranormal, and some of what they put in articles surmounts to libel and religious intolerance. I could really use some backup in my battle to stop this, any any help you could provide would be highly appreciated. Thank you User:Phallicmonkey 20:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Diff.

It is not our job to introduce editorial bias to prevent offense or to make unreality appear real. Unless the scientific evidence proves a phenomenon is real, it is treated as a fringe belief, and articles should not leave the impression that they are real. They should cover all significant sides of the question, but without leaving a false impression. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Covering all significant sides of the question in a neutral way does not, TBH, seem to be the goal of some of your compatriates - some of them seem more keen on mass edits and deletions that are more in the nature of a purge ( with not a little canvassing on their own part as well), with WP:FRINGE given as a justification for doing an end run around WP:NPOV - so I can certainly see where the characterisation as a "crusade" comes from. Artw (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the ad hominem attempt to distract from the issue here, canvassing is forbidden, as well as advocacy of fringe POV. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this whole board a "legal" canvassing of skeptical editors? Post here and the skeptical constabularly shows up at your article. That's obviously a good thing for Misplaced Pages, but the double standard is a bit off, IMO. Phil153 (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of these noticeboards is to notify....and hopefully get more eyes on the situation. So far the skeptical constabulary seems to be absent, and instead I'm getting flack from apparent believers in fringe theories, instead of constructive ideas about how to deal with pushers of fringe POV. I guess it would make sense that such believers would watchlist this board, but to use it to undermine efforts to prevent advocacy of fringe theories is against the purpose of this board and Misplaced Pages's FRINGE policy.

Well, this is somewhat moot now since the user was indef blocked for POV pushing, and then unblocked. They now have a new username and have promised to behave. Let's see what happens. -- Fyslee (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HonestGeorgeWashington on Neuroprosthetics

I could use a hand here -- HonestGeorgeWashington (talk · contribs) added some very dubious material about the CIA and MKULTRA to the article, I removed it with an explanatory edit summary, and George re-added it with no explanation. Since I prefer to avoid multi-reverting, it would be nice if others could take a look at this. I will notify HGW of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks dubious. Is the user new to Misplaced Pages? I reverted the addition, pending some secondary sources that support the text.

(I was hoping that the article would be about prosthetics--that I could move with my mind. Reality is so disappointing sometimes...) --Akhilleus (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The section on Motor prosthetics is indeed about that, at least partly. I should perhaps explain that this is not a very well-organized article, but I wouldn't like to see it go completely to hell. Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_review/Warsaw_Uprising and Norman Davies

I don't know anything about the details of the Warsaw Uprising, but this FA currently at FAR is haevily based on a book by Norman Davies, whose article has a big criticism section about his work on Polish history for allegedly being very pro-Polish. I'm not sure if he is controversial or non-mainstream, but I wonder if there is an UNDUE problem at that article because of it. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Energy accounting: undue weight to the view of TechInc movement

There's a problem with the article Energy Accounting. It is presented as a concept in the school of thought belonging to the movement Technocracy Incorporated. But the term is a general concept. The article now has a heavy bias towards TechInc's POV. I've tried to explain this on the talkpage but the main editor of the page doesn't understand this. (S)he is also repeatedly removing the dispute tag of the article, although the dispute is not over and WP:NPOVD should be applied. Could someone have a look on this? Mårten Berglund (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Page move

I'm contemplating a move of the satanic ritual abuse page to satanic ritual abuse moral panic; the latter title accurately reflects the current view of the scholarly majority in my mind, with several scholarly books on the topic. If anyone is interested in giving an opinion, I wouldn't mind it. Right now it's me and one other editor, both of us have strong, diametrically opposed opinions on the matter. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but satanic ritual abuse moral panic is an awful title for an article, regardless of validity. A reader who comes to that article would say, "What is this? Isn't there an article somewhere about just plain Satanic Ritual Abuse?". Looie496 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is "just plain Satanic Ritual Abuse"? I agree that the move is not necessary. This encyclopedia doesn't have page names like Unicorn (imaginary creature) for good reason, but this topic is a bit more sensitive than that. People know that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of unicorns ... they don't know that the same is true for SRA.PelleSmith (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I understood Looie's phrase to mean, not the moral panic about SRA, but SRA itself. The (recently made) redirect is fine (will it ever get used after this section is archived?), but I agree that the move itself is best not done. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It would seem like a better title would be the more simple Satanic ritual abuse panic; I don't see the need for using the term "moral". This title accurately reflects the baseless accusations during a 20 year period and it happened in many states. Most, if not all, were proved to be nothing. Keeping the title as is may be seen as adding weight or credibility to the claims made during this period. Using the term panic puts the events in context. We are dealing with an area that is very gray; certainly it is not an area of black and white. --Rider 09:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fluoroquinolone toxicity

Not sure if this belong here but this article is fear mongering using a fringe point of view and is held in place by a number of editors. I have therefore started a rewrite over at Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones until issue can be resolved. Help in this matter would be appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I agree with your approach, but have difficulty deciphering the sequence of page moves and redirects here. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern

Tom Van Flandern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently deceased pseudoscientist. I just ran through the article with a comb removing all the WP:PSTS violations. We need someone to keep going and find out what the guy was most notable for. I'm thinking it's probably faster than light and Face on Mars. Everything else is just a bit too obscure and not really noticed.

In any case, the article was/is obviously being monitered by his supporters and I don't want to be disrespectful to the recently deceased, but we could use some people here watchlisting it and doing a little research and adding some third-party independent sources.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be monitored. This is a biography about my father, an astronomer with a PhD from Yale who admitedly had unconventional thories, but had countless papers published in peer reviewed journals. His biography is now dominated by a malicious detractor at IP address 63.24.xxx.xxx. If Tom Van Flandern were alive these posts would be libelous. Please monitor this biography, steer back to NPOV and insist on citations. I'd rather the biography be deleted than owned by this single user. Thank you -MikeVF

63.24.xxx.xxx seems very involved for someone lacking a user account. If they cross over into disruptive or unacceptable behaviour I would take a look at requesting a block per WP:RANGE. Artw (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Alien abduction

I'm requesting a move:

• Abduction phenomenon → Alien abduction —(Discuss)— These collections of stories are not universally agreed by all sources to be phenomenological. Some "alien abduction" stories are akin to ghost stories or mythology and are not subject to phenomenological study. Also "abduction phenomenon" is ambiguous since it might be referring to any number of situations where real, actual abductions became rampant (such as in unstable politcal environments or the moral panic that surrounded stranger danger in the 1980s USA. The obvious title for this topic is "alien abduction". Please move it to it's natural home. --ScienceApologist (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to glance up the page at WP:FTN#Alien Abduction Trauma and Recovery. There's a bunch of that there stuff there that the good old SA hatchet could usefully be put to work on. I don't quite have the courage to take it on myself, but I'd be happy to pitch in. Looie496 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If arbcom gets their way, you may lose the SA hatchet. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Max Gerson

This could really use a clean and polish, and a drop of themainstream organisations say / cranks say discussion style. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

2012 Doomsday prediction

I've worked on this a bit, but it's going to be a kook magnet so if anyone wants to put it on their watch list... Thanks. dougweller (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Niburu "theory" also be represented on that page? Ever since the world somehow failed to end in 2003 (or was it 2006?), the date of Niburu's return has been "updated" to 2012.

I got the impression from a recent Skeptical Inquirer article that the Niburu story is relatively well-known (for fringe end-of-the-world scenarios). Phiwum (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article badly needs a dose of skepticism. I've been looking around in Misplaced Pages for some article that deals with the phenomenon of cults or religions predicting that the world is going to end on a specific day (which has happened hundreds of times), but to my surprise haven't located anything about this. Have I just not searched correctly, or is such essential material actually missing? Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to the lead. I still think we need a good article on the sociology of end-of-the-world predictions, but it would take somebody who knows more than me to write it. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to approach it would be with a list of the predictions? Something like List of times the world was supposed to end? The scope of the article would be difficult to determine. Would it limit itself to clearly religious predictions or add those of psychics? John Carter (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Era of Scorpio

This is someone's personal theory for blending western and eastern zodiacs. This was previously deleted - see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/420-year cycle, and the editor has also added his theory to Origins of the Chinese Zodiac (see this difference ) Edward321 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cerebral Hemispheric Dominance

This is a new article, created by a new editor, Julie.summey (talk · contribs), whose intentions seem to be good, but it isn't a good article, and I'm not sure how to handle it without being bitey. Basically the problem is that the sources are very poor, and I know just enough about this topic to know that a lot of the statements here are overblown, but not enough to fix them. I've attempted to contact the article creator but haven't received any response yet. My inclination is to delete the article and replace it with a redirect to Lateralization of brain function (which is itself not terrific, but at least is better), but I shrink from treating a new editor with good intentions in such a hostile way if there is any other approach that doesn't leave a bad article on a topic with substantial public interest in place. So I'm coming here for suggestions before doing anything. (PS, yes, of course it's a MOSCAP violation, but that's a trivial issue.) Looie496 (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Easiest is to tag for merge with Lateralization of brain function. Then, after discussion, anything rescuable can go into that article. It's not a hostile act as the creator can chip into the discussion. You can explain on her talk page that an article already exists that covers much of the same ground. She might even stick around to contribute to the merged article. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Some problems developing on parapsychology. Could interested people please have a look and give their (well supported :)) views please. The problems are to do with pseudoscience, the description of parapsychology, it's recognition, and worldwide acceptance and practice. The more the merrier! Please discuss it over on the article talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead have removed well sourced and pertinent information. If (many) editors could please take a look I'd be very grateful. Verbal chat 13:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this not covered by pseudoscience or other sanctions? 30 edits in two days including frequent removal of sources and ridiculous unsourced additions like this (compare with Psychic) is a really crossing the line. Phil153 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the users was warned two weeks ago and continues in disruption: ]. I suggest referring him to WP:AE. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this appears to be gaming and is at the very least disruptive, which they have been specifically warned about by an admin involved with AE, and this topic is covered by the sanctions. Verbal chat 14:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits like this one from SA calling parapsychologists "believers", or this one from SA removing details provided in an excellent reliable source are equally unhelpful. How can we expect proponents of parapsychology to use sourcing correctly if sceptics don't do likewise, even where the sources are favourable towards some aspect of a contraversial field? It's not enough to just "know" something on these contraversial subjects, please always provide and follow reliable sources. Where is the source saying the number of parapsychology units is diminishing internationally? Why isn't it referenced? This approach is unacceptable whether taken by proponents or sceptics. Parapsychology is only one of a great many problem child articles on Misplaced Pages, and none of them should be allowed to become a WP:BATTLEGROUND, regardless of the religious, national, or philosophical differences they involve. I find SA and LLM's approaches to this issue equally disruptive and unconstructive. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. "Diminishing" is the wrong word. Only TWO universities are listed by the Parapsychological Association, which is the source that is used. That's inifinitisimally "diminished", in fact nearly out of existence as a field of study in universities. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to use me as a convenient "skeptical target" if you must, but I encourage people to look at the diffs posted and see if they really are "equally" disruptive as other changes obliquely referred to here. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Parapsychological Association is not the source cited, the Nature source is. Check the ref at the end of the statement. If you want to say the number has diminished (internationally, by implication), then you need to find a source that says the number has diminished - neither the Parapsychological Association nor the Nature source say so. And what is your reasoning for changing "parapsychologists" (or "scientists" or whatever it was at the time) to "believers"? You are not a convenient target, your posts really have been disruptive, and it does seem that you are pushing a perspective without respecting WP:RS. I too suggest that interested editors check your edit history on Parapsychology. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Eariler, I provided a perfectly legitimate source by Robert Todd Carroll that showed how University programs in parapsychology were being closed that you removed. Secondly, changing "scientists" to "believers" is wholly justified in my book. There are no sources which indicate that legitimate scientists believe that parapsychology has verified the existence of psi, but there are sources which indicate that people who believe in psychic phenomenon do think such a thing. In any case, then next edit I made replaced "scientists" with "parapsychologists" and I notice you didn't list that edit in your cherry-picked diff list. I respect what you are doing at Parapsychology and think you are a good editor. But you seem to be falling fast into traps of WP:OWN that have plagued other editors with similar agendas. We have slightly different editing styles. I try to get the text to conform to the sum of the sources I've read and worry about citations later. You use the references to guide your wording. There's something to be said for both approaches, but you seem to be attacking me simply because I'm different than you. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

SA, I believe that this is a very unfair characterization of RP's motives. Saying you'll write the text "and worry about citations later" might be fine for a less contentious topic, or where the article is a B-class or stub. Parapsychology, however, is an FA and a minefield, and as such, the text should be treated with respect, and sources should be clear and relevant. It would improve matters a lot if you would include both your text and your (reputable) sources at the same time, for the sake of the article and other editors. Other than a short delay (while you "worry about citations"), there seems little downside to handling your edits as a unified whole. As for RP "owning" the article: well both the skeptics and the "believers" hate his edits, so he must be doing something right, and I'm grateful that he's still standing. --nemonoman (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like people are using the FA status as a "protectionist" level. I'm of half-a-mind to take this to WP:FAR and get it delisted if this kind of argumentation keeps up. I also nowhere said that I "hated" RP's edits. They're generally fine. However, the attitude that if everybody hates somebody's edits that they must be good is absurd on the face of it.ScienceApologist (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Carroll source wasn't a very good RS, being self-published, as noted in talk. I also asked for a quote from Carroll, as I couldn't find it making that point. The problem with the "style" you describe is that it doesn't follow WP:RS, and it's exactly the same thing proponents do: write based on all the books they've read. They just read different books to you, and ignore different sources, or draw different conclusions from their sources. In many articles, that approach might be a fair way to provide uncontroversial material that can later be referenced (especially when writing the lead, which should just summarise sourced material from the body anyway). But in articles as controversial and heavily-sourced as Parapsychology, its really an anathema to constructive editing, especially when you use that approach to make edits that are controversial even within the article, as was certain to be the case for this article where there had been an extended discussion in talk where proponents were saying parapsychology has grown and quoting their own sources (some of which were also of dubious reliability). In any case, we're well onto material that should be on the article's talk page now. I just wanted it clear that from my perspective, editing from what people "know" without respect for WP:RS is equally unacceptable on controversial articles whether it's a LLM or a SA doing it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Carroll source is quite good since most of the PA citations used in the intro are self-published as well and by WP:PARITY, we have a winner. The claim that parapsychology is somehow "more controversial" than other articles I edit is one that is subject to the whims of Misplaced Pages editors and in a mainstream encyclopedia, we approach all subjects with the same goal. I am probably more well-read on this subject than you are, so I wouldn't go casting aspersions as to my familiarity with the subject. I take WP:RS very seriously and consider it personally offensive that you insinuate otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Carroll source is much poorer than the Nature source as a WP:RS, so the Nature source should clearly be preferred. WP:PARITY is reasonable when no solid reliable source on a specific topic is available, but should be discarded when one is. As for your offense: please stop making edits without providing WP:RS, and I'll stop pointing out when you do, and then presumably you won't be offended any more. I'm sure that both you and most of the proponent editors are all more versed in the subject than I, but Misplaced Pages is built on WP:RS not the vagaries of personal expertise. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty gamey argumentation. You claim that my source is "poorer" but then complain that I didn't provide a reliable source. Apparently you are the sole arbiter of when and how sources should be used and to what effects. I have done nothing wrong in my edits and you are the one who seems intent on making this out to be personal. Dismissing a well-researched essay by an expert on the subject on the grounds that another source happened to be published in Nature as an editorial/personal interest story by someone who is essentially acting as a journalist is silly. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It's your recent edits without sources that I'm concerned about, the fact that in previous edits you supplied a (not great, in my opinion) source is not relevant, only the recent edits where you supplied no source at all. Also, edits like the "believers" one are completely unconstructive, and their only outcome is to further enflame an ideological edit war. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We are either talking right past each other or your trying to communicate something to me I'm simply not understanding. The explanation surrounding "believers" is straightforward enough and provided above. I have also given sources for every one of my content suggestions. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no clearer way for me to say that every time you add or change information in a contraversial article, you should add the RS for that edit to the article at the same time. You did not do that during the recent edit war on Parapsychology, and that's the behaviour I'm suggesting you consider changing. There is no use saying "I've given sources" when you haven't added them to the article at the same time as you made the change, it's meaningless (and it's exactly the same weak excuse that LLM was using for his unsourced editing, which is why I am comparing you). As for editing the article to call parapsychologists "believers", it's a derogatory and inflammatory edit in this context and the reasons you give are entirely unconvincing. It's true that you didn't defend the edit, but it's the kind of edit that should never happen in the first place. If it was part of a pattern of similar editing it would be very concerning. I meant to make this reply very brief, as all the ground has been covered very clearly and this is turning into a war for the last word, but I'm concerned that haven't expressed any recognition of any of the very real issues with your editing that I've highlighted, and that we can therefore just expect more of the same unacceptable approach. Do you accept the basic principals behind my advice, that all editors should always cite reliable sources to contraversial articles when they add or change information, and that we should never remove well-sourced and relevant information, or not? Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you seem to think that there is a right way and a wrong way to edit an article, but WP:BOLD seems to indicate something else. If you want to write a policy proposal that says every time someone adds or changes information to a "contraversial" article they must add the "RS" for that edit to the article at the same time, be my guest. I don't think it will go very far, but I may be wrong. Secondly, you should carefully consider whether there really is such a thing as "a kind of edit that should never happen in the first place". Wiki-technology is designed to avoid that kind of absurd protectionism. Collaboration is collaboration. We try out wordings. They don't work. We try out other wordings. They work. That's the name of the game. To say that any edit "should never happen" does not seem right to me at all. I think essentially, you've highlighted two issues that I think stem from two different approaches to writing Misplaced Pages, but this place is big enough to accommodate both your techniques and my techniques and let me be the first to say that both approaches are valid and useful when collaborating on an article. I appreciate your input but I plainly reject your absolutist "principals". ScienceApologist (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You must be reading a different WP:RS than me. The guideline says we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Whereas you're say that you're an expert, so you don't need to cite your sources when you make edits, even edits that readers and editors may find contraversial because the topic is a hotbed of dispute. I don't recall the part of WP:RS where it says to cite your sources for contraversial edits later on, in your own time, because you're in a hurry to make a point right now in the midst of an edit war. As for calling parapsychologists "believers" in the article, it's an inflammatory and unconstructive edit. It would be equally inflammatory and unconstructive if someone had changed "critics" to "pseudocritics". Call me absolutist all you like, but nobody will convince me that there is a situation where inflammatory and unconstructive edits to mainspace articles serve a greater purpose on Misplaced Pages. This talk section was started in relation to unsourced and inflammatory edits by parapsychology proponents, and you seemed set against such edits until I pointed out that some of your edits were equally bad, but now you're defending such edits. Seems like you want two sets of rules, one for "them" and one for you. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpret me. You claim that I'm not citing my sources. I dispute this claim. There is no part of WP:RS which makes any statement about "contraversial" edits and claiming "policy by omission" is essentially what you're doing if this is your point. You are an absolutist and you are free to criticize other's edits. Only, it's a wiki and so edits will be tried in a variety of ways. You think "believers" is inflammatory. I don't. I think there's room enough for both perspectives, but I'm not the one getting upset over it and since it is a wiki people are able to change it. You may wish to reread my comments here. I was pointing out that LLM had been warned specifically about disruption. If you think there is a "double standard" at Misplaced Pages, you're right. Not all edits are treated equally. I submit that there was nothing problematic about my edits and find your insistence to the contrary to be unconvincing and borderline pedantic. You are free to your own opinions, and I am free to disagree. I just find your stridency and choice of discussion topics to be problematic myself from the standpoint of various policies about tolerating different editing styles and WP:OWN. That's all. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This merry-go-round is making me quesy, time to get off. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm very disturbed by disruptions to this article. It's a constant effort for coherent NPOV editors (like the estimable Ryan Paddy) who work hard to keep things in some sort of order. I don't know that there's a solution to the 2 sides having an ongoing slugfest. I, for example, have some limited information on the topic, but not enough to distinguish between a legitimate assertion and a pile of POV bullshit. It's a shame to see this FA become littered with strident POV from both sides of the issue. I watched a controversial article where I do have some expertise decline, deteriorate and turn into a festering sore see Aurangzeb. Sorry this is more of a rant than a help. I'll be watching to see if some intelligent strategy begins to emerge. --nemonoman (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "NPOV editor". NPOV is a goal we all strive towards. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry Fyslee: there are editors who try to reach for a neutral point of view (no one has it perfectly, of course, but some do try) and there are editors who don't try to be neutral at all. ScienceApologist (along with others) has made it explicitly clear in his talk page discussions that he doesn't believe fringe topics deserve fair or neutral treatment (or maybe better put, he claims that the neutral treatment for fringe topics is the one which represents them - to his mind, correctly - as devoid of value or meaning). whatever you might think of that attitude, it can't help but be disruptive, the way any dogmatic belief is disruptive to discussion.

Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be a battleground, but when an editor enters the discussion with the attitude that everyone else on the article is an inveterate POV-pusher, what else are you going to get? --Ludwigs2 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't speak for me, Ludwigs2. It's very rude. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

SA, if you'd like me to dig up a bunch of diffs where you say pretty much exactly this, I'm willing. I actually meant to phrase this in a way that you wouldn't really disagree to, but I guessed I missed. how would you characterize your attitude towards fringe topics? --Ludwigs2 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about what I may or may not have done some time in the past. We are talking about what you just did. I would prefer it if you didn't refer to me personally at all. We seem to have some policies which discourage that. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you not facing a possible ban for doing just that right now? Artw (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not facing a possible ban for speaking for me, no. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Artw (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be far too much going on with the article at once for an outsider to get a handle on quickly. But one thing I do understand is that there seems to be some contention about how the existence of university parapsychology research departments is handled. At the moment, this point is discussed twice in the article, with repetition, and that is unacceptable for FA. The info needs to go into one place, probably early on, because the article needs to be very clear about who researches what, where and how. Next thing, what source is needed. Is it being claimed that the Journal of Parapsychology (or similar) is RS for this? I would have thought it was not. Then if there is no RS that gives an overview of these departments, then should we refer to university websites, or are they to be regarded as PS? Ideally, we would have a source for the overview claim backed with a source for each uni. Then there is the question of how the geographical distribution of these uni depts is handled. If it is correct that the majority/largest no. are in the UK, then UK should be mentioned first. I'm very curious to look up these UK uni depts, because on further investigation they may turn out to be something other than a classic parapsychology lab. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now seen that there is a good overview: Odling-Smee. Of course, this is only from the magazine part of Nature, and she is a staff writer. It's good enough for here, except that when she lists 3 UK research centres and then says "among others", the "among others" is loose journalism. It's only Edinburgh, Liverpool Hope and Northampton that have research centres. I couldn't see anything to indicate that the department at Liverpool John Moores was any more than tangentially involved. Goldsmiths, well, perhaps, but they call it "anomalistic psychology" and they approach it from an explicitly sceptical direction. "Privately-funded" is slightly problematic as well. Remember, this is an American journalist briefly summarising activity in UK universities for an international audience. We don't have a clear distinction between publicly and privately funded research centres in the UK - basically they all tend to have a mix of funding that constantly varies. The 3 listed here may well be among the minority of such centres that have never had a public-sector grant coming directly into the centre, but the universities still probably cross-subsidise the centre from the public grants they are given for teaching and research. These are very minor quibbles though and only become relevant in the context the battleground that is the WP we know and love. What needs to happen now, I think, is that the two sections that list the research centres are consolidated, using Odling-Smee and the websites of the research centres, ignoring the refs from the parapsychology community. Is that the only thing at issue now? If not, could the disputed issues be stated here more clearly? Or perhaps RfC? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got it, Judith. I think you should check out the Carroll essay too which keeps getting removed from the article as though it was infected with some disease. It's a very good overview of the research history of this "discipline". Your input would be greatly appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Carroll article was removed because the Odling-Smith one was a better (not perfect, but better) reliable source on the subject. The Carroll article is self-published. I would still be interested to see a quote from Carroll regarding the changing status of parapsychology in universities internationally, that's not something I noticed when I skimmed through it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The "self-published" criticism of Carroll's essay is a huge red herring. It contains a lot of information that passes the muster on all of Misplaced Pages's normal sourcing guidelines. "Self-publication" in regards to a subject as dodgy as parapsychology is par for the course in light of our sourcing guidelines at WP:FRINGE. Please try to actually discuss the source's quality independent of the publication status since much of our "supporting" sources are self-published as well (by the PA). ScienceApologist (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In terms of what's being edit warred over recently:

• How common is belief in the broader scientific community that parapscyhology is pseudoscience, and why some scientists believe that. This is the subject that kicked off the edit war, with my addition of the Cordon source - after I added and defended it, LLM started editing widely across all the following areas.
• Who, if anyone, believes that the results of parapychology experiments demonstrate the existance of psychic abilities.
• The results of parapsychological experiments, who believes they provide good evidence of psychic powers, and who believes they don't.
• What is the status of parapsychology research in universities, and how has it changed.
• What is the status of parapsychology research in private institutions, and how has it changed.
• Where is parapsychology research published, and how has that changed? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Basic thoughts on your bullet points:

• Not sure how "common" it is, but it is true that your Cordon source works well.
• Parapsychologists generally believe in the results they publish. I haven't seen non-parapsychologists who believe in the results.
• It seems that a general summary of the status of parapsychology is that the major research labs in the US that were sponsored by universities have all closed (the last one was the PEAR lab). The UK continues to fund parapsychology programs, most notably at Edinburgh.
• Parapsychology continues to be pursued by a number of credulous research groups that tend to be closely connected to New Age "think tanks" and quasi-religious organizations.
• There is no universal standard for what makes parapsychology research have a high status. Your average ghost hunter is arguably doing as high quality research as the sponsored outings of the Parapsychology Association. I cannot see a reliable differentiation. Up until the 1970s, there were a few parapsychologists who had standing enough to force their ideas into mainstream journals and they were generally respected if disbelieved. However, their eventual retirements, death, and general frustrations with getting positive recognition has led to most of these "legitimate" academic parapsychologists in the United States to essentially disappear. In the UK, the situation is slightly different, though the academic parapsychologists there continue to seem unable to publish in most mainstream journals.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner discussion at RSN

Crossposting to my posting at Reliable Sources noticeboard, to get more responses.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Crystal balling at Royal Rife

An editor is modifying Royal Rife extensively in order to add in weasel words. FDor instance, "The limitations of optical microscopes and the size of viruses are such that most viruses cannot be seen under an optical microscope." - the sourced fact which basically means that the claims cannot be true under well-accepted scientific theories - becomes "The limitations of optical microscopes and the size of viruses are such that most viruses cannot be seen under a standard optical microscope." - A direct violation of the source. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No source is cited for that statement, so your complaint is unjustified. Optical microscopes are now available which can resolve 100nm, effectively making the theoretical Abbe limit a thing of the past. See http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/81528 Haiqu (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreciate that multiple edits NOT be reverted to resolve your lack of knowledge about ONE of them. Haiqu (talk)

I have been summoned by the alarm that goes off at AMA headquarters every time some brave editor attempts to spread The Truth about Royal Rife's Cure For Cancer. See the 28 prior threads in which an agenda account has appeared to promote Rife's claims. Mark this #29. MastCell  06:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Paranoid yet? BTW, didn't know you were with the AMA, very interesting ... Haiqu (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Golden Plates

Golden Plates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be under the watchful eye of a few editors who, if not actual LDS members themselves, do seem somewhat overly sympathetic to the Mormon point of view regarding the authenticity (or even mere existence) of the plates. Rather than go into wall-of-text land trying to describe the reasons for my concern, I'd suggest any interested eyes give the article a look-see and decide the merits of this post for themselves. While the discussion on the talk page is still in the early stages, more eyes would be better sooner rather than later. Thanks! Badger Drink (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT - IT'S AT THE END! ;-)

Indeed! I have gotten into an odd pickle with a user who insists on using a very nonstandard article format he installed. I was only trying to make my screen image look somewhat more readable by using the standard format, but he reverted me twice and I let him keep his version. I'm not interested in edit warring over a format issue. He then proceeded to visit by talk page and question me. I have responded on the article talk page with my reasoning, but he now attacks me. I'm finished and will let others deal with the ownership issues. His response and attacks make it clear there is an ownership issue. The editor, User:Storm Rider, has apparently installed his unusual format on some other (mostly LDS) articles with more or less success, and has edit warred over it before. His attempt at Jesus didn't succeed. It's on the LDS articles it seems to exist most. (Whether it's more than three I don't know.) It's not forbidden, but just unusual, which he contests. The article was once a Featured Article, and it used standard formatting back then. He made this odd accusation:

• "Your preferred method looks odd, out-of-date, and surely belongs to an odd cult of flying spaghetti mongers, but I digress."

WHAT is my "preferred method"? With that description, it must be pretty awful! Right? Well, brace yourselves, 'cause here it is:

• The LEAD, a non-floated TOC, the first heading, and the rest of the body of the article.

That's pretty simple, but apparently "odd, out-of-date, and surely belongs to an odd cult of flying spaghetti mongers." IIRC, that's pretty standard formatting, just like on this page and nearly every article! I'm sure some few examples of his formatting can be found, but usually on lists. Floated TOCs are allowed under special circumstances, but are also warned against. I have provided the various guideline links in my reply.

I'm finished with this character and issue. I've never encountered it before and was rather caught off guard by the strong reaction. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This article seems very much of a walled garden. I'm off for a while so can't do anything, but I do wonder if more attention needs to be paid to it. Or maybe I'm wrong, and it really is NPOV. dougweller (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of BS that makes editing so distasteful. I particularly enjoy the way Fyslee cheery picks the statements to twist reality. He starts off by telling me that, "If Storm Rider wishes all LDS articles to look odd, so be it. It only serves to strengthen the impression of what many see as an odd sect, a reputation one would think members and editors would seek to change." (See here for the full conversation.)

I don't belong to an odd sect and never have. Why on earth does an editor bring up religious affiliation? What does it have to do with the topic at hand? Absolutely nothing. Further, who set Fyslee up as the arbiter of what is odd and what is not in the world of religion or even Misplaced Pages for that matter? What this editor fails to understand or admit is that odd is in the eyes of the beholder. What is odd to him is normal to me. In this instance, flowing text looks better TO ME; he obviously has a different opinion. Great, that is what makes the world go round.

Having this type of drive by, Nazi-style, inflexible editing, POV enforcement is the bane of editing. The object here is that no editor should ever act as if they are the sole source of what is right or correct. Further, no editor has the right to demean the religious affiliations of any other editor. Then to complain that an editor has not rolled over and played docile so they can continue their maniacal attempt to exert control is detestable. I reject it completely and would seek to stamp out this type of tyranny that a few of our editors display, and what is worse is that he is an bloody administrator. Use your common sense and realize there are few absolutes on Misplaced Pages! --Rider 21:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Nazi", "POV"... could you mention a "cabal" of some sort so I get Bingo? It seems that you're misreading Fyslee's statement - he's not calling you or anybody part of an odd sect, and it would probably help if you toned your rethoric down a notch. If I say "wearing your underwear over your pants makes you look like a fool", it does not logically follow that I think you are a fool. Badger Drink (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is even more evidence of OWNERSHIP. Take a look at Storm rider's emotional reaction, and the fact that he is the one who does what he claims I have done. He reverted me twice and I immediately stopped. He then followed me to my talk page and has been after me ever since. It is indeed his unusual formatting style, which he admits looks better to him (yet denies is unusual), and when anyone else notes that it doesn't look better to them, and that it deviates significantly from the standard format, he doesn't seem to respect any other opinion and angrily defends his own style through words and edit warring. He has maintained control of the article and style, while I have not edit warred, and yet he still rants and raves. Part of my motivation was to help fend off the common accusations made against LDS and other minority religions (that they are odd), and yet he even takes offense at that, revealing a lack of insight into what many think of minority religions. I was on his side in that matter, but he doesn't realize it. Interesting.

It really is a walled garden, and when his edits are questioned by anyone else, he gets pretty angry. I'm not the only victim. The instults and personal attacks aren't pleasant. He seems to think that because it looks good to him (as he admits), no other opinion should be tolerated or considered. Even when another editor attempted to restore the format to what it was when the article was a Featured article, as I had originally done, he deceptively (his edit summary didn't indicate he was undoing the previous editor's edit) returned to a floated TOC, this time to the right. The whole thing reeks of ownership issues. Note that the "inflexible editing" is by the one who is in control of the article, namely Storm rider. I was flexible enough to back off. There is no POV issue ("POV enforcement") in this matter, even though he falsely waves that flag. So far the "sole source of what is right or correct" has been Storm rider, who enforces what he considers to be "right and correct", because, as he states above, it "looks better TO ME", so he does indeed exert a "type of tyranny that ... few of our editors display" by reacting as he does. More eyes on the article and the editor, please. BTW, I am not a "bloody administrator". I'm not an admin at all! Just an ordinary editor who made the mistake of expressing an opinion at odds with Storm rider's. No, this article and editor needs more eyes and watching. The attacks need to stop. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when is formatting a WP:Fringe issue? Artw (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Why is Golden plates a fringe issue given that it is about the 4th largest Christian church in the US. Seems like it puts in context the POV of the editor making this entry. This is a joke. I have already linked the discussion page above you should also see Fyslee's talk page where I first began talking to him. It is as if some editors believe if they yammer on long enough reality disappears and the world must bow to what they say it is. I am sorry Fyslee, but your bullying will stop now. Cheers. --Rider 09:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should have taken this to a discussion on civility. I'd have no problem censuring or blocking StormRider for personal attacks and other such nonsense. kwami (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I found this while looking at the Parapsycholoy thread above. Then I noticed this one and since I have a passing interest in Mormons, I took a look at the article in question. Then I returned here and forgot this was the Fringe theories board. Sorry about getting off topic. Yes, there are problems with the article and an editor, but my concerns are related to owership and civility. Would it be improper to move everything from my first edit in this thread over to the proper noticeboard (which one?)? Is there a noticeboard for problems related to walled garden articles, IOW ownership, edit warring, civility, etc.? -- Fyslee (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Artw, I am a non-party in the formatting wars. I came here after a {{unbalanced}} tag was removed by a single editor multiple times while conversation was still clearly on-going on the talk page. The purpose of such a template is to draw the attention of a wider cross-sampling of editors, and removing a template that isn't clear lunacy (i.e., adding "hoax" to the Holocaust or what have you) is completely counter-productive to this goal. The behavior of that editor - and other editors - is clearly indicative of a typical walled-garden article - and given that the main issue I found with the page was its deference towards a, quite frankly, downright loony perspective of the history, I felt FRINGE was the most appropriate noticeboard. Cheers - Badger Drink (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science seems to contain some rulings that may be of interest to those watching this page. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Principle #9, "Relevant comparisons" seems especially apposite for this board: "The prominence of fringe views need to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative." I read this as a statement that every article about a fringe theory must contextualize that theory within the field of science or inquiry to which it relates; that is, an article about the theory that the Norse gods were actually alien invaders from Alpha Centauri must state, in unambiguous terms, that scholars who study Norse mythology, folklore, and history regard this theory as completely bonkers. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

me, I'll be clinging to principle 7 which will be a godsend if it's actually got any teeth. --Ludwigs2 06:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is finally out - praise FSM, who may not exist according to narrow-minded mainstream theologists and some particularly dogmatic materialist scientists. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

the mountain has given birth to another mouse :) at least they didn't cause too much damage this time, as far as I can see. Unless you want to count rewarding classic wikilawyering in the form of "In the past, SA has lobbed death threats, which are explicitly forbidden under policy." in reference for the precise case described under "principle 7", "continuous goading of specific editors in order to exhaust their patience and induce them to lash out in an uncivil manner". Seriously, arbcom isn't fit to deal with the dynamics of fringecruft pushing. It will work as a simple timesink in the best of cases. Arbcom should be routed around whenever possible. --dab (𒁳) 17:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it actually makes things worse. Some nice-sounding words, and a clear notice that any attempt to apply them will be treated as disruption. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

lol - and I though I was cynical about[REDACTED] politics... .--Ludwigs2 22:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the recognition that advocacy is disruptive regardless of whether it is promoting or suppressing fringe material. Misplaced Pages would benefit from a less polarised approach, whereby verifiable information about notable fringe material is sought out and described faithfully regardless of how it compares to our personal opinions, and material is only removed because it fails to meet policies and guidelines, not because it challenges our beliefs. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Descent from Adam and Eve

This is on the main page today as a "Did You Know"?

The references are all unreliable, and while the tone isn't too bad, it could use a bit of skeptical attention. Or maybe an AfD. Phil153 (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

oh dear. Redirect to Generations of Adam. --dab (𒁳) 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cana

DoDaCanaDa (talk · contribs) has stated he is Ray Joseph Cormier, a "self-styled prophet." He states part of his user name is "Cana, is from the Marriage Feast at Cana when Jesus began his Public Life by turning water into wine described in John II." DoDaCanaDa has inserted the "fact" that Jesus began his "Public Ministry" at Cana. This is unsupported by references at this time.

More eyes on this users contributions would be useful, I think. Some theologically mainstream individuals would be useful at the Cana article. Any help would be appreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Whew, claims not backed by the sources, , claims backed only by a century old sermon, etc. Just based on following policies and guidelines I've trimmed out some of the OR, etc. dougweller (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot

An editor has moved the page Business Plot conspiracy theory to Business Plot. While a couple of editors are working to NPOV the page, it largely treats this fringe theory as truth, though no one contemporaneously or since has, other than a couple of less than reliable sources. More eyes are needed. THF (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Temple at Uppsala

• Christianization of Scandinavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two editors, of whom I know one to be a Neopagan, have repeatedly removed the information that no archaeological remains of Temple at Uppsala as described by Adam of Bremen have been found. One of them commented in the edit summary: churches on top of pagan sites are everywhere in Scand. diff This might be a popular folk historiography in Scandinavia, or a belief hold by many Neopagans, but actually, the situation is more complex and in this case nothing that resembles the temple as described by Adam of Bremen has been found by archaeologists. The sources I used for this issue are definite, see my comments at Talk:Christianization of Scandinavia and they are highly reputable. Now the two editors are bringing in wp:NPOV, but so far they have refused to state which sources actually say that archaeological remains have been found. Zara1709 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the matter should read the now extensive talkpage discussion, where three editors (Bloodofox, Haukurth and myself) have disagreed with Zara1709. We think the topic is too extensive to be discussed where Zara wants it to be. This is BTW not the proper venue for bringing up this discussion.--Berig (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you count the number of (academic) sources instead of the number of (unqualified) editor's opinions? That is 2:0 instead of 1:3. Zara1709 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The main problem at the moment is avoiding an undue synthesis since you either misunderstand the issue, or consciously try to misrepresent it.--Berig (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is infuriating. When the issue at Christianization of Scandinavia became apparent, I did, what any good editor should do in such a situation: Research. I searched up a book Power and Conversion -A Comparative Study of Christianization in Scandinavia, the Ph.D. thesis at University College, London. I've read the book, and would now like to rewrite the section on Sweden in that article. BUT I CAN'T DO IT because several editors (who apparently haven't conducted any research on their own) have repetitively removed the sentence "The existence of this temple has not been confirmed by archaeological findings," despite me having pointed out that the source for this a standard academic introduction to Northern Europe during the Middle Ages in German. I even made the effort to translate the whole statement on the talk page. But if I make another revert now, I would be breaking 3rr, so I have to postpone the rewrite for a few days. WHY do I have to put up with this? The citations I provided from academic literature were simply ignored, instead these editors are acting as if the would need to explain wp:NPOV, wp:NOR or wp:synth to me. Zara1709 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have an infinite patience with people who don't understand, or accept, WP policy, and I'll help you out until the text is acceptable. If you take your time to re-read what your four (4) opponents have written, instead of just being infuriated I am sure that you'll get a better grasp of why your version is so problematic to other editors.--Berig (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, you have my sympathy. Berig and the rest of the Nordic gang like to rely on free google books from the 1800's. It is very difficult to bring these articles up to date with modern scholarship against such compact and stubborn resistance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"The rest of the Nordic gang"? By this I suppose you mean "the regular editors who edit articles relating to Germanic paganism" (Nordic? Maybe you're talking about some other gang of editors who also handle a lot of Finnish history?) and yet it's obvious that you're not talking about me. Want to name some specifics or is this supposed to be just a blind jab at Berig? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

PelleSmith made an excellent suggestion to just remove any mention of the Temple at Uppsala in the article, something which Zara disapproves of. Do you disapprove of that too, Pieter, or would it be against your old habits of edit-warring per WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You have been warned about virtually every single offence on WP: stalking, disruption, edit warring, personal attacks, dishonesty, etc., so I hope that you'll try to behave.--Berig (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all mention the the "temple". There is absolutely no reason to mention it in the entry, and it simply courts controversy. Why put in an awkwardly worded reference to something of no informational value that one then has to add a disclaimer to suggesting that it most likely did not exist? This probably is not the right place to discuss the matter either. However I might suggest that interested parties have a look at Temple at Uppsala because it is the title and organization of that entry which is probably at the root of the problem. The entry is for the most part pieced together from primary source references to Uppsala as a cultic center. Yet it is organized around the word "temple" because of Adam of Bremen's infamous description of an actual temple. It is my understanding that modern scholarship considers Adam's description as most likely erroneous in some manner or another (in no small part due to the lack of archeological evidence that Zara wants to make reference to in the Christinaization entry.PelleSmith (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I wasn't made aware of this post and a link to it was not posted on the appropriate talk page. I guess I must also be the "confirmed neopagan" that Zara speaks of, probably based off of the quote on my talk page, and that, judging by Zara's comments, this apparently makes me somehow unqualified to handle these subjects. I invite you to compare my Misplaced Pages contributions to any editor on Misplaced Pages and tell me if there's room for improvement. The question of whether or not the remains of the temple still exist has no place on the "Christianization of Scandinavia" article, but rather on the Temple at Uppsala article proper. The case of the Temple at Uppsala is hardly a unique circumstance. For those keeping track, this situation seems to be pretty typical of Zara's editing history. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

this discussion isn't really appropriate here. This is a regular editing dispute, and I am sure there can be a reasonable agreement if both sides take a step back, and show willingness to charitable reading of the other side's points. This is an example of a potentially fruitful dispute, the kind that tends to result in improved articles (as opposed to the "disputes" which are really a mere waste of time spent on editors who don't have a point to begin with). --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this was the most appropriate place I could find for the discussion. The temple at Uppsala is mentioned rather extensively (>2 pages) in both introductions I've read on the Christianization of Scandinavia so far. Even Padberg's introduction to the Christianization of Europe devotes 2 1/2 of its 307 pages to it and also includes Adam of Bremen's account in a German translation under 'primary sources'. If something is discussed in every introductory textbook, then there can't be any reason not to mention it in the corresponding article, or would you know one? Now, I can't know exactly why this particular piece of information is opposed this vehemently by several editors - but I would guess there must be some reason for it. And to give a comparison: If several editors would removed the mentioning of Charles Darwin from the article Biology, that would certainly be a case for this noticeboard. Zara1709 (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Take your time to read what people write about your edits, Zara. You cannot get away with using sources as long as you violate WP:SYN and WP:NPOV.--Berig (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments about the "Jewish POV" about the Holocaust on Talk:Ion Antonescu

Another incident on the Ion Antonescu page. Eurocopter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims that the article is POVed, and has tagged it for neutrality - I pointed out that the info, which could perhaps be rephrased, is compliant with the Wiesel Commission's report on the Holocaust in Romania - which is the view of mainstream historiography in Romania, and is the basis for legislation. While the article still needs a lot of sources, Eurocopter has stated his intention of replacing the info with quotes from an essayist with no scientific credentials who is often described, including by the Commission, as a "Holocaust revisionist" (see Talk:Ion Antonescu#NPOV and sources for sources on that). He considers the info in the article, sourced or unsourced, "communist propaganda-style facts and disinformation". Eurocopter's tags are designed around that, and reflect this intent of introducing questionable material - while the info is (partly) unsourced, or not clearly sourced, this is POV-pushing at its grandest. What I find especially worrying is a comment he made in relation to the Wiesel report as a source. Verbatim: "Regarding the so called Final report of the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE HOLOCAUST IN ROMANIA, I doubt its accuracy considering that the president of the comission was a jew (they were certainly not neutral historians). Unfortunately, the official position of the Romanian state in the past 20 years has been in accordance with foreign interests and pressures." How should[REDACTED] relate to such POVs? Dahn (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is more than just fringe. Denying genocide is a short step from inciting hatred. We should respond accordingly. However, the edit itself is a simple cn issue, and it's generally a good idea to fully reference emotional topics. I haven't read the sources, but if the specific tagged claims are already supported by those refs, then point this out on the talk page and delete the tags. If the POV warrior continues, we block him. (Or I block him.) If those particular claims are not currently supported, then we can leave the tags on for a few days while you work with the Commission report. kwami (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not as much with the individual cn tags (they can be easily sourced, and I'll even agree that some need to be tweaked), but with the "POV" template he added at the top of the article, which sent the message that the article is slanted because it does not allow what fringe sources alongside/instead of the mainstream ones, as determining info on Antonescu's participation in the Holocaust. What makes the matter complicated is this: the Commission report was so far not used as a source, though it could be one for virtually everything in the article (and much missing info). I have intended to edit it myself for a long time now, but didn't rush into it: while parts of it are problematic one way or another, the article was pretty much stable. What happens is that, in the past few weeks, it became subject to some seriously POVed editing, and was three times or so turned into an essay about Holocaust denial (see here for example; also note the long rants on the talk page which have been preceding such edits for a year or so, and the single-purpose accounts which issue them). While this happened, User:Bogdangiusca kept adding info from a reliable source, compatible with the commission report (he has so far sourced almost everything that Eurocopter pretended was unsourced, which I suppose is what prompted the latter to state a claim that the entire article needs to be redone). The commission report, which is massive, would require some elbow grease and a window of time where the edit war is stabilized around an acceptable version (I think we can all agree that basing the text on genocide denial for even a short while is not something[REDACTED] would tolerate). That version could then be sandboxed for several to work on and cover at least the basic of what needs to be covered from the prominent sources. It would also allow me and (I hope) other users to make the text compliant with the MOS etc. - at the moment, it is not.

As you see, the concern behind the post above is that the article may again degenerate into a propaganda piece for revisionism while interest is gathered into actually improving the article. I also think that any edits motivated by such POV as Eurocopter's pose an intrinsic problem. I therefore would propose that the article be kept under some sort of scrutiny by admins, as there is a precedent for disruption. This is not to protect my edits (I have edited virtually nothing in the article so far), but to keep it stable for some sort of radical improvement to actually be possible. Whoever performs it - meaning that yes, I'm willing to edit the info in myself, but I don't want to either monopolize the article or interfere with Bogdan's fine work. Dahn (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I hadn't seen the NPOV tag for the entire article, which is indeed unwarranted. Yes, I agree that pushing an agenda with tags can be disruptive, and as Eurocopter has now had ample opportunity to fact tag anything he thinks might be unsourced, go ahead and delete any additional tags. Or ask me to. But I agree with some: "in 2004 the Romanian government under Ion Iliescu officially acknowledged" clearly needs a cite just for WP standards (funny that Eurocopter didn't tag that! I moved one of his tags down), and it should be easy to come by. kwami (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should be easy to source, from several RSes. But since it's almost like placing a citneeded after "the Earth is round" or "Christians believe in the Gospels", and since the report could eventually be cited throughout (it is in itself a citation for that), the best way would be to explain the exact steps and quote the stand-alone conclusions in a special paragraph or section - not just that it says, but what it says. I mean, everything he asks for could easily be cited as is, but the way he is asking for it would result in a mediocre text.

That said, I am willing to add some provisional, "mediocre", quotes for everything in there, on which I am willing to expand later - as we stand however, it seems to me that Bogdangiusca (who is apparently not active at the moment) was still adding to the article from his own RSes, getting rid of those tags one by one. I don't want to interfere with his own research for now risking an edit conflict, and since I proposed we sandbox the article and work on it together, I'll wait until later today and see where we stand. Dahn (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a few temporary mediocre citations would hold us over, esp. if you let B know what you're doing, and even if you just get the main points (official acceptance & his general responsibility) we could delete the rest of the tags as disruptive, and expect further cleanup as the article progresses. kwami (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately what is happening here is a masquerade, meant to prevent the addition of neutral sources to this article. My comments were not anti-semitic, nor am I of anti-semitic views. All i've done was to request sources for the sensible claims in this article, by placing fact tags and questioning the neutrality of this article, averything according to our policies. As this is a sensible history article, it should rely on neutral/reliable historians, not on a commission, which in my opinion could be biased (as it is dominated by ethnic jews). The so called my POV comments (as they were at that time not supported by sources) were made on the talk page, no way within the article. Again, denying historians and sustaining exclusively the ICHR final report does not represent the way to reach neutrality in this article. I request administrators to keep a close look on this article and supervise the obeying of WP policies, in order to avoid such disguisedly removals of fact tags added according to policies. I'm not willing to make propaganda of any kind, but i'm willing to add as many sources necessary to reach neutrality on this article (which I believe its current form is biased). Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you're right. This concerns Jews, so we can't have any Jewish historians. Conflict of interest/bias. And it concerns Romania, so we can't have any Romanian historians. And it concerns WWII, so we can't have any historians from countries that fought in WWII. (I applaud you, when you reference your articles, in never using sources from the countries involved, nor their allies.) kwami (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you didn't pay enough attention to my comments above. What I'm telling is that in order to have a neutral article, we can't rely 100% on the IHRC report. Controversial topics may reach neutrality if you post as many sources as you can and afterwards compare them. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a variety of respectable sources is a good thing. However, you've stated twice now that the reliability of the Commission is dubious because the leader is a Jew. The fact that the Romanian govt commissioned the study, and accepted its findings, you dismiss as due to the impotence of the Romanian govt. This sounds to me like tailoring the data to fit your conclusion. I might say the opposite: that because no-one likes to believe bad things about their own country, all Romanian sources are dubious. (That doesn't necessarily mean Antisemitism: many Usonians deny that things were ever really bad for blacks in the US, that thousands of people were lynched as part of a system of state-sponsored terrorism, not necessarily because they are racist, but because the can't stomach the truth.) Anyway, what is at issue is how well the historians are received by the academic community. Supplying a bunch of contradictory references just to achieve some sort of faux "balance" is itself non-neutral, for it gives the impression that the consensus view is disputed when it is not. When dealing with genocide, people are justifiably concerned about giving fuel to revisionists. kwami (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion the IHRC report on Antonescu could be biased due to certain reasons (probably this is the reason why the Romanian authorities did not adopt it as its official position), therefore I believe it should be compared with other historical sources and used in alternance with them (I never stated that it shouldn't be used only because it's written by jews). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I'm totally convinced - you could have phrased your comments better, Eurocopter. Still, AGF and benefit of the doubt and so forth. What other sources would you suggest using in the article? Skinny87 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already posted 3 books and started editing and referencing sensible issues (Stoenescu and Giurescu are currently few of the most reliable Romanian contemporany historians). See my edits made today in the article and you will convince yourself of my neutral intentions. Regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a question of Holocaust Denial generally, its a question of reporting a specific individual's level of complicity (in the context of a natural human tendency for the "victor" to look for scapegoats). The original wording of the section was rather POV and OR, but also there has been heavy reliance on one particular source. Direct references to the Commission Report on specific accusations would improve the credibility of the article. Perhaps there should also be a clear acknowledgement that very few "dictators" actually have a free hand to decide policy in war-time conditions - Antonescu was undoubtedly culpable, but you need very good sources to accuse somebody of direct personal responsibility. It will always be hard to find sources that are neutral about war crimes. Wdford (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, proving that Antonescu is directly responsible for something is indeed very hard. According to Stoenescu p. 385, Antonescu himself described his regime as bureaucratic state, in which every member of his regime has its own responsibilities in accordance with his position on the hierarchical scale (so they were assuming actions within their limits of power without Antonescu's consent). This is exactly the reason why added fact tags after claims stating that Antonescu exclusively/directly is responsible for certain actions. Even the Wiesel commission states in its final report that Antonescu's regime is found guilty for crimes against jews, not Antonescu himself. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Must say I'm very disappointed to hear what looks like extreme structuralism being espoused by someone who is meant to represent WP:MilHist. Nor am I overly impressed with the way things have been phrased. That being said, structuralism vs intentionalism is a valid historical debate, though whether extreme intentionalism (such as Goldhagen) and extreme structuralism (Goetz Aly et al) have a place outside of very clear areas on wikipedia, I'm uncertain of. I will check the article and then my resources to see what sources I provide. When we drift into the 'It was without orders from the top' and the 'It just happened because all Germans wake up wanting to kill Jews' area we need to tread carefully and make it abundently clear whose ideas they are and how mainstream thought these days trends towards the middle ground. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not my extreme structuralism, it is Antonescu's own description of his regime, found in Stoenescu p. 385, in the book mentioned in the article. As I said above, from now on all my comments will rely on sources, in order to not be accused of any type of POV. Furthermore, according to Stoenescu p. 384, Antonescu's regime was similar to the British organization of the Government, in which the prime-minister is the chief of its ministers, but does not have any influence in and does not control administrative/economic/etc processes - of which responsibility is held by the ministry in question.--Eurocopter (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably a bad example to choose; in britain all policy comes from the Prime Minister. Ironholds (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall policies yes, but processes no. For example, that's why when happening a huge blunder within a ministry, the minister which leads the ministry in question faces all the consequences and eventually resigns, not the Prime minister of the government just because he is the chief of that minister. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In a country like Britain, a politician's survival depends on telling believable lies and making sure you can pin the blame on somebody else when those lies are uncovered. In a dictatorship, survival depends on giving your core cronies whatever they want whenever they want it, otherwise they turn on you and you die (usually horribly). When you have manipulated a bunch of racist murdering thugs to get into power, and then you make enemies of a racist murdering thug like Stalin, and you are dependent on a racist murdering thug like Hitler to protect you from Stalin, I guess you have to act like the meanest racist murdering m8therf8cker in the valley all day every day just to keep the rats away from your own throat. In such a situation, when the cronies wanted to murder third-party civilians then he was probably only too grateful they were murdering somebody other than him. When you swim with piranas, its only a matter of time before one of them bites off your *****! Wdford (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fascinating to see all the rationales provided by a stated POV-pusher and what looks to be like a single-purpose account. The above looks like Antonescu's retrial from an apologist perspective, and I am very surprised that this phantasmagorical piece of WP:OR and wikilawyering seems to be tolerated so for from these two users - who have since rehashed the article page using this rationale and a recognized Holocaust revisionist source (Stoenescu, whose training is in engineering). The sophistry about Antonescu not being held responsible for the Holocaust but his regime being so is especially inflammatory, with its audacious claim that there is a distinction between an authoritarian regime and its authoritarian leader. Not only was the regime Antonescu himself, but, if this still isn't clear, the distinction is unequivocally disallowed by the Report. From a cursory search: p.119-120 (his initiation of early deportation projects: "Many Jews were declared hostages by Antonescu himself. Antonescu ordered his chief of staff to set up temporary labor camps in southern Romania. As one intelligence officer later stated, this was part of a larger strategy to remove Moldavian Jews through 'deportation and extermination'."), p.144-145 (his personal involvement in the murderous deportation of the Jews from Ukraine: "In early October Antonescu ordered the deportation - which meant extermination - of the Ukrainian Jews to the Bug and the expropriation of their property. Not only Ukrainian Jews were deported to the Bug. Eichmann's envoy, Richter, announced to his superiors that Antonescu had decided to concentrate near the Bug 110,000 Jews from Bessarabia and Bukovina, 'in view of exterminating them.' Their transger and eventual execution fell to the Government of Transnistria, which had gendarmerie units and occupation troops at its disposal."; "Meanwhile, Antonescu ordered the SSI to investigate why 'all the Jews had not been evacuated east of the Jmerinka-Odessa railway."), p.147 (where he is seen liquidating the surviving Jewish population amassed in camps: "Antonescu ordered the murder of more than 70,000 surviving Jews at Bogdanovka and then at Domanovka."), p.181sqq (where his role in inspiring and producing antisemitic legislation is outlined, with statements such as this: "Yet, the legislation and 'civilized means' promised by Antonescu were no less abusive in terms of dispossession of Jewish property and rights."), p.253 ("Ion Antonescu was responsible not only for the devastation of Romanian Jews and Roma, but also for many of the tragic losses endured by the Romanian nation during World War II."). Again, this is a cursory search, carried only because an obscene point may otherwise seem validated; you'll find Antonescu's participation outlined throughout the document, on every page, and amply discussed in the conclusions. Yes, the report also makes it clear that, in March 1944, Antonescu stopped the deportations he had ordered himself earlier, after those hundreds of thousands of people were killed by him and his henchmen during 3 years of insanity; it also explains that this was because the Red Army was advancing on Romania, and he was desperately trying to make a separate peace with the Western Allies (one could add: so did Himmler).

The other obscene and nonchalant claim, according to which "Jews are POVed on the Holocaust", is not only antisemitic (as pointed out by several who posted here and elsewhere), it is also diversionary. See the report's "Forward" for a full list of contributors - you'll notice the academic and specialists involved come from all ethnicities "involved", and include several leading scientists from Romania. Skip then to p.9sqq and you'll find the basic details on the official adoption and policy-making character of the document. I for one have nothing to reply to arguments about "what piranas do", "huge blunders within a ministry" etc. - they form part of a fringe, bad-faithed, apologist theory, and have no place on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well, so instead of consuming our energy in such endless unconstructive polemics, we should concentrate and add all these sources to the article, so it would be at readers' discretion in which way he would judge Antonescu. My opinion is that in order to reach neutrality for such a controversial article, we should include all possible sources and compare them within the article. Therefore, we shouldn't try to demonstrate here if Antonescu is guilty or not, all we have to do is posting sourced facts in the article and.. let the history judge him. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should concentrate our energy on reading WP:RS, WP:V and the very page related to this thread. Then we will perhaps see that "we should include all possible sources and compare them within the article" is not an acceptable move on wikipedia. And no, sir, an article is not controversial when it doesn't use mainstream information, it is controversial when it doesn't. Dahn (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Be sure i'm familiar with those policies, and I'm familiar with other policies disconsidered by you when stating that every source added by me is unreliable and the IHRC report is the sole source worth adding into the article. I'm quite disgusted to continue discussing in this manner, especially with someone disconsidering reliable historians such as Stoenescu and Giurescu. Therefore, from now on I would get less involved in such polemics and use my wiki-dedicated time to improve the article. Regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you need to get more familiar. Let me quote you from WP:V: "All articles must adhere to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." Now the "sources" you have added are one: Stonescu, an engineer whose research is most often described as apology of fascist figures, whose views on the Holocaust are deemed revisionistic, and who is a member of the extremist nationalist group New Generation Party – Christian Democratic. Need I elaborate? Dahn (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Edoardo Agnelli

An editor or editors from a couple IP addresses have been changing this article to present what appears to be a fringe conpiracy theory about the subject's death as if it were generally accepted, e.g., and adding in some unsourced and unexplained innuendo about other family members' deaths. I'd appreciate some help with dealing with it as I don't want to get into an edit war. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a revert, and also opened a thread at wp:ani#edit warring at Edoardo Agnelli, since it seems likely that there is socking going on here. Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution