Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Socionics (esoterism)

I just discovered a family of articles that look like they could do with some help from more editors, and it's right up our street. For other articles look at the contributions of the main author (cf Energy (esotericism). Verbal chat 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that stuff a while back. A little investigation showed that this is a Russian/Ukrainian phenomenon, and that getting a handle on it would take more work than I wanted to invest. Definitely not very encyclopedic as it stands, though. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm taking this particular article to AFD. As it stands it is an OR fork; maybe the Ukrainians can get a section in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Also up for AFD is Information metabolism, the first pure case of a WP:COATRACK I've seen. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone who knows more about the Order of the Golden Dawn than I do should take a look at Tattva vision. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We're going to need a bigger boat

Having looked at User:Rmcnew's response in the AFD, and looking through the voluminous and cranky/crankish material in Talk:Socionics (typology), I think everything relating to socionics needs to be considered for deletion. It's of course hard to get anyone to come to the point, but it begins to appear that this thing have no real traction even in Russian sources. I hate to put people through it, but I would ask some others to look at the discussion and confirm or refute my sense of this, in which case I'll withdraw the current AFD and put in something more comprehensive. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of primary related articles that I could find. Do note I am not advocating deletion, I am indexing everything that I could find which was related. Sifaka talk 02:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Socionics (typology)
Socionics (esoterism)
Information metabolism
Ethical Intuitive Extrovert
Ethical Intuitive Introvert
Ethical Sensory Extrovert
Ethical Sensory Introvert
Intuitive Ethical Extrovert
Intuitive Ethical Introvert
Intuitive Logical Extrovert
Intuitive Logical Introvert
Logical Intuitive Extrovert
Logical Intuitive Introvert
Logical Sensory Extrovert
Logical Sensory Introvert
Sensory Ethical Extrovert
Sensory Ethical Introvert
Sensory Logical Extrovert
Sensory Logical Introvert
The below contain some content related to socionomics. There are a considerable number of disambig pages or see also sections not listed here which contain links to socionomic material. Some of the below only have passing mentions others have more content.
Aušra Augustinavičiūtė
Antoni Kępiński
Understanding - has a large section
Maximilien Robespierre
Personality psychology
Personality type
Brain types
Extraversion and introversion
After several inquiries with the main author, I've concluded that there aren't any 3rd party sources, so the whole thing is up for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"You hate to put people through it". Delete this page and you'll see Wikipedia go -SCHIZM-. I dare you to salt it. I dare you. You attack progress then progress will attack back. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Islamic Republic is the same thing as Arab Republic"

Jaakobou (talk · contribs) has been trying to merge/add content about Arab republic into Islamic Republic, claiming that they're the same form of government.[1] Given that Arab Republic is a secular type of government, and Islamic Republic a religious type of government, and there are other major differences in terms of elected institutions etc, this is a violation of WP:Fringe, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. I tried to explain this to him , but he reverted saying "not much difference. Arab republics also reliy heavily on Islamic code of laws and both systems are fake republics that share many trades". [2] The user is essentially advocating a fringe POV that the systems in Iran and Pakistan which combine elements of theocracy with elected institutions, are essentially "one and same" as the systems in Syria and Egypt which are more or less military dictatorships. --Kurdo777 (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is clearly nonsense. Take the example of the short-lived United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria. That was supposed to be the first step towards a pan-Arab state. The concept "Arab republic" is about Arab nationalism, rather than Islam (and some leading Arab nationalists, e.g. the founder of Ba'athism Michel Aflaq, have been non-Muslims). On the other hand, you can clearly have Islamic republics which are not Arab. --Folantin (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Arab republic doesn't appear to be a valid article. How is "Arab republic" a form of government? I mean, I can understand that an Islamic Republic is a form of Republic based on Islamic values, but is then an "Arab Republic" a Republic based on characteristics of the Arab ethnicity or something?

I don't think so. An Arab Republic is simply a Republic which is located somewhere in the Arab cultural sphere. Just like the Federal German Republic is simply a Republic located in the German cultural sphere. Nobody would argue that "German Republic" is a term for a form of govermnent.

In other words, Arab republic should just be deleted. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

...or be a disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no objections to a disambiguation page or deletion of Arab republic. But the main issue, is Jaakobou's attempt to equate two totally different systems, on the Islamic Republic page [3], which is clearly WP:OR. "Arab republic" is basically the term that Egypt and Syria use for their type of government. It's suppose to be a republic, based on Pan-Arabist values, Nasser is the one who coined the term. It's usually a one-party system. Islamic Republic on the other hand, is a republic based on Islamic values (Pakistan) or ideology (Iran) with a complex political system. [4]. --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Per my comments above, Jaakabou is completely wrong. I suspect this is some kind of spillover from the Israel-Palestine battlefield on Wikipedia (plus, obviously the effect of recent events in Iran). --Folantin (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC):::
Folantin, with your constant comments like this (including on the recent arbitration page), it is you who is perpetuating the "battle." And by the way, has Jaakabou been notified of this discussion? 6SJ7 (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Speak of the devil...So my suspicions were right. I have very little interest in the Israel-Palestine feuding on Wikipedia and have tried to avoid it as much as possible. However, if a small group of editors insist on spreading their fights to completely irrelevant pages then I will point this out. --Folantin (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If your suspicion is that I have several of these noticeboards watchlisted and sometimes jump in when I notice something that seems interesting, then your suspicion is correct. Whatever other suspicions you seem to have, are not correct. I actually agree that the page in question should be a disambiguation rather than a redirect. As for the "Israeli-Palestine feuding", you are the one who brought it up. You were also the first person to bring up anything about another editor's motivations, rather than their edits. (See WP:AGF.) Between the arb page and this page (and maybe some others I haven't seen), you seem to be running around and accusing people whose opinions you disagree with of being part of "Israeli-Palestine feuding" (or on that other page, of being in your words, "pro-Israeli"), thus bringing up "the issue" in places where it hasn't been brought up previously. That seems pretty disruptive to me. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"Is Islamic Republic the same thing as Arab Republic"? That's the issue here. Answer: no, it isn't. Problem solved. Personal issues/vendettas etc. on my talk page, please. --Folantin (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, you were the one who brought up a wider issue, so you don't get to unilaterally declare it irrelevant so nobody else can say anything. But yes, now, if you are done discussing the wider issue you brought up, the discussion is over. 6SJ7 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about Jaakabou. But for the record, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My main concern is the factual accuracy of the Islamic Republic page. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is fucking idiotic, since the people in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are NOT ARABS! It is quite possible to have an Islamic Republic without Arabs. In fact, it would theoretically be possible to have an Arab Christian Republic or an Arab Jewish Republic. See Jewish tribes of Arabia and Arab Christians. Edison (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure why you vex yourself at this point, as the situation has been resoved satisfactorily, and I think uncontroversially. --dab (𒁳) 07:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was only now notified of this conversation (pretty poor form) and I'd like to weigh in on the actual issue (btw, Israel-Palestine has nothing to do with it as well as the recent Iranian developments). Anyways, I'm fairly certain I took the time to explain it so that there would be no confusion and I can't understand the flawed presentation of my past discussion notes on my reasoning for including a seemingly differnt topic into the article. I'd like to ask fellow ediotrs to assume good faith (which seems hard to come by these days) and comment on content. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On the subject: After noticing an editor changing the Iranian form of government from Islamic Republic to "dictatorship" I figured to give a look at the issue. The Islamic Republic gov. seems like an unclear one where each of the self declared Islamic Republics basically keep a similar concept of a fake self-declared republic which brings to mind the self declared Arab republics. The issue of whether the supreme leader is a religious figure or a monarch is irrelevant to an article that starts with the following text: "Islamic republic is the name given to several states in the Muslim world including... Despite the similar name the countries differ greatly in their governments and laws."[5] Personally, I figure that the "self declared X republic controlled by a supreme leader" issue connects the two terms far more than any arguments for differnt structures of power. In any event, agree with the joining of the terms or not, my combined version[6] is clearly better structured than the current mishmash article.[7]
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 00:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC) p.s. there's nothing fringy about the theory that, in general, the Arab republics or the Islamic ones are not really free-elections type countries. I don't think it is neccesary to give articles about Syria's "elections" or any of the other mentioned states - although Pakistan could pass as some form of real republic whose main religion is Islam. Anyways, the article needs improvement, and structuring and I figured I'm constructing something that helps sort all the "republics". JaakobouChalk Talk 00:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep pushing the line that "Arab Republic" and "Islamic Republic" are synonymous. Wikipedia is not the place for original research or your own theories about different forms of government. --Folantin (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You're going to have to clarify where and when I stated that "Arab Republic" and "Islamic Republic" are synonymous" since I don't believe I have. I did, however, say that the two could appear on the same article where it is focused on the "supreme leader" and "self described as" - political structure of each of the states that use the terminology. Current article already makes a shallow WP:OR-type comparison between a couple 'supreme ruler'-"republics" which have few similarities in gov. structure and they are certainly not synonymous to each other. Anyways, I'd appreciate a clarification or a taking back of the inaccurate claim.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, since it's all obviously a misunderstanding, how about if everybody just drops the whole thing? Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, someone is persisting with their misunderstanding [8]. --Folantin (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Eh, I'm still waiting on a location where I said they are synonyms. Let me know if you find a good diff to support that allegation. Meantime, I suggest you lose that axe you're grinding and try to contribute to a few wiki-articles.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 16:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, since you came up with the introductory phrase "Islamic republic or Arab republic" [9] in your proposed version which lumped the two concepts together, that suggests you see some sort of equation between them. The fact that nobody else here sees "Arab Republic" and "Islamic Republic" as belonging to the same article should be telling you something. --Folantin (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I can read well. Several editors (including myself) think that the two are not the same. As for putting the two together into a single article - I actually see it happening with community consent sometime in the future. It only makes sense when the current article is a mess. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"As for putting the two together into a single article - I actually see it happening with community consent sometime in the future." Proof that you still Don't Get It. --Folantin (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Harmonic Convergence

Needs some attention from anyone interested in New Age planetary alignments (aren't we all?). Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hon, if I don't get the right crystal resonance in my meditation circle and my aura isn't just right, I can't edit planetary alignment articles at all. I'm sure you'll understand. A little reiki and TM and I'll get my center back in harmony and I'll give you a hand. Really. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
What precisely are we looking for?Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
better reefrences. But judging from the talkpage the worst has been cleaned out already. --dab (𒁳) 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) for anyone following my typo statistics, sometimes I am writing on a "netbook". Very practical, but a bugger to type on.

User:Reddi and Science and the Bible

Reddi again, adding a section on electrical engineering in the Bible. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Shocking. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Since this concerns biblical foreknowledge, I'll take the opportunity to bring up a related issue that is the embryology section in Qur'an and science. Sifaka talk 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Reddi and consensus

Please watch Pseudoskepticism. Consensus was previously arrived at several times to redirect because it is a term used almost exclusively by one person to mean a specific thing. Reddi can't seem to find the talk page. [10] NJGW (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reddi (talk · contribs) has a history of literally years of completely ignoring all consensus and slow-paced revert warring. He doesn't get into 3RR problems, but he'll invariably be back after a couple of weeks or months and simply continue where he left off. This isn't respectable editing behaviour, and a community ban is beginning to impose itself. --dab (𒁳) 07:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Moses was acquainted with some of the phases of electricity

I am not sure what "some of the phases of electricity" even are, but Reddi is giving us the full monty now at Talk:Science and the Bible. This has got to stop. He used to be mildly annoying when he stubbornly insisted we discuss prehistory at the ancient history article in spite of everyone else, but now he is really going too far. --dab (𒁳) 15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


We have a pov editor here, new account, unhappy with the dating by academics like Witzel and adding stuff like " There are considerable difficulties in accepting, these dates as the time of composition of the Vedas.The biblical concept that the earth is only 6000 and odd years old, must have a played a significant role in arriving at the dates of composition of Vedas by these authors.If the earth is only 6000 years old, the vedas have to fit in with in this time sacle! The discredited Aryan invasion theorists also would have played a great role in rewriting the chronology of vedas." I've deleted a bit but missed some, and the editor is continuing to add their personal views. I did give them a welcome message and a warning message for their first set of edits. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This weird idea that Biblical fundamentalism is behind Western dating of Vedic culture is a meme that crops up repeatedly with the Hindutva brigade. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Cumbric revival

I've already put an advert banner on the "Dragon's Voice" section, but I wonder if it also counts as a fringe theory that certain documents are not Welsh but Cumbric. Or is that Original Research? Or Original Research giving rise to a Fringe Theory? Is the whole page a fringe theory or does it fail notability, seeing as there are about 6 members of this group of enthusiasts. Note that this "Anthony ap Anthony o Rheged" person (whose real name is Anthony Harris, I believe) has his findings in the above book, published by some sort of vanity publishing house, not in any kind of peer reviewable publication. Paul S (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed that section, and commented on the talk page. I don't see any reason why the article shouldn't exist at this point. Looie496 (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
After a web search, I'm not convinced and I've taken it to AfD. I don't think the same article in several local papers gives it enough notability. We'll see if more gets turned up, but I spent quite a bit of time searching. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

British Israelism

We have a new editor who doesn't undertand Wikipedia, and the article probably can use some help anyway. I've deleted a whole bunch of See also's that were in the article or not clearly relevant. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson

Well having read some of the stuff above about Stevenson and reincarnation I'm not exactly encouraged that I'm going to get much of a hearing, but I'll give it a shot anyway! There is a small disagreement about a couple of sentences toward the end of the Stevenson article;

Skeptics have questioned Stevenson's methodology and objectivity in drawing conclusions from his research,[6][7] and he was spurned by most academic scientists.[8] Stevenson himself recognized one limitation in his argument for reincarnation which Washington Post Staff Writer Tom Shroder termed a "glaring flaw": the absence of any evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body.[9]

I would argue that if a University has a research centre that publishes in peer reviewed journals, as Stevenson's does, then it is clearly embarking on a scientific journey. Part of Stevenson's stated goal was to add to scientific knowledge about a particular phenomenon and raise the status of his field of inquiry within the broader scientific project, and I am unaware of any accusations of fraud etc. So it strikes me that the first sentence quoted above starts well, but ends poorly. If there is any evidence that over 50% of academic scientists actively rejected Stevenson's work, then let's reference it. If not, the last part detracts from NPOV in my view. Additionally, one of Stevenson's complaints (?) is that his critics did not investigate the phenomenon themselves - as indicated by Tom Shroder [1]. It therefore strikes me as a triple whamy to use emotionally charged adjectives (spurned) in conjunction with dubious claims (most academic scientists) to give the impression that Stevenson had succeeded in getting others to embark on research but that his work had been found wanting.

My second observation is that in the second sentence it seems enough to point out that Stevenson acknowledged a limitation in his argument without the additional flourish of tagging it with the Tom Shroder quote of "glaring flaw". This is surely not reflective of a NPOV but rather of attempting to belittle the rest of the theory by over emphasising a weakness already raised by Stevenson himself. Normal science, in Kuhn's terms, is all about working on exactly these kinds of "glaring flaws" as puzzles to be overcome, so the additional emphasis seems to be both repetitive and pushing a particular view. The lack of a mechanism to explain the phenomenon he investigated does not make the phenomenon itself vanish in a puff of logic ;-)

Wow this is hard work for a couple of sentences!! I hope my efforts above are taken in the spirit they're intended. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are more general WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE issues with this article, and it should interest many of the people here. Verbal chat 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Evidently not! I think I'll reapply my edits until there is a compelling reason to have it otherwise. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested in stopping pseudoscience articles being preesented as real science, as mentioned previously -- in fact I brought this article itself or one very much like it (supposed science behind reincarnation being presented as accepted) to this page in the past. Sometimes, though, people want a break from some of the more depressing FRINGE and NPOV violations, which is why I didn't respond to this thread earlier. DreamGuy (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this relates to the arguments above? Could you clarify and/or comment on the specific issues? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


Advertisement for PhotoReading, "The distinguishing feature of PhotoReading is that the readers allow the unconscious mind to rapidly absorb material and then logically or consciously recapture the information they photoread through multiple perusals, as opposed to conventional reading or speed reading, which relies solely on the conscious mind to sort information through one passing conscious mind"

Needs a rewrite based upon independent, reliable sources. Currently a SPA is wants to remove an independent study on PhotoReading from the article completely. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to start stubbing it, being unable to find any sources to build an article around. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud again

Jackiestud (talk · contribs) has now added this to Theology- "For the common term, see Thealogy" - I reverted it, saying Theaology is definitely not the common term for 'theology', she wrote to my talk page saying they were synonymous!. She is also adding the non-existent category Category:Pre-Historic Age to articles, and has found an article Dolmen deity which either needs some proof that the phrase is notable (which I can't find) or merger/AfD. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the last ANI thread concerning her [11], I really think it's time to pull the plug on Jackie S. Her struggles with Greek and Latin etymology have wasted enough editors' time. --Folantin (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I would support a community ban. Looie496 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit though that this is still within my "funny" category, not yet entirely in the "pain in the behind" one. --dab (𒁳) 05:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm less amused than the first time around, dab. Folantin, Looie: are you speaking of a topic ban? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No, an indef block supported by community consensus. This editor has abundantly demonstrated an inability to contribute in a positive way. I'm not expecting it to happen yet, I'm just indicating that I personally have reached the point where I would support it. Looie496 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, per GWH's comment at the end of the linked ANI thread: "Any chance we can find her a mentor? If not, I suspect an indef block will be in the near future." The second option is the more likely and I'd certainly endorse it. --Folantin (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll simply state for the record that in spite of "funny", I am not volunteering to serve as that mentor :oP --dab (𒁳) 16:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Aw, go on, you know you want to. It would be worth it just for the explanation of how "Mentor" should really be "Mentrix", from the ancient Greek word for "male ruses".--Folantin (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See also link to mother goddess problems

I went through and stripped a bunch of see also links to mother goddess. I have been keeping an eye on pages dealing with prehistoric art/anything made out of stone in prehistoric times. Sifaka talk 18:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've run into trouble on the Prehistoric art page. I've replaced a link to mother goddess in the see also section with prehistoric religion, but Jackie is reverting me anyway. Jackie says that "tehre shoudl be a whole subtitle on her!!!! she does shape art in pre history." I maintain that prehistoric religious art isn't limited to mother goddesses and that prehistoric religion is more general and appropriate. Can anyone else take a look? Sifaka talk 19:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I see no problem with "see also Mother goddess" at prehistoric religion. Preistoric art is a different case, because obviously a goddess per se isn't "art". --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the page in question isn't prehistoric religion. The link to mother goddess is at Prehistoric art. Sifaka talk 19:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Concur that prehistoric religion is a stronger link than mother goddess. Especially since the first "see also" link in prehistoric religion is goddess. That aside venus statuettes do represent an important trend within prehistoric art and they are notable. I believe the error that is at the crux of this matter is differentiating an artifact from modern interpretations of the meaning of said artifact and correlation of those interpretations with wholly modern religious movements.Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Nicely put. Sifaka talk 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've given her a 3RR warning on Prehistoric art. She also added Çatalhüyük to Paleolithic religion, she doesn't seem to know very much about prehistoric archaeology if she's moving sites around in time like that! Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

we shouldn't obsess over "see alsos" too much. This isn't WP:FRINGE. Of course Jackie is charmingly clueless, but as long as she restricts herself to adding random links to "see also" sections, she isn't doing much harm. "See also" tend to need periodical cleanup anyway, and they don't affect the quality of the article proper. It's not a big deal. --dab (𒁳) 08:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right that this isn't the right board for this, but I brought up the see also links here since we had a section about her going anyway. In the future I'll post concerns about see also links in the NPOV or OR board. Sifaka talk 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See new post below about Jackiestud (talk · contribs) and a BLP. Verbal chat 11:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It´s funny that the same wikipedia presents a potnia theron as one of the icons of mother goddess --and where did you find this argument of mother goddess must be virgins??
It´s also funny that only after my "clueless Povs" ochre now presents a "ochre on human history" subtitle. Jackiestud (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't funny, your edits were very problematic but no one said that there should be no section on ochre in human history. I don't know what your point is about Potnia Theron. Virgin? Is any of this supposed to a response to something in this section? As for links to Mother Goddess, why did you link Ma'at? Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira and Jackiestud (talk · contribs)

Relevant discussion regarding WP:OR and WP:RS problems in the spirituality section of this WP:BLP is taking place at the BLP noticeboard here. Involves Jackiestud (talk · contribs) who has been mentioned a few times here. Cross-posted here to try and get more input and as it covers fringe beliefs. Verbal chat 10:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

She's been blocked for 4 days by EdJohnston with a warning that she needs to show through her actions that she is willing to follow Wikipedia policy. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation research 3

An editor has added a POV tag to this article, claiming that it is unfairly portrayed as fringe. As this article has just been improved substantially, we should ensure that the standard is kept or improved and that it doesn't return to its previous state. A "review" justifying the tag is here. Verbal chat 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi, there is a dispute about whether an edit I made is supported by consensus to Psychic. Here is the diff. I'd appreciate it if people had a look and gave their thoughts on the talk page here. Verbal chat 08:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just from a quick glance I can see that that article is a battlefield of some entrenched editors with demonstrated histories of pro-FRINGE edits. The more editors that take a look at that article, the better. DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that the diff is on the secure server, so unless you are logged in (or don't login) watch out if you start to edit it from that page. I realise now that I should have seen the lock icon. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! I get the same in the other direction. Is there a way to wikilink diffs? Verbal chat 18:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, god. Don't tell me the article's claiming psychics unambiguously exist again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Sphinx of Giza

It's not really my bailiwick, but a lot of the content here rings alarm bells. The article currently equivocates between a "Traditional hypothesis," which as far as I can tell is actually a "mainstream consensus," and a bevy of "Alternative hypotheses," which as far as I can tell are mostly "Quixotic speculations" with a generous helping of "Crackpot silliness." Sources cited include that eminent Egyptological journal - featuring a prominent testimonial from Rupert Sheldrake. Other sources apparently have academic qualifications but are extremely isolated and controversial, yet they are presented in the article as just other equally credible voices. Perhaps I'm overreacting. Someone with a better understanding of the current scholarship should probably take a gander. <eleland/talkedits> 01:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Has this been imported from a formerly separate fork page? A lot of the 'links' just direct to the page itself. Paul B (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Baby colic

Could use some monitoring. I've just removed a veritable how-to of alt-med advocacy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding that article's (former) wurblings about "birth trauma", see also Pre- and perinatal psychology. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This bit of advocacy: Gripe water - also needs a good clean-out, but I'm not sure where to start, as there's so many problems. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Mountainous Armenia

This article was nominated for deletion on the basis that it's not based on any serious historical reference, but seeks to promote historical fabrication induced by the contemporary territorial claims of one country against another. Upon the request to produce references, none were presented from third party NPOV sources and those from POV sources were found to contain serious historical inaccuracies. Hence, I would like to request a review of this article and its sources on the basis of the topic being a fringe theory. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not stating anything one way or another about the underlying issue, the AfD closure was astonishingly incompetent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
With six keeps and six deletes, it would take something beyond competence to declare consensus in either direction. Take it to deletion review, this is not the place to come because you're unhappy with an AfD result. Looie496 (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say I was unhappy with the result. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yuz Asaf

A new user is insisting on adding the assertion that "Yuz Asaf is Hebrew for Jesus" and an anecdote about a Muslim sage and an elderly woman. He has also created the new article Similarities between Ahmadiyya and Other Religions, which seeems to be just an argument that the Quran supports Ahmadiyya views of Jesus. Paul B (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Similarities" has been deleted. Paul B (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim Tucker

There is some debate as to whether this "reincarnation researcher" meets either the WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Please see the talk page. Verbal chat 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dim Mak

Mr. Spock demonstrates Dim Mak, a long-forgotten management technique from 21st century Earth. The fringe theory that Dim Mak, based on TCM principles, will allow a skilled practitioner to kill you by causing your qi to stagnate is ruling the roost at Dim Mak. Eyes needed.Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I definitely concur. At the very least, it needs some clarification that there is no evidence for Dim Mak ever actually working. And the bit about how it's a closely guarded secret in the Origins section is obvious weaseling. --GoodDamon 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds almost as dangerous as the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique. MastCell Talk 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Boris, that picture says it all. Well chosen! Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
And it's better documented, at least in Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

this isn't a "fringe theory" in the classical sense. It is a medieval Chinese myth. We don't treat myths and legends as "fringe theories". --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone demonstrate that it is such? Right now the only evidence I've been able to find is a bunch of martial arts types claiming that it has some ancient pedigree, but I have yet to find a single reference to it outside martial arts sites. Well, and the record company. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, if it is a medieval Chinese myth, does the article clearly state that it is a myth? Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
From what I've managed to figure out it's a trope of the Wuxia genre of literature. I've seen accupressure striking for paralysis, healing and wounding with "internal" wounds in the writing of Jin Yong, Gu Long and in 20th to 21st century Wuxia television shows. I have not found a precedent from prior to the 20th century for this type of martial action. Earlier (ming and qing) dynasty martial novels, including earlier wuxia novels, tended towards references to light-stepping (qing-gong), neigong for self-healing, increased stamina and resistance to physical attack, and then poking holes in people with chunks of steel. As my own Sifu tended towards rational materialism he didn't teach anything to do with such nonsense and was dismissive of those who made claims of such and so I have no access, directly, to the oral tradition that the claims appear to arise from in order to confirm veracity. Considering the history of CMA in the last 100 years it is highly likely that Dim Mak did not exist as a concept prior to the introduction of firearms and the pursuant mythologizing of mid to late qing pugilists.Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If, as Simonm suggests, the term turns out to be a purely 20th century fabrication without any basis in earlier Chinese literature, then I confess I have been fooled and I insist the article should most emphatically make the point that this is recent pop culture. --dab (𒁳) 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

a google books search seems to confirm what Simonm says. I find no reference to "dim mak" predating 1969, and then in a reply to a letter to a martial arts journal, debunking a book on Dim Mak by one Count Dante.[12] So, I am willing to assume that this is indeed a 1960s Wuxia urban legend. --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Count Dante is a notable martial arts fraud who sold "deadly secrets of the ninjas" through comic book adverts.Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
so, can the count be credited with having invented Dim Mak, or is there any reference to it predating his antics? --dab (𒁳) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Our big problem at the moment is that we cannot deal with this without WP:OR. We need to find a decent external reference that says this stuff is bunk and ahistorical. Mangoe (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Found some stuff. I may have been partially mistaken. Earliest reference is Qing Dynasty Zhang Sanfeng / Shaolin stories.Simonm223 (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Touch of Death is currently reasonably under control. It appears that Dim Mak is indeed an invention of the 1950s, although it does of course build on older tenets of TCM.

But this was only the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. I am not surprised that there is an Indian version of this, at Varma Kalai, where we learn, among other things, that

If the enemy is attacked at the side point of Kadamuna, in twenty-four hours the male organ will become erect, and on the first sight of a female, he will ejaculate. The victim will cry, he will also laugh and behave like in epilepsy and there is no cure for him.

Now that's what I call advanced martial arts!

I want to see the YouTube demonstration video on that one! Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The article supposed to discuss this field encyclopedically would be pressure point, and it could also do with some attention. As is well known to all regulars on this board, there is also a huge pile of articles on Chinese esotericism which are practically beyond repair. E.g. Tui na, but I do not have the heart to look deeper into that particular abyss. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As bizarre as it may sound Chinese Esotericism is a bit of a favorite subject of mine. I'm actually working on non-wikipedia projects most of today but I'll try to get around to Tui na and see what I can see.Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, 2009

Sorry if this is in the wrong place. For the last several days a variety of IPs and a single purpose account have been attempting to add details of the July 2009 Ürümqi riots to this article, generally based on this single source or related statements. The source does not say the riots were a terrorist incident, and the majority of neutral coverage (ie, non-Chinese state propaganda) describes the ongoing problems as riots, civil unrest and ethnic unrest. Myself and another editor believe that to claim this is a terrorist incident is a fringe view at best, would others agree? O Fenian (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your are right... This is the wrong place to discuss this. Calling something a terrorist attack isn't a fringe theory, it's politics. That said, I would agree that you should not call something a terrorist attack unless reliable sources call it that. Suggest you raise it at WT:NPOV or at WP:RSN. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we've been trying to keep a lid on the whole "riots as terrorism" angle due to WP:NPOV over at the Urumqi Riots page. I'd suggest notifying the Urumqi Riots talk page of this as there are several interested and active editors there.Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal force dispute spins on

At the moment the problem is over inclusion of what I gather is some obsolete notions of Leibnitz. Anyway, there's an RFC on this which can be gone over here, for those with the stamina to do so. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a truly amazing case. It illustrates how you can quibble about a very simple thing until the matter is so confused that it is impossible to state what the dispute is even about. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've said I think this dispute won't stop without at least one editor being topic banned. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
um, but which one? I can't spot anyone behaving positively disruptively, they just seem to mutually confuse the hell out of one another. The dispute as far as I have made out is about whether two separate historical approaches to the same physical phenomenon should be treated as separate issues. --dab (𒁳) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Tombe seems to be, well, fringe? but that doesn't matter, his behaviour over the past year(s) has been very disruptive and made it difficult for others to edit. Most people commenting on the proposed block support it. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


This article is not based on any serious research work and makes claims solely to insert Persian to historical contexts where it simply does not belong. For example, it's well known in scholarship that Timur (the grandson of Genghiz Khan) was a Turko-Mongol, whilst the article attempts to claim him or his dynasty Turko-Persian. The argument used in justification of this fringe theory is that Persian was spoken in some of the Turko-Mongol courts, but that's not an argument for identity association. For example, French was broadly spoken in Russian court and many Russian writers used this language. It does not mean Russia is Russo-French now. Americans eat pizza and sing opera in Italian, it does not mean U.S. is Anglo-Italian society. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

this article is, of course, part of the hunting grounds of our resident Persian nationalist brotherhood, so it is hardly surprising it is in a bad shape.
seriously, it is time to get serious about this Persian circus soon. We can handle Kosovo, we can handle Armenia, so why not Persia. And, necessarily, the Türkic patriots at the same time, too. The Turks and the Iranians are competing in puerile pranks to the point where any article marginally related to the overlapping sphere of Turks and Iranians becomes utterly useless for reference. --dab (𒁳) 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"It is time to get serious about this Persian circus soon" threatens Dbachmann. Really - is he gonna send them an Bush-style ultimatum? Bomb this axis of disruption back to the dark ages for disrupting his civilised administratoring? What is truly puerile is the never-ending racist crudity of Dbachmann. Meowy 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree... we have an ongoing problem at Wikipedia with ethno-racial-nationalist POV pushing from a host of of ethno-racial-nationalist groups. POV pushing like this needs to be opposed, no matter which group is responsible. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It appears that this can be simply redirected to Persianate society, which is in need of some help but which is not intrinsically bad. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Another example of this radical ethno-nationalism removal of the large number of referenced material, day's worth of work, in favor of an unsourced OR, fringe nationalist theory that Azeris and Uzbeks are Persians. It seems that people just have nothing else to do, but to pervert history. Yet another example Safavid Dynasty, which was originally called "Dowlat-e Safaviyye" (The Safavid State), now has Safavid Persian Empire stamped all over the article and removing/rescinding any kind of reference to Azeri/Turkic, while the founder of the kingdom even wrote poems and diplomatic letters in this language. This is called historical revisionism and reinventing identity at the expense of it, and with Persian case, it's gotten completely out of control. Atabəy (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Turks and the Iranians are competing in puerile pranks to the point where any article marginally related to the overlapping sphere of Turks and Iranians becomes utterly useless for reference.." Tell me about it. I've been working on most of the individual Safavid shah bios and all anyone seems to be interested in is claiming these figures for their own ethnicity. (Just to test this, I've sneakily omitted to mention of some of the most famous cultural achievements of the reigns of Shah Tahmasp I and Shah Abbas I in my revisions. I was hoping somebody else might add them but no such luck.). I have yet to pluck up the courage to edit the main Safavids and the Shah Ismail articles (check the talk pages to see why).--Folantin (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Dbachmman took care of the issue by redirecting a fork article to Turco-Persian tradition. About the term [[13]]. For example René Grousset , not a Persian nationalist calls the Seljuqs a Turko-Persian empire. However that article was written poorly and was a fork.

However, I believe the above user is trying to fish around and cannot claim to be unbiased. His record is clear. Atabek has been topic banned from several regionals topics by the admin Moreshchi and has been in two arbcomms and is under 1rr. He recently had a scuffle with another established ubiased user here: [14] because legitimate sources call Alparslan Türkeş a fascist. Thus he claims the user was Turko-phobic.

His claim about Safavids are wrong [15] and there are books ""(Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian empire). That is written by a scholar and there are dozens of such sources. It is a common geographical designation. I gave a detailed response on the usage of Iran/Persia for Safavids for the user here: [16] from both primary and secondary sources. However any European travel logue and map from the era names the country Persia. However just look at European maps of the era, and it is called Persia. And Safavids used 'Ajam (Persia) and Iran in their own official letters. As per the origin of the dynasty, Roger Savory says the concensus is Safavid origin was from Kurdistan and they later adopted Azeri-Turkic. This is reflected in the article and we have allowed various theories in the article, since users did not reach a concensus. As far as I can tell all statements from the article are sourced. Dbachmman should not mistake a poor article and generalize. I note again that Moreschi whom Dbachmann respects actually topic banned this user from some areas. So one should not say he has a neutral attitude here. He just found a badly written fork article and is looking to make all Iranian users look bad. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, most of the editors who took part in the talk page feuds on Safavid dynasty and Shah Ismail I should be topic-banned for violating undue weight by making the articles over-obsessed with modern notions of ethnicity. If you read books by academics - like Savory's Safavid Iran - you'll find they spend more time talking about "Turks" or "Turcomans" versus "Tajiks". This distinction is a cultural one rather than about how many drops of ancestral blood flowed in their veins. "Turks" spoke a Turkic language and did the soldiering; "Tajiks" spoke Persian and did the desk jobs. --Folantin (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well Savory states: "Why is there such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty, which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and a half centuries of rule " and the Safavids themselves obscured their origin [17]. So one cannot expect normal users not be confused! I have also added a good deal of information on Safavid architecture and the scholars such as Mullah Sadra, Shaykh Bahai and etc. However, you need to understand something. That region of the world did not have WWI and WWII and the people have different mentality. Nationalism (ultra-nationalism) is very high and actually Western governments support some of the very ultra-nationalist governments and etc. Also in terms of religious outlook, one should not expect a shock if people protest a cartoon about the prophet of Islam. One should compare it to 18th century Italy and say if someone insulted Jesus openly, they would have his head. I am not execusing the regions mentality or saying it is better or worst, it just exists. However please edit these articles and expand them. It definitely can use other perspectives and better editing. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Folantin in general that ethnic heritage of Safavids was irrelevant in context of their history. That is IF, there was no well-concerted effort to block out everything that does not fit Persian nationalist agenda, no matter how weighty references are brought. Even Richard Frye, a prominent Iranist, with his "Azeri Turks were founders of Safavid dynasty" must be proven wrong by undue references. Safavids have to be claimed Kurdish with reference to only 7th generation forefather's writings, while everything in between was mixed with other ethnicities. Some edits even go as far as claiming Safavids have Georgian origins(!), using the same book reference as 4 different cited sources in the article. And as if writing the truth in Wikipedia article based on internationally acclaimed sources is going to strip someone of their identity, the Persian nationalist defamation attack is executed against anything else called Azerbaijani, Turkish or Turkic in Wikipedia.
And reading Nepaheshgar either responding me with irrelevant subjects (topic restrictions on Armenia-related articles) or endlessly citing the Persian source, Encyclopedia Iranica, in response to what is well known to be a Persian nationalist POV pushing, with or without my presence, is quite interesting.Atabəy (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop the WP:soapbox and WP:forum. An example of the ethno-nationalist of Atabek. He cites Encylcopedia Iranica on the assumed Azeri origin of Safavids, but the article has nothing to do with Safavids. If one looks at the Safavid article in Encyclopedia Iranica, it is fairly clear about their origin and is written by a scholar on Safavids. The same information is in Encyclopedia of Islam and various sources. Thus when I cite the same thing (say Iranica), it becomes a Persian nationalist POV but when he cites Iranica, it is Richard Frye a prominent Iranist. Richard Frye is a prominent Iranist but has absolutely nothing to do with Safavids. The prominent people in the area are Savory and Mathee as mentioned by Folantin and not Richard Frye. But inorder to solve the aricles problem, basically we have made it any source goes. However, Roger Savory, the eminent Safavid historian makes it clear: "From the evidence available at the present time, it is certain that the Safavid family was of indigineous Iranian stock, and not of Turkish ancestry as it is sometimes claimed." (History of Humanity-Scientific and Cultural Development: From the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century", Taylor & Francis. 1999). Safavids had Georgian/Turkomen/Circassian ancestry though their motherline. And they kept a geneology and after they took power, they did not claim Turkic ancestry but Arab Seyyed ancestry. Encyclopedia Iranica is well known and has been praised by the Richard Frye you quote. One can see from these aspects why the Safavid article had its problem. Also yes being topic banned on Armenia-related articles shows POV editing. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Since when are the academic projects of Columbia University (Encyclopedia Iranica) and Safavid scholars such as Roger Savory considered "Persian sources"? I have worked on many of these pages with User:Folantin whom I have a great deal of respect for, and assisted him against the different types of Persian nationalists, so Folantin knows my stands on these issues very well. Take my word as you will, User:Atabəy should be the last person to talk about "radical ethno-nationalism" on Wikipedia, he is the worst manifestation of that problem here. A courtesy look at his attempts to white-wash the negative aspects of Alparslan Türkeş's character, some ultra-nationalist Turkish politician who favored his party members to wear Hitler style haircut and mustache, and advocated Nazi racist doctrines, while at the same time raving on the talk page about "Turkophobia" and how Reza Shah, a mild nationalist compared to Alparslan Türkeş, was a Nazi, will tell you all you need to know about Atabəy's real concerns. Eliminating ethno-racial-nationalist POV is the least of Atabəy`s worries, the neutral editors here should be careful not to fall into his trap. He knows how to game the system, and he is essentially fishing here, trying to play on the concerned editors's fear of nationalism, citing some random badly-written POV fork that was rightfully redirected by Dbachmann, to further his own nationalist agenda elsewhere. Sorry about the blunt language, but you gotta call a spade, a spade! --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, evidence of nationalist/racist POV as presented, additionally focusing on personality than on topics as usual. Below are just a few of numerous Google Books references that never make it into Safavid article due to this POV:

Now, I ask readers to dare to add any of this to Safavid dynasty and enjoy the action of Persian nationalist POV pushing, based on Pan-Iranism and ethnocentric political propaganda in encyclopedia to make own conclusions. Atabəy (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources are written by Safavid experts. I can also quote 157 sources that says "Safavid Persians" [18].

However, look at the third source you brought, it is about their Turkocmen followers not Safavids. Roger Savory has written more than 100 aritcles and books on Safavids. "From the evidence available at the present time, it is certain that the Safavid family was of indigineous Iranian stock, and not of Turkish ancestry as it is sometimes claimed." (History of Humanity-Scientific and Cultural Development: From the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century", Taylor & Francis. 1999). Why can't you quote any Western Safavid expert that agrees with you? Mathee says the same about their Kurdish origin. Kathryn Babayan (another Safavid expert) states:" Kathryn Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran , Cambridge , Mass. ; London : Harvard University Press, 2002. pg 143: “It is true that during their revolutionary phase (1447–1501), Safavi guides had played on their descent from the family of the Prophet. The hagiography of the founder of the Safavi order, Shaykh Safi al-Din Safvat al-Safa written by Ibn Bazzaz in 1350-was tampered with during this very phase. An initial stage of revisions saw the transformation of Safavi identity as Sunni Kurds into Arab blood descendants of Muhammad.”". Now who are the authors of your sources with regards to Safavid studies and how many publications they have on history of the area and Safavids? Still you have a section "Turkish component" and you can put whatever source you want, since your refusal to accept Safavid scholars has lead to the present situation. Encyclopedia Islam (Brill) clearly states the concensus is Safavids where from Kurdistan. However it is you that has made the article low quality, because when someone like Savory states: "From the evidence available at the present time, it is certain that the Safavid family was of indigineous Iranian stock, and not of Turkish ancestry " you go quote an out of the blue source like "History of Iranian literature". Look at another source you brought: [19]. It is called Firearms (a general book on firearms). So I think it is obvious who is pushing nationalistic POV and finding any non-expert source to claim anything. And yes complaining against Iranian nationalism while being blocked multiple times, under two arbcomm, under 1rr striction and also topic banned from some Armenian related articles does not really make you neutral user. Feel free to add those sources to the Turkish section on Safavids, no one has deleted them. Wikipedia is generally about WP:RS and WP:verifiability. So go ahead and put a source on firearms and Iranian literature on the origin of Safavids in the Turkish component section. However those sources such as "firearm", "Iranian literature" (general book on 1200 years of Iranian literature" and etc. are not really Safavid related books. Safavids experts are Savory, Mathee, Babayan, Melville, Roemer, and etc. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If Nepaheshgar is involved, that's an instant warning sign that crank fringe theories are being pushed somewhere... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, have you read any books or articles on this topic? I doubt you have, So please put aside your personal vendetta against me, and if you don't know about the topic of Safavids don't get involved please. Roger Savory, Mathee, Babayan are not a crank or fringe theory, kindly refer to Folatin who is familiar with the topic, if you don't take my word for it. I have edited Wikipedia for many years now and have a clean record precisely because I stick to policy and look for scholarly sources. Moreschi knows me, Dbachmman knows me , Alex Bakharev knows me, many top non-Iranian editors know me, I don't need to ask many top non-Iranians editors who know me here to come and support my personally or ask other edits to come and do character assassinations against other editors. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes dear Atabəy, those ethnocentric/nationalist/racist/propagandist Iranians, how dare they don not let you use the highly-acclaimed expert academic sources such as "Iran: A Travel Guide By Vijeya Rajendra", "The fragmentation of Afghanistan", "Firearms`", "History of Iranian literature", "An outline of Turkish architecture in the Middle Ages". Oh the humanity, all these expert sources about Safavids are being ignored, for the likes of Roger Savory who know nothing about Safavids, this is clearly a violation of WP:Fringe and WP:RS. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with removing anything about the origin of the Safavids in the intro and letting the sources of the body do the talking. This was proposed several time as their origin is not as relavant as their legacy. That can be discussed in the body. However I also wanted to comment that a comparison of Czarist Russia with say Seljuqis is invalid. Czarist Russia were not conquerers of their own people (Russians) but Seljuqids precisely conquered Iranians land. So when Persina nationalists like Rene Grousset state: "..renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran..", "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace"

(Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), 161,164)..they mean the empire as a whole was Turko-Persian. The culture, administration of these empires were Persian but the ruling elite and military was Turkic. As Dbachman says, this part of Iranian and Turkish history overlap and so it is good if some people with expertise like Folantin help balance any article that needs balancing. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess the discussion subject was Turco-Persian article, which was a piece of nationalist invention and utter WP:OR. The issue was addressed by a redirect, further revealing (not by me) the extent of Persian nationalist POV pushing in Wikipedia. The rest of political propaganda and racist hogwash fed to non-Persian Iranians on daily basis can be moved to Safavid talk page. And by the way, the so much defamed Firearms source actually quotes the 17th century French traveler at Safavid court, as cited from Gandjei, "Turkish in the Safavid Court of Isfahan", p. 314. So yet another POV push exposed, and I am glad to see that I am not the only one seeing it clearly. If you have doubts, check out this and this articles at Persian nationalist portal, see if the propaganda described in first and fed in the second is any different, if not word-to-word quoted above. And I guess the recent edit [20] devoting portion of Pan-Iranism article to Pan-Turkism is yet another POV push, with a flavor of traditional Turcophobia. Atabəy (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:soapbox and WP:FORUM. You got banned on a topic like Sahl Sambattian for POV edits by Moreschi but then you go to Turkish and Azeri wikipedias and makes the same edits. So do you seen your own biases? You quote Encyclopedia Iranica (Frye) when you like but then dismiss it when you don't like. Yes Turkish was spoken in the Safavid court that really tells us about the origin of Safavids? Shah Tahmasp composed Persian too. So what? A source on firearm is not about Safavids and has no weight against established Safavid scholars. Wikipedia is obviously not a pan-Turkist forum [21] or one where people can erroneously claim that 12th century Persian poet had Turkic poems[22], something no serious scholar accepts. As per hogwash you might want to check the actual embassy here which claims Sumerians, Akkadians, Zoroaster, Caucasian Albania were ancient Turks and people [23]. I quote: "The most ancient Azerbaijani States maintained political, economic and cultural ties with Shumer and Akkad, were part of the overall region of Mesopotamian civilization and were ruled by dynasties of Turkic origin. The Turkic-speaking peoples who inhabited the territory of Azerbaijan from the most remote period of antiquity were fire-worshippers and professed one of the world's oldest religions - Zoroastrism." And instead of accusing others of Turkophobia (like you did to user Kansas Bear) it is best you consider your own phobia's. Lets face it, you would be one of the last people on the planet to try to paint other users as nationalists and it is best if you are really concerned about nationalist hogwash that you take step back and take a look in the mirror. In the end such rabid ethno-nationalism will cause more trouble in the region. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what any of the links provided have to do with me, except for irrelevant WP:HARASSMENT attempts. Doing so persistently in discussion emanates from inability to bring weighty arguments and a well-established nationalist POV in Wikipedia, as confirmed by several editors above already. As far as Kansas Bear, he has been warned by myself for flagrantly violating WP:NPA, again along the same emotional nationalist POV.
Anyways, I ask someone to archive this thread, to avoid further irrelevant flooding, WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP about Pan-Turkism, Azeri embassy, etc. by User:Nepaheshgar rather than focusing on subject racist Turcophobic Aryanism and irredentist Pan-Iranism propaganda on Wikipedia. And here is the last proof of it, decision made in a flip that Uzbeks are now not Persians. No comments.... Atabəy (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what Monte Melkonyan and ASALA had to do with me(neither of which had ever been edited by me until July 16, 2009!). Then you stated this tripe:

Especially so, following your relentless attempts to discount Pan-Iranism-Nazi connection

Which consisted of my one statement:

I'm amazed you were capable of finding that reference. Since you seemed completely lost when it came to Arpaslan Turkes' racist views!

You started off by mentioned two articles which I've never edited(until July 16 for Asala) and from there continue with the accusation of "Turkophobia". Which sounds like a violation of WP:NPA. It would appear the proper response, in your mind, would have been to label you an Iranophobe and simply moved on. The only "emotional nationalist POV" is being exhibited by an individual that has to rely on calling editors, that he can't remove or intimidate, Turkophobes. The emotional response[24] was initiated by you and when you didn't like my response, you thought you could "white-wash" your insult with a "warning" on my talk page. I would ask Admins and editors to look at both Talk:Alparslan Türkeş and Talk:Pan-Iranism and the "reasons" given by Atabəy for editing both articles. They will find telling indications of "emotional nationalist POV". --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

More WP:SOAPBOX. I never claimed Uzbeks or Azeris were Persians. That is why I removed Uzbek and modified the sentence. It has nothing to do with anything you edit or said. It was there before I edited the article and I take credit for removing it. So no need to take credit for something you didn't do. I am not going to continue responding to you here as your rants are what gave you your Wikipedia record. I am not interested in having such a record and the next WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM comment will be reported to admins who will give warnings and after that if it continues, it will get more. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:History of Greater Iran

This template and its contents seek to put forward some baseless historical claims and advocate an irredentist political doctrine, well described by this reference (see the bold part):

There is no source that refers to the listed countries as "Greater Iran", moreover, there was never a country or a region by such name including all the countries listed. To my knowledge, no such equivalent exists in other cases.

I am not sure if templates are covered by WP:FRINGE, but this one is being inserted all over Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would invite everyone to view the edit of the above user in pan-Iranism where he calls any scholar he does not like as a pan-Iranist. When a term gets about 500-600 hits in google books, then he should use the search tools to find history sources for the term.

It is the same here. The word "greater Iran" has nothing to do with any sort of political concepts. Rather the country called "Iran" is only part of the territory that was called Iran during various dynasties.

Richard Nelson Frye defines Greater Iran as including "much of the Caucasus, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, with cultural influences extending to China, western India, and the Semitic speaking world." According to Frye, "Iran means all lands and peoples where Iranian languages were and are spoken, and where in the past, multi-faceted Iranian cultures existed."[2]

Note the above user used Richard Frye in Safavids to push his viewpoint, but he simply ignores such a scholarly sources.

Richard Foltz states: "It is often assumed that various people of "greater Iran" - a cultural area that streched from Mesopotamia and the Caucasus into Khwarizm, Transoxiana, Bactria, and the Pamirs and included Persians, Medes, Parthians and Sogdians among others--were all "Zoroastrians" in in pre-Islamic times[3]. To the Greeks, Greater Iran ended at the Indus[4]

According to J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams most of Western greater Iran spoke SW Iranian languages in the Achaemenid era while the Eastern territory spoke Eastern Iranian languages related to Avesta[5].

George Lane also states that after the dissolution of mongol empire, the Ilkhanids became rulers of greater Iran[6] and Öljaitü according to Judith G. Kolbas was the ruler of this expanse between 1304-1317 A.D.[7]

Same source: "Abu Sa'id Last effective Mongol khan of Greater Iran"[8].

Or for example Amelie Kuhrt [[25]].

Or UNESCO book on history edited by Sir Edmod Bosworth [[26]].

Primary sources including Timurid historian Mir Khwand define Iranshahr (Greater Iran) as from the Euphrates to the Oxus[9]

So for examples Ilkhanids or Safavids or Sassanids or etc. had a territory for their name which was Iran. So scholars use the term greater Iran for dynasties who ruled modern Iran and its outlying regions. And also per definition of Frye. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the template links to modern states, thus advocating irredentist and sometimes racist claims (per reference I provided above). If this logic which is clearly based on editor's interpretation not on historical facts, then can we claim then Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Central Asia, Middle East, etc. as parts of "Greater Turkey" or "Greater Arabia" or "Greater Mongolia" templates, just because of Seljuq Empire, Caliphate, Genghis Khan, etc. I will let the admins decide on this, as I feel the thread may be get flooded with irrelevant information to distract attention from its essence. Atabəy (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkey is not a historical term. Mongolia was a single empire for one time and has a template. So your comparisons are not valid. Persia/Iran had various empires (Medes, Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, Ilkhanids, Safavids, Qajars and etc.). These empire ruled outside of modern Iran and thus the term greater Iran by such qualified scholars as J.P. Mallory and Richard Frye. Islamic sources as well as modern specialist sources still use the term Iran for a vast expanse of the Seljuq empire. So have scholars [[27]] [[28]]. They do not use "greater Turkey". As far as I can see, the template is not making any political advocation and that is your WP:OR linking an unrelated statement about pan-Iranism to a template which has nothing to do with it. But as scholars I brought state: Same source: "Abu Sa'id Last effective Mongol khan of Greater Iran"[10]. Or Richard Frye, Cambridge history of Iran and Mallory and etc. The Qajar empire which included various territories outside of modern Iran was also called Iran, not Turkey or Arabia or etc. So overall it has the dual meaning which is used by Frye (which you have quoted in other articles). And obviously having a history template for what a term many scholars have used is common in Wikipedia. If you find major scholars like J.P. Mallory and Richard Frye and etc. use such a term as "greater Turkey", then go make a template for the history of that land. Else your comparison is invalid. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Atabəy, you are mixing things up again. "Greater Iran" is not political doctrine, it is a scholarly/Iranology term which means "Iranian cultural region". Check the definitions given by the 529 Google Books results. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And how about 437 Google Books results for Greater Turkey or whatever applies to Turkic cultural region? Or 440 Google books results for Greater Arabia? What about citing the magnitude of sources showing the extent of Greater Mongol Empire. Is this a reason to reference MODERN! countries or regions as part of "Greater Iran"? Atabəy (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Citing a term is not good enough. You need to read the books. Where are the scholars of the field that define Greater Turkey? It was mentioned that Frye, JP Mallory (a very well known scholar equal to and possibly greater than Frye), Cook, and etc have used the term. For example major Iranologist have defined "Greater Iran".

Greater Arabia can have a template since Islamic sources refer to Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, UAE, and etc. as Greater Arabia. However which SCHOLAR (turcologist) has used the term "Greater Turkey" for a span of 2000-3000 years of history? If the problem is a modern countries, sure the template should be up to the Qajar era. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to bring to administrators attention that the user above has been making nothing but battle field edits in the past week and calling scholars he does not like Touraj Atabaki as "pan-Iranist turkophobes" without absolutely any 3rd party source! This behaviour has not only be done with scholars, but even non-Iranian users whom he calls "Turkophones" [29]. Two arbcomms, 1rr restriction and some topic bans was simply not enough to get the point across that Wikipedia is not a battle field. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep focusing on user instead of topic? Please, WP:AGF, I haven't violated any rule by opening a thread and requesting something per rules. I presented you with books. Scholars talked about historical cultural concept, not a historical region including modern countries and regions. Abuse of this is called irredentism, which is how Pan-Iranism and the whole thing with Greater Iran is properly named by scholars. Let's create a template for Greater England for any country speaking English. This is nonsense, but I will let the reviewers decide on that. All your arguments are relevant to Template talk:History of Greater Iran, so discuss there instead of opening another WP:FORUM here. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about the number of sources, it's about the content of the sources. If you actually read the definitions given in those sources, you'll understand that "Greater Iran" has a different context than "Greater Turkey" . The former is a scholarly term that Iranologists use to refer to "Iranian cultural region" in the past, the latter is political term used by advocates whose "objective is creating Greater Turkey" in the future. Either way, I couldn't care less about this template. If the name "Iran" bothers you so much, propose moving the page to "Template:History of Persia", I'll support the move. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:History of Greater Iran which I request to be looked at is different from Template:History of Iran, which I find appropriate. My concern is not with name Iran or Persia, but with usage of the word "Greater" including existing foreign nations. That's a political doctrine. Atabəy (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you are not here to do unbias work. You say:"Scholars talked about historical cultural concept, not a historical region ". I brought scholars who clearly state: "Abu Sa'id Last effective Mongol khan of Greater Iran". You say the name Iran was not used in Safavid era, but all you had to do was look at source. These are not pan-Iranist, irredentist scholars. Template of modern Iran is about the country Iran. But some of these empires ruled outside of Iran as well but were based in Iran. If you are concerned with modern countries, then one can change it to Iranian Plateau, Central Asia, Caucasus and Mesopatamia which were ruled by major dynasties. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are really Wikipedia:DISRUPT. There are some points on the term "Greater Iran" which I try to explain:
  1. the scholarly usage and definition of it. (a scholarly work with title "greater Iran", journal called Iran from 40-50 years ago and highly respected and speaks freely of the concept "Greater Iran". Also scholarly works, also works by J. M. Cook a scholar considering the concept, in contrast to Persia, in ancient history from the viewpoint of Greeks. Also note that from the viewpoint of Iranians and Romans the term Eranshahr is/was used, even today, in a meaning quite similar to Greater Iran.)
  2. the very definition of it, that is sphere of cultural influence as well as a place of common history (cf. Frye and Britannica which says "..Iranian people, settled in greater Iran" so this shows the very very old meaning of Greater Iran in a sense that you want).
  3. the term is from the Iranian term "Iranzamin" which has been used in Persian literature by Sufists too who could hardly be called nationalist.
  4. the term is not a 20th century invention (per above).
So I am not sure, if I understand why you link different terms with no historical relevance. Now if you want to change the term "Greater Iran" to "Iranzamin" then just do a move request. But according to WP:NAMING the term Greater Iran has to be used.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
There is actually a whole book on the issue [[30]] as well called Iranshahr. You are right the terms used by Timurd historians is Iranshahr and others have used Iranzamin as well (Safavids for example). Greater Iran is used by orientalists. However the user simply just wants to narrow it to 20th century politics. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think if the name is a problem, Kurdo77's suggestion of Persia (modern Iran is part of what is known as ancient Persia and Persian empires) is good. Another suggestion is Iranshahr. However I note the term "Greater Iran" (despite the way it might sound) has been used by major scholars of Iranology as both a cultural and historical /territory concept. We can then put it on the footnote that it is also called "Greater Iran" by scholars. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To address Atabəy's concern, I have, for now, removed the modern states section, until somebody who is better with the codes than me, can restore the dynasties that were removed, under a new section categorized by geographical locations like Central Asia, as oppose to modern political entities. Either that, or we could just move the page to "Template:History of Persia". --Kurdo777 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kurdo, I think your suggestion is alright. And moving to History of Persia would be helpful, or merger with History of Iran template. The Greater thing is just too POV. Nepaheshgar, please, do not engage in WP:BATTLE on Pan-Turkism with this sort of edits. Atabəy (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Iran is a modern country and part of ancient Persia. So obviously it is not a merger, however Kurdo77's suggestion is good and I hope this is resolved in the talkpage. Also assume good faith WP:AGF. I can edit any topic whenever I choose. Thanks --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Iran and Persia are the two names used for the same country. There is no such thing as "Greater Iran" in either geographical or political context, neither Afghanistan nor Uzbekistan are Iran. Atabəy (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, read the sources above. "Greater Iran" is the same as Iranshahr, Iranzamin and etc. Iran is a country with 1.6 km square area. Afghanistan, Uzbekistan in historical texts are called Iran. Both the names Afghanistan and Uzbekistan are fairly new. When Samanids, Ghaznavids and etc. controlled the area, the area was called Iran not Afghanistan, Uzbekistan. There is both primary and secondary sources with this regard. However, I hope I do not have to explain this again, because I have done so several times. So the suggestions are Iranshahr, Persia, Iranzamin, Greater Iran. That should be in talkpage. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am still expecting administrator's decision as to the name Template:History of Greater Iran, which I think is irredentist, WP:POV and based solely on Iranian claims (as are Persian words, Iranzamin and Iranshahr, unfit to describe a concrete contemporary geographic region in English-language Wikipedia). Atabəy (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You might think it is irredentist, but that is not the opinon of Iranologist or J.P. Mallory. Iranshahr/Iran-Zamin are historical words and there is even an English book on it [31]. Overall, these terms Iranshahr, Iran-Zamin, Greater Iran are not irredentist. I believe admins might want to also check your recent edit to pan-Turkism where you defined it as a peaceful green concept [32] and compare it to your edit on pan-Iranism which you called an irredentist concept [33]. It is apparant that by now, your edit patterns in a Kamikaze style are designed to close your account but also bring down users whom you have disagreed with in the past. After all, a user that has 1rr , been to two arbcomms and banned from articles is now trying to discredit Iranian users infront of admins.

So that explains the recent edit warring on several articles. And note, my edit on pan-Turkism is not a retaliation but an article that needs improvement. So WP:AGF. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, again, stick to the subject instead of constantly attacking a user in bad faith and due to an emotional outbreak over the edits. Claiming that "I am discrediting Iranian users in front of admins" is an insult to admins above all, as if they cannot read or think by themselves. And I think attention should instead be brought to your edits targeting subject matter based on POV political opinion. Let's just see a simple example of the dichotomy in your position:
  • On Pan-Iranism/Aryanism - an ideology that advocates solidarity and reunification of Iranian peoples living in the Iranian continent and Iranian plateau (Falāte Īrān)
  • On Pan-Turkism - a political movement started more than 100 years ago aiming to unite the various Turkic peoples into a modern political state
Iranian Continent??? :)) I thought geography knows existence of only the following continents: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia. There is no such thing as "Iranian continent"! Another expression of nationalist irredenta.
Interestingly, the ideology which resulted in the most brutal war of human history and destruction of 54 million people is considered advocating solidarity and unification (not to mention at the expense of eradicating Jews, Turks, etc.) is exposed in more positive light than the ideology which brought some 150 million people to liberty and independent though separate (defying the unity claim above) statehoods. Atabəy (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You must have an understanding problem. Continent does not just mean Asia, Africa, North America.. "Iranian continent" has been used [34]. Look up the definition of continent to see the various ways it can be used.
Aryanism defines Nordic blond hair and blue eyes people as Aryans and superior to all races and creeds. Iranians do not have blond hair and blue eyes and would be considered as inferior by Aryanism. However, Aryans, in the true definition sense meaning linguistic ancestors of Indo-Iranians refers to Iranians. So connecting Iranians to Aryanism is simply done by ignorant people who do not know definitions. The only connection between the Aryanism of hitler and Iranians is the word Aryan. Just like many of your links for "greater Turkey" are about the bird Turkey and not the country Turkey. Or pan-Turkism and Turk have similar words "Turk", but it does not make say Orhan Pamuk or Taner Ackam a pan-Turk.
Of course an ideology like pan-Turkism that is responsible for clearance of original inhabitants of Anatolia and Caucasus like Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and etc. is not a progressive ideology (pan-Turkism). That is nearly 2 million wiped out, so it is no different than Nazis. You are not going to convince anyone on this message board that pan-Turkism is a peaceful green ideology like your edits showed but are only displaying ignorance. Just like your previous attempts at removing information and changing words on Armenian Genocide shows that you share such an ideology in the true sense (which by the way denial of it makes a criminal in some countries) and will not fool any admin with your crying of wolf about "Iranian nationalism" in Wikipedia. Specially after being topic banned due to nationalistic editing. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, take a look at Aryanism: The earliest epigraphically-attested reference to the word arya occurs in the 6th century Behistun inscription, which describes itself to have been composed "in arya [language or script]" (§ 70). As is also the case for all other Old Iranian language usage, the arya of the inscription does not signify anything but "Iranian".

If I was to promote pan-Turkism ideology, I would not keep the criticism section in the article. Yes, I removed your POV/OR on Armenian genocide relation to pan-Turkism, because the ideology started in Russian Empire and most of it origins have to do with non-Ottoman part. Additionally, the claim that pan-Turkism was a cause for 1915 events is a claim of few Armenian scholars, only based on the fact that CUP was in favor of pan-Turkic views. However, CUP also cooperated with Armenian Revolutionary Federation in governing the empire, is this a ground to claim that ARF was involved in 1915 events as party responsible of Armenian deaths? Hence your edit seems to be driven by a nationalist passion, WP:BATTLE and Turcophobic opinion. Because the discussion was about Pan-Iranian irredentism and "Greater Iran" nonsense. The fact that pan-Turkism is even brought up here, ONLY due to my claimed ethnic background and absolutely nothing else, reveals the WP:BATTLE approach on your behalf rather than a sincere debate on the topic. I hope the admins take note of that. Atabəy (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry your opinion is fringe and POV. And your edit pattern is very important to users. For example users should be aware that this person denies the Armenian Genocide (which is a fringe view). If it is about WP:BATTLE most of your edits have been about Armenian and Iranian articles. Why not concentrate elsewhere? And no the fact that pan-Turkism was brought up here is your dual approach to pan-Turkism and pan-Iranism article. I created the critism section for both pan-Iranism and pan-Turkism. That shows an even approach. The Armenian genocide section on pan-Turkism cannot be removed since it is sourced and the young Turks held pan-Turkist ideology. If you have a problem with it, consider talking to other users like Dbachmann. As shown pan-Iranism is a 20th century concept, "Greater Iran" is a historical concept (used by scholars) and Aryanism is concept originated in Germany and has nothing to do with Iranians. You are mixing these up on purpose or out of ignorance. As per phobia, mind WP:NPA, you can't discuss users. Pan-Turkism in general is Armeno-Phobic first, then Russo-Phobic, Greek-Phobic and then Irano-Phobic although different flavors occur. Anyhow, I'll let other editors take a note of what you said above. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, the thread is dedicated to Template:History of Greater Iran, which included Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, i.e. contemporary non-Iranian nations. The issue was partially addressed by Kurdo, and I thank him for that, though not fully. I think the template should be merged with Template:History of Iran as it's pretty much the same thing. Again, all of your emotional outbreaks and attacks against me, violating WP:NPA, on Armenian issue, Pan-Turkism, etc. are irrelevant to the subject of this thread. If you want to further debate on it, please, switch to talk pages of the relevant articles, instead of your WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX here. Go ahead say the final word, as I see there is no other way to let admins review this thread. Atabəy (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Again equating Greater Iran (a name used for areas of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Caucasus) and etc. in numerous historical texts has nothing to do with Pan-Iranism. Furthermore Pan-Iranism has nothing to do with blue-eyed blond-hair Aryanism. Thus when you make such weird connections, one really cannot {{WP:AGF]]. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Atabəy, why are you dragging this on and on? You said that your main concern was the modern section, and I removed the entire section in question. If your problem is now with the name of the template, that can be addressed too, by renaming the page to "Template:History of Persa" with a formal request on the talk page. But the template shouldn't be merged with "Template:History of Iran" as this is the English Wikipedia and in English language and literature, modern state of Iran is merely a part of, and not the same thing as, ancient Persia. There were many dynasties whose center of power was located outside of modern Iran, but called their state Iran (in English Persia) nonetheless. Merging these two templates would be like merging a template about Prussia with a template about Germany. That's just my opinion. If you disagree, I would urge you to request such merger, through the formal channels, on the article's talk page. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

Take a look at the discussion here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admins_vs_contributors which should be of interest to almost everyone here even if they aren't interested in the specific article. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-admin... I agree with the end results. About time that someone dealt firmly with that particular Fringe theory. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
CoM tried to revert to the version from the banned editors, and it appears he and perhaps other editors plan to keep trying. As well as possible appeals, attacks on other editors, etc. I hope it ends here but I doubt it will. I think a few editors are out to get some admins. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If CoM = Child of Midnight then he's made his first edits to the article today. Of course, I must assume this is purely disinterested on his part and has nothing to do with his feud with William M. Connolley, the admin who recently blocked him and who edited the page just before him.--Folantin (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice that another editor Dimitri Yankovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has just turned up on Ancient Egyptian race controversy as a highly probable sleeping sockpuppet of Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I hope that the article will be locked fairly soon. At the moment it seems to be attracting some of the most disruptive editors on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The article was edited for months with no problems. Recently, a few aggressive editors have gutted the article and repurposed it to focus solely on the study of ancient Egyptian ethnicity as an investigation that relates solely to afrocentrism. This is a very strange and misleading version of the long history of investigations into who the Egyptians were. I don't know why anyone would choose to rewrite and fabricate history in this way.
Investigating the situation, I reviewed the article versions and the talk page. The source of the disruption is clear. The policy violations are also clear. I'm not sure why some in the community find it appropriate to advance an innacurate POV that the discussion and debate over the ethnicity of Ancient egyptians originated in the Afrocentric movement of the early 60s, but this is easily disproven by sources discussing the issue more than 100 years earlier. The problems of a close knit group reverting to their preferred version, blocking a group of editors who disagree, and then protecting the article are disturbing. The personal attacks and intimidation engaged in by those trying to win the content dispute by abusing our policies is also troubling. If anyone has any questions I'm happy to answer them. Anyone with a modicum of academic and intellectual integrity who cares to review the article history and the discussion will find that the policy violators are not the ones who have been banned. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What CoM writes is factually incorrect. Books like that of Redford mentioned in the thread above give a clear account of what is currently believed in mainstream egyptology. Outdated sources cannot be used unless they have recently been discussed in secondary sources. What CoM has written above is pure synthesis, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, i.e. the usual indicators for fringe POV-pushing. Mathsci (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is about the debate over who the Ancient Egyptians were. And the absurd version being pushed suggests that the debate originated in the 1960s with Afrocentrism. This is clearly disproven by sources from more than 100 years before that movement. There is no synthesis or OR needed to debunk this fringe nutjobbery for the absurd nonsense it is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
please have the minimal decency to at least read the article before telling us what it "is about". No, it is not about "who the Ancient Egyptians were", that would be the scope of our Ancient Egypt article. The article is, instead, about eccentric ideas about their "race". --dab (𒁳) 19:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Question: What idea specifically do you consider "eccentric"? Mamo Kilo (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"Ancient Egypt and Black Pride". It is exactly as eccentric as "Vikings and White Pride". More to the point, both of these memes are an expression of current-day racism and have nothing to do with the bona fide study of ancient history. Now I put a question to you: is it likely that the Wikipedia community would tolerate the Stormfront / White pride crowd writing detailed articles about the white race of the Vikings? I don't think so, and I think that is as it should be. Then why have we tolerated the exact equivalent for years, the Afrocentrist / Black Pride crowd writing articles about the black race of the Egyptians? Is this some sort of "affirmative action" within the Wikipedia community? I call it pathetic. We have policies, and they apply to everyone. --dab (𒁳) 08:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is one of the worst articles on wikipedia. As I've already said on this page I've discussed the article briefly with two RL egyptologists - Geoffrey Martin and Kate Spence - just to confirm the position in mainstream egyptology. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
CoM keeps distoring what the article actually says. Yes, it concentrates on the period from the 60s onward, no, it doesn't say that it debate originated in the 60s as CoM says. It says (or said last night at least) "Although questions surrounding the race of the ancient Egyptians had occasionally arisen in 18th and 19th-century Western scholarship as part of the growing interest in attempted scientific classifications of race, in academia the meme was popularised and continued throughout the 20th century in the works of George James -- dated 1954. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
However, it is I who pointed this out and provided the sources for it. And the fact is that race, racism and controversies over such related to ancient Egypt go back to the foundation of America itself. This is documented clearly in numerous works from the time and after. Most of the controversies or debates about ancient Egypt had to do with arguments for and against slavery and for or against the biological inferiority of black Africans. That is the basis of the controversy. The same arguments about Herodatus and the Nile being in Africa have been made since the 1700s. and during the 1800s Egyptomania was sweeping America and there was a definite fixation on the race of the ancient Egyptians as part of the craze for all things Egypt. The title of the article is "Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy", not "Controversial views of Afrocentrics concerning Ancient Egypt". The title of the article does not limit the scope of the discussion to the 1960s. There are already articles on Afrocentrism and if this article is intended to Afrocentrism then it should be merged into the existing articles that already exist. However, if one is going to talk about race and ancient Egypt then one cannot avoid the overt references to race and ancient Egypt from the 18th and 19th century. These were not "fringe" views, these were front and center mainstream opinions, even if they were overtly racist.
As an example:

...but as we are merely suggesting a few topics for the reader's meditation, let us inquire, what was the type of that ancient Egyptian race which linked Africa with Asia? This interrogatory has given rise to enless discussions, nor can it, even now, be regarded as absolutely answered. For many centuries prior to the present, as readers of Rollin and of Volney may remember, the Egyptians were reputed to be Negroes and Egyptian civilization was believed to have descened the Nile from Ethiopia! Champollion, Rosseline, and others, while unanimous in overthrowing the former, to a great extent consecrated the latter of these errors, which could hardly be considered as fully refuted until the appearance of Gliddon's Chapters on Ancient Egypt, in 1843, and of Morton's Crania Aegyptiaca in 1844.

From Introduction to types of Mankind:
Hence, not only has the race of the ancient Egyptians been a subject of debate since the 18th century, but such concerns led to the first attempts to systematically analyze skulls and physical remains from Egypt as part of mainstream science, which at the time was overtly racist. Crania Aegyptiaca was written by George Morton, one of the fathers of the American School of Ethnology and one of the forerunners of modern physical anthropology. You don't get more mainstream than that and this is from the 1800s. He was racist and his efforts to study physical remains were partly driven by a desire to disprove any idea that the ancient Egyptians were black. See: or and Hence, it is impossible to claim that debates, controversies and interest in the race of the ancient Egyptians only started in the 1960s with Afrocentrics. Any idea that the study of race or racism in any aspect of the study of history or science or biology started with African Americans in the 1960s is strictly nonsense revisionary history, as all of these things started with European American whites. Not only did they create race as a subject of scientific study, but they created the idea of black and white as labels for races to begin with. None of that sort of "controversy" started with Afrocentrics.Big-dynamo (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is Big-dynamo attempting to analyse a mid-nineteenth century book? That is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Excellent secondary sources by world experts on anthropology and archaeology on the continent of Africa exist, for example the one mentioned below. I have no idea why editors choose to ignore these scholarly texts. These texts give quite a different impression of how African archaeologists and anthropologists are embarking on regional studies without preconceived ideas and within the normal framework of academic enquiry. Mathsci (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The book stands on its own and reflects the fact that in the 1800s the race of the Ancient Egyptians was being analyzed and debated in various circles. And in most of these debates, the controversial part was the idea of the Ancient Egyptians were "negroes". Suffice to say, this makes it clear that such a controversy did not start in the 1960s with Afrocentrism. Therefore, claiming that "controversial" issues of race in American thought only started in the 1960s with Afrocentrics is patently false. And if you want to know where I happened upon these authors you can look here:
In fact, the antics of people like George Robins Gliddon were so controversial that Edgar Allen Poe even wrote a story about it (Some words with a mummy):
Simply put, none of the above is fringe or WP:SYN it is simply a reflection of the fact that the ancient Egyptian race controversy has been a facet of the American discourse on race since the 18th century at least.
Big-dynamo (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

unindent; it should be clear that CoM is part of the problem, not of the solution.[35] Yes, the question of the "race of the Ancient Egyptians" would have been a viable question in 1840 to 1930 scientific racism. The question is today kept alive by racists who apparently have their mental home in the pre-WWII period. We can and do discuss scientific racism, no problem, but these articles aren't intended as being written by racists in defence of racism, per WP:TIGERS. Anyone who has difficulties understanding this after being kindly made aware of the fact five times over is either trolling, or a walking illustration of Hanlon's razor. It doesn't matter which, because either case will result in a ban. --dab (𒁳) 12:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Now I put a question to you: is it likely that the Wikipedia community would tolerate the Stormfront / White pride crowd writing detailed articles about the white race of the Vikings?" Since you have asked me - no, and my opinion is that this would certainly be "misguided pride" since the Vikings were known primarily for destruction, not for creating anything. But in this restrictive atmosphere, I am reluctant to divulge any more about what I think; I have already observed too many users who get involved, being banned or threatened when their opinions turned out not to be the "correct" ones. Mamo Kilo (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have already observed too many users who get involved, being banned or threatened when their opinions turned out not to be the "correct" ones -- Nice try Muntuwandi. When people disruptively push a fringe POV they should get banned -- topic banned or otherwise. Editors who are incapable of dealing with a topic ban by taking some time off and considering their approach to a subject matter and instead start disrupting various community forums and/or socking are probably incapable of being productive members of this project. Personally I'm surprised that the rest of community is putting up with the level of disruption going on at ANI presently. I see someone finally came to their senses.PelleSmith (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
So you are accusing me of being User:Muntuwandi now, correct? Mamo Kilo (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
it doesn't matter who you are, per WP:DUCK. You refuse to Get It, consequently your account is going to be sanctioned under WP:DISRUPT. Easy. You are correct that exchange of opinions isn't the purpose of this site, and you would be well advised to expound your ideas at another venue, such as google knol, blogspot or google groups. --dab (𒁳) 13:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What did I do wrong? I asked a question, you answered it and asked me another question about my opinion, and I answered as carefully as I could, to avoid being accused or threatened, but I was immediately accused and threatened anyway. Did I give the "wrong" answer? Or why exactly am I being discriminated against now? Mamo Kilo (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
you are not being "discriminated against". To the exact contrary, you are expected to respect the project rules and guidelines like everyone else. You are entitled to your private opinions, but they are irrelevant here. You basically said that you think that we should not allow white pride articles because such pride is "misguided", to the implication that we should allow black pride ones because, apparently, such pride is not "misguided". If these are your criteria for inclusion, you are clearly misguided as to the nature of this project. You want to read WP:TRUTH, WP:TIGERS, and if you still cannot understand what Wikipedia is trying to be, you could try WP:MENTOR, but in any case you will go well beyond the scope of this noticeboard, or the ANI one. --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you may be putting words in my mouth, or condemning me for what you imagine I might be thinking. I assure you, it never once occurred to me to say any such thing. Mamo Kilo (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Perhaps newly arrived editors to Ancient Egyptian race controversy should acquire more skills in locating secondary sources. I made a search on google scholar for "egyptian" and "afrocentrism". The following mainstream academic book, published after a major conference in 2000 at University College London, seems to be an excellent secondary source:

  • O'Connor, David; Reid, Andrew (2003), Ancient Egypt in Africa, Cavendish Publishing, ISBN 1819720004

The contributors are all established academics. There is an article by John North on "Attributing colour to the ancient egyptians", another by Bernal and a long general introduction by the two editors. The fact that no article in this book has been cited is problematic; amongst other things the book specifically deals with afrocentrism and egyptology. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an odd pattern in this discussion and it seems to me some editors are being treated with a double standard. When they refer to claims that ancient Egyptians were Black, dab, Mathsci and others inform them that this article is not about the actual race of ancient Egyptians, it is about a controversy over how they be identified. okay, that sounds right to me. But thn when they refer to sources from the nineteenth century on the race of ancient Egyptians, they are asked why they use these out-dated sources when current anthropological and archeological research says otherwise. Now suddenly it sounds like this article really is about the actual identification of ancient Egyptians. It seems to me that if this article is about a controversy, there must be a minimum of two sides to the controversy. Some editors have argued that one side is afrocentric. Okay. other editors have argued that the other side is Eurocentric. Well, this makes sense to me. The importance of 19th century sources is not to make claims about the current state of scientific research, it is to provide historical context for the controversy. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Finally, this does not belong on the fringe theory noticeboard. The Race of Ancient Egyptians Controversy should be describing a controversy in the popular domain. It sounds to me like it would help a great deal if the article made it clear that there is no controversy among mainstream historians and archeologists, and that the controversy is outside of academe. In this context it is not a fringe theory, it is a popular non-scholarly set of beliefs. And there is nothing wrong with Wikipedia having an article on this. We have an article on evolution - we exclude arguments about creationism from that article because in the context of biological science creationism is a fringe theory. Likewise, fringe theories should simply be kept out of the article on Egyptian history. But we also have a separate article on creationism, and another article on the evolution-creation debate. In the context of these two articles it does not matter that creationism is for biologists a fringe theory. These articles are covering arguments that occur in the popular sphere. That is what the article on the Race of Ancient Egyptian Controversy article should do. If we can have an article on the evolution-creationist controversy, we can have this article. And it has to provide both sides of the controversy, both those who claim ancient Egyptians were black, and those who claim they were white. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
On June 18 Paul B suggested that an approach advocated by Zara1706 could be a productive way to reframe and develop the article. I urge Ancient Observer, WDFord, and other good faith editors to follow this approach. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually one cannot say there is no controversy in mainstream Egyptology. There is a lot of controversy in mainstream Egyptology. First and foremost there is a lot of controversy over Thutankhamun himself. Why do you think they have done so many forensic reconstructions of Tut? And every time, there are people who argue over its accuracy. Not to mention the people who argue over the fact that you have a perfectly good golden face mask. Then you have the fact that there is no clear identification as who his parents are and therefor a lot of debates and "controversies" over his ancestry(often fueled by speculation). One of the most "controversial" aspects of his parentage being whether or not his mother was a foreign princess. So because of that, but they have 2 dna labs to try and recover the DNA of Tut in order to identify his families genetic fingerprint. That in itself is controversial because of many reasons: one the statements by Hawass claiming that DNA is unreliable, 2 the idea that foreigners should not do the testing and 3 the fact that Hawass' handling of Tut's mummy was claimed to be unprofessional and exposed it to modern DNA contamination. They claim that they will have a result in 2009/2010. The point is that there is a lot of investigation in mainstream Egyptology that is dedicated to unraveling the biological and physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, including specific ancient Egyptian figures. And because there are so many gaps in knowledge (often filled in by wild speculation) there is a lot of "controversy" or "debates" over such issues. There is no central board of scientific inquiry for ancient Egypt and many scholars often produce studies and reports that are at odds with one another. And that right there makes it clear that even though they aren't in the streets protesting and throwing trash cans, there are a lot of issues about ancient Egypt that are the subject of debate, study and "controversy" to this day. (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Slr: 19th century documents are primary sources; they can be used if quoted by a recognized recent secondary source. I've had experience with this in one of the ArbCom cases with User:PHG. Accounts of the life of Auguste Pavie and contemporary events in Siam are available in contemporary late 19C documents, but to write an article these must be quoted and given their correct context in more recent secondary recognized documents. The same applied to accounts of the Crusades: thereagain 19C genealogies are available but recognized secondary accounts have to be used for articles like Guy of Ibelin, bishop of Limassol. The same applies here: using the 19C documents directly or synthesising historical developments from them is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We have to find a recognized secondary source that discusses and evaluates this history and report on that. Although Slr does not seem to agree, the 2000 conference proceedings that I have mentioned does provide at least one account like that. Editors should search for other accounts or look in the references of those proceedings for more literature. I think Slr and I agree that the first step in writing any WP article, whether in the arts or sciences, is to have as large a set of representative secondary sources as possible. In the case of a possible controversy like this, if indeed it is viewed as such, this is even more important than ever. References should not be excluded for the sake of convenience nor should there be any kind of prejudging of subject matter. Slr comes to this from the point of view of anthropology and Dougweller has considerable experience in egyptology: perhaps one way out is to choose a better title which can include all the scholarly material available, avoiding the use of either of the words "race" and "controversy" in the title. So far there seems to be very little evidence that egyptologists recognize a controversy here, so it might be better to avoid a title which begs the question. One alternative title could be Ancient Egypt in Africa, hardly original, but ... The conference proceedings does discuss both eurocentrism and afrocentrism in various places. Mathsci (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually that is one interperetation of wiki policy that is generally accurate but does not apply to the specific point. The specific point is that the subject of the ancient Egyptian race has been debated in America in and outside of scholarly circles since the 18th century. Primary resources serve to provide the various points of view from the time and do not constitute any sort of synthesis. If I say that scholar x was racist and felt y about "race" and I produce a primary source written by that scholar then that is the best source you can get. Secondary sources are not better than primary sources written by the individual when it comes to understanding the views of that individual at a point in time. Also primary sources serve to verify that specific ideas were being discussed and debated, without getting into the specifics of the debate itself. Certainly, the works of Samuel George Morton are very important in this respect as they are a fundamental aspect of the racial thinking and development of the idea of race within the scholarly community at the time and this debate over race and racism was undoubtedly mainstream scholarship with various views on the issues being hotly debated. "Race" is a development of European and American whites as a scientific topic of study with all sorts of notions and ideas about the origins of the human species. And Samuel George Morton is acknowledged as one of the forerunners of modern physical anthropology and he himself writes of his fascination with ancient Egypt as the inspiration for his investigations. His study of Egyptian crania is considered one of the important steps in the development of the science of physical anthropology. He was a member of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia and presented his Crania Aegyptiaca there in the 1850s. This certainly is no "fringe" organization in American life. That is not synthesis or original research that is simply a fact of history. And on top of that, nothing about race in America is something that started in the 1960s. In fact the 1960s represented an end in many ways to the outright overt controversies and debates over race, because of the civil rights movement and the laws repealing legal segregation. Hence, any historical focus on the 1960s as a beginning of "race controversies" in any sphere of American life is nonsense. Sure, for the purposes of a wiki sources are required, but some things are common sense.
African liberation movements and ideologies have always made use of Egypt as the basis of their arguments against racism in America and this certainly did not start in the 1960s. You can find such writings going back to the 1800s. And other views of the ancient Egyptians and their "race" can also be found in other writings from various authors from the same time period. Anyway, I only became aware of this information myself within the last few weeks, but here are the relevant secondary sources that back up the primary sources:
(Race,Racism and Science)
(Icons of Horror and supernatural: mummies in American culture)
(Egypt land: race and nineteenth century America)
(W.E.B. Dubois on Race and culture)
(Classical Black Nationalism)
(The Golden Age of Black Nationalism: 1850 - 1925)
(What is a Negro: Marcus Garvey)
As you can see none of this "controversy over race" and ancient Egypt is new in America. It has been there since the 18th century and primarily was based around arguments for and against racism and slavery. In fact, to me it is fringe nonsense to suggest that African Americans just suddenly came up with "race concepts" for no reason during the 1960s, as if the rest of America was not concerned with it for the previous 200 years. That is strictly historical revisionism that attempts to hide the overt trends of race and racism in American society that were fundamental to the development of black nationalist thought as part of the struggle for civil rights. There is no effect without a cause and certainly black liberation theology is no cause in itself. It is the result of a greater causation and represents the effect. It isn't the other way around.Big-dynamo (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize that you consider the article to be about race relations in the United States of America. The primary purpose of the article is surely not its relation to black nationalism in the United States. I thought Slrubenstein was suggesting a far broader article. After all, the conference proceedings I suggested discusses the emergence of regional studies in arch and anth conducted in Africa by African scholars which are independent of Ancient Egypt or the USA. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I never said it was about black nationalism or race relations in America. What I am pointing out is that it is a controversy that primarily occurred in America since the 18th century due to the development of the concept of race in scholarly circles, race science, colonialism, racism and black nationalist thought. It is that set of social factors along with the timing of the "discovery" of ancient Egypt in the 18th century that brought the controversy into existence. Considering that Europeans that created and dominate the "science" of Egyptology and are the primary backers, financiers and institutions doing the research since the 18th century, it only makes sense that most debates occur within a European frame of reference, not Egyptian. Big-dynamo (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Egyptology was primarily European in the 18th century. The American education system was hardly developed at that time. I'm not sure what you're claiming. Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The point here is that it was Europeans who created Egyptology, Europeans created the concept of "race" as we know it, Europeans created "race science" which later became physical anthropology and Europeans who created the "race controversies" over the last 300 years because of their own racism and colonial conquests. It is those things that form the background of the ancient Egyptian race controversy as it is primarily in response to European ideas of race and racism that has caused the debates and controversies over the issue. It is not a controversy that originated with Egyptian people and Egyptian writers or Egyptian scholars. This is purely due to the writing and ideas of Europeans and their attempts to define and categorize human populations that has caused this debate to begin with, followed by arguments against such attempts by Europeans and other scholars of various backgrounds.Big-dynamo (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading the comments in this thread, I see now the position that some have against the "black-egyptian" (BE)theory, even though I still believe they were black. Some indicating that BE is a fringe theory have a belief that it’s about black people making Ancient Egypt an expression of black pride. But that is not the purpose of BE contributors. In the Vikings example further up this thread, "Ancient Egypt and Black Pride". It is exactly as eccentric as "Vikings and White Pride". Yes it is eccentric, but what is NOT eccentric is this: Vikings were white. Pride or not, we cannot escape the notion that the Vikings were as white ethnically as modern day white people. So perhaps the notion that the terms “black” and “white” are not acceptable terms to describe ancient people? Ok fine. How then do we express the fact that the Ancient Egyptians shared traits that are found in black people today? Because the BE contributors and BE believers in general see a tactic that is very disrespectful. We see that the Ancient Egyptians (AE), when their own representations show characteristics found exclusively or primarily in modern day black people, those traits are explained with other anti-BE theories (Marfan's Syndrome, Dynastic Race Theory, wigs, etc). Secondly, the characteristics are not rare, they are the most common. Average AE people had kinky hair, brown skin, etc. This is the only group of ancients mind you that has these traits that are somehow classified AS Caucasoids. Then to argue against this is fringe? No, that's impossible. You can basically take it like this: Ancient Egyptians, if you took one from the past, and placed him/her here today, they would be viewed not as white/Caucasian (even if they do have some skeletal traits), they would at least be viewed as biracial (black/white) and more often than not as black. With the "Caucasoid" designation, this is also a bait and switch. Why? Caucasoid deals exclusively with skeletal designation. I am sure that a large chunk of African-Americans who otherwise are considered black by every understanding, if you took their skeletons, measured them, they would be reclassified as Caucasoid. Caucasoid itself has morphed from a clear expression of white racial classification to now a grouping meant to politically link white people with ancient societies that they otherwise have NO connection to. Ethiopians, classified as Caucasoids, but they have zero historical connection with Caucasoids in Europe, and Ethiopians have far more connected with Negroids in Africa, Black Africans throughout the continent. So to say that the Ancient Egyptians, a Nilotic people by the way, are not black and to paint the BE theory as fringe is simply out of touch with the facts. Unless you redefine every other noun in a way to exclude them of course. Negroid, Black, Caucasoid, Afro-Asiatic, etc... if you redefine those nouns to exclude the black presence and to forge links to white ancestors, then yes, you could then paint it as fringe. But that is an elaborate POV tactic, and the BE contributors see it, and that is why we react so strongly. Not because we are trying to express black pride. Please, stop relating to us as if we are child minded and unsophisticated in the art of objectivity. When we see this POV tactic is attempted and we point it out, we get talked down to about the rules. It is insulting and partly why we react uncivil. We know the rules, we are pointing out how others are breaking them without consequences to push the anti-BE POV. It's time to move past that. The Ancient Egyptian BE theory is not fringe and as you can see has a large contributive body. --Panehesy (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Second comment. My grammar above is disjointed. I understand that. I want to add also that the issue here goes beyond Ancient Egypt. Articles about black people, skin color for example are designed to maintain POV that is inaccurate. the skin color article is still using a scale that overempathizes the very small variations in skin tone between white people, while painting in a broad stereotype the far more diverse skin color among black people. This method, an actual reverse of reality, is maintined BY contributors in the article for reasons that lack common sense. Read their comments! They push a skin color scale that is now debunked and is now fringe, yet it has such prominence in the article itself. --Panehesy (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Starchild skull

Strong campaign by IPs to try and insist, contra sources, that the father wasn't human. Please watchlist this, and be liberal with the revert button. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) topic banned five editors from the race controversy article. Claims of support and opposition to the bans involve claims about NPOV and fringe theories. Thus, it would be invaluable if some experienced regulars from this noticeboard participate in the review of the topic bans at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review. Thank you. --Vassyana (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to "review" stuff. This is just wikilawyering, just keep nagging people until you get your way. I don't see why anyone in their right mind would think of rewarding this kind of approach with their attention. --dab (𒁳) 17:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Race, Evolution, and Behavior

Lots of criticism has been removed from this article recently and an NPOV tag added. Some criticisms of t being a quotefarm looks justified, but due to the nature of the article I'd like to request more eyes to review the changes and watchlist this and related pages. (I hope racism is a fringe position!) Verbal chat 07:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

George Trenholm biography

In the George Trenholm biography, an editor inserted his fringe theory that the fictitious character Rhett Butler in the novel Gone with the Wind is modeled after George Trenholm.

I tagged, challenged and removed the fringe theory almost one year ago. There are simply no reliable sources on this subject, other than the self-published book by the creator of this theory. Just recently, another editor believed the theory should be included in the biography, and inserted:

It is claimed that novelist Margaret Mitchell patterned her fictional character, Rhett Butler, on the life of Trenholm

The references given are:

  • The publisher of the fringe theory
  • Confederate Charleston by Robert N. Rosen…page 151..”There are those who believe that Margaret Mitchell based her fictional hero, Rhett Butler, on Trenholm”
  • Ashley Hall, SC by Iieana Strauch…page 10…”Trenholm was a man of charm and is rumored to be the man after whom Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind as modeled”

This has lead to an edit war, as the references given are not solid enough to be included in an historical figure biography. The references are repeating hearsay/rumors and do not go into explanation on the matter. The 3O who is trying to assist is on the fence, but cited WP:UNDO and the claim/rumor should be dropped if no WP:RS could be cited.

Discussion here: Talk:George_Trenholm Jim (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box & the National Review top 100 books list

In an article about the intelligent design book Darwin's Black Box, is it appropriate to mention that the book made it onto the National Review "100 Best Non-Fiction Books Of The Century" list? This is being discussed at Talk:Darwin's Black Box#Inclusion of National Review ranking.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is attempting to present Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a legitimate scientist, and his claims as legitimate theoretical biology and morphogenesis research. Greater scrutiny would be welcome. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I heard this guy on the museum of curiosity. He was good, until he started talking about his pet "theories". Verbal chat 07:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) A lot of it reads like WP:OR. One of the citations in his proposed text points to a wikipedia article Wolpert-Sheldrake Genome Wager which turns out to be a redirect to the Rupert Sheldrake. Alfonzo Green has created an infinite do loop! Mathsci (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I redirected the Wolpert-Sheldrake Genome Wager article, as the only sources for it were Wolpert & Sheldrake themselves (no third-party sources = no WP:NOTE & violation of WP:V). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Oddly enough I think they were discussing that on BBC Radio 4 earlier this week (Start the week, Monday 13th at 9 I think). Verbal chat 09:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Almost :) It was the Today programme at 8:50 and can be heard here. Apparently this is linked to an article in last week's New Scientist here. This week there's an interview with Martin Fleischmann .... Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going to say at 8:50 you can't expect me to be notice details like that, but then I live in France... ah the young researchers life (between grants). I got the day right at least :) It doesn't help that the BBC gives me the schedule in French time, very confusing! That rubbish about the dog is hard to credit to a scientist... I seem to remember doing behavioural conditioning at school. Verbal chat 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Verbal this is a formal warning that I will take you to ArbCom if you continue to make assertions like this. It is me that lives in France and is a scientific researcher: please stop this identity theft. Besides 8.50 = 9.50 in France when you will have had your second "petite tasse de café", bought your courgettes and époissess at the marché and started rereading Carla Bruni's retrospective collection of essays on French Enlightenment philosophers before the first great thought of the day. Not for one tiny second do you fool me - the little grey cells, they are still working, monsieur. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm, should we run our own variant of American Idol called 'French-based Researcher' in which these two can battle it out for the sole claim to this title? >:) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It would very much depend on what prize was on offer for the winner :-) Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Bragging rights to being the (definitive) 'French-based Researcher', o'course. What more could you wish for? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
(gallic shrug) Mathsci (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
<garlic shrimp> :P HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I loved the bit about how salamander legs growing back was proof of morphic resonance. If that's the case why don't human legs grow back?!?Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yikes! How had I not heard of this guy. Clear pseudoscience and should be tagged as such. I've changed around some wording to comply with WP:NPOV and am watching the page and seeing if there is any consensus on more significant changes.Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

it is funny how people like Sheldrake in retrospect have a huge "1980s" stamped right across their foreheads. The 80s were a crazy decade which is only beginning to emerge from the shadow of the 60s and 70s to which it was long taken as being a kind of dull epilogue. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Green is now attempting to recreate Wolpert-Sheldrake Genome Wager as The Genome Wager (still with nary a third party source in cite). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Boniface Adoyo

This article came up on a list of stuff to do. I don't want to touch it because I can't maintain NPOV. in 2006 he wanted to remove from public view some very important fossils. here's link to sort of reliable uk paper guardian observer hope someone can help with at least the ref for the hiding fossils thing NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the version before the IP got through with it is a little less, um, polemical, but in any case a check through Google News reveals a great deal of imbalance in leaning on his opposition to evolution as his only claim to fame. Mangoe (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism and science

less abysmal than the recently addressed Science and the Bible but still worth a look. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomas à Becket vs. Thomas Becket

The article on Thomas (à) Becket (1118-1170) claims that the often used "à" in his name is and always has been incorrect. The only source given for this claim is John Strype's 1694 work Memorials of Thomas Cranmer. This book was written over 500 years after Becket's death, and it was written about Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556), not Becket. It does not seem like this source is credible or relevant enough to override all of the sources who use the "à", including: the Oxford Dictionary of English, the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, and Chambers Biographical Dictionary (all given in the Becket article).

I think you have the wrong notice board... Whether we should spell his name with an à or not is not an issue for us to help you with... there isn't a fringe theory involved Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Peacocking and puffery at Ian Stevenson

This article is having problems with its lead at the moment, with an editor insisting on inserting peacock terms into the lead, puffery, and minimising the conclusion that his work was not accepted by the scientific community. The article has got a lot better, but it shouldn't be allowed to turn into a whitewash. More eyes please, Verbal chat 10:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Diff showing problem edit here (SECURE) Verbal chat 10:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I see the latest talk page comments include accusations of "censorship" and arguments that reincarnation research is neither pseudoscience nor fringe. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We have what could develop into a severe problem here. An admin has showed up, declaring that other people are violating ArbCom sanctions and insinuating that she's going to get them blocked. At the same time she is demanding that no article can mention the term "pseudoscientific" (of which she says "please believe me, is a completely meaningless term" and that those using it "are only displaying their own ignorance") despite the fact that the two ArbCom decisions behind WP:FRINGE explicitly approve of the use of the term. When we have someone misrepresenting a decision like this and taking a very aggressive stance -- especially considering the admin in question has been known to make rather unorthodox decisions on her own in the past -- I think it's important that a broad range of editors including other admins watch what's going on in case it escalates beyond mere bluff and bluster. DreamGuy (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like this needs to be bumpped up to ANI. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If other people look into it and decide it's serious enough, by all means. I'm done with edits for today (spend more time on here than I really should as it is), so I won't be involved for a day or weekend, depending. DreamGuy (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally I was surprised that such a skilled editor began taking an antagonistic stance. The National Science Foundation clearly does not feel pseudoscience is a meaningless term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought SV had lost the tools, so I wasn't too worried about any bluster. Did SV get them back? I have no problem with AE sanctions being employed there, but I do think they're being pointed in the wrong direction. Verbal chat 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll be honest: reading the article itself for the first time (this version), without knowledge of any specific active disputes, it looks pretty decent to me. There's a summary of Stevenson's beliefs, hypotheses, and research, and a summary of the reactions he provoked. I didn't come away thinking that someone was using Wikipedia to try to trying to promote or discredit him. This seems like one of those cases where the parties are pretty close on actual content, but far apart on meta-issues under discussion on the talk page (e.g. the nature of pseudoscience and its validity as a concept). I don't think SlimVirgin is about to take administrative action herself; after all, she is involved in editing the page, so her admin status is probably not an issue one way or the other. MastCell Talk 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Spot on. The article's not bad at all. The current Talk page hoopla seems to be an effort to keep the "p" word out of the article at all costs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Since I just went to the trouble of looking it up: in Nov 2008 SV was de-sysopped for six months, as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin. The six months of course expired recently; now she is operating under a restriction against undoing the actions of other admins, that's all. Looie496 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can more people please review recent activities at Ian Stevenson, including a rather longwinded talk page discussion. I'm worried about the neutrality of the article which has attracted some WP:SPA activity. (Previous comment removed by me following justified criticism:diff) Verbal chat 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Omar Ibn Said

Claimed as "Islamic scholar" in the early 1800s USA. From what I can tell his situation is more ambiguous than this; the references in the article say that he converted to Christianity in 1820. He's being used to prop up diversity-minded FRINGE/UNDUE notions about Islam among African-American slaves; see also the section on Islam in Religion in the United States, which got mauled at some point as well. This is probably not an ongoing issue but could use some attention at this time. Mangoe (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Edward II of England

This article gives far too much emphasis to the fringe theory that Edward II survived past 1327. It is also unduly critical of the standard account of the method of his execution. *** Crotalus *** 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what happened to the red hot pokers, as in Edward II and the Red Hot Polkas? Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yikes... definitely needs addressing. While I would call the possibility that Edward survived past 1327 more of a minority view rather than a fringe theory... the article does give it serious WP:Undue weight. What makes this worse is that the material is sourced to the personal webpage of historian Ian Mortimer. While this would be fine for a few sentences mentioning that there are questions as to when Edward died, no personal website should be the basis of a long multi-paragraph section. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime recreated as Relationship between race and crime

Race and crime, which was a coatrack for racist POV and OR (by presentation of raw statistics with discussion and analysis begin supressed or coming from recognised hate groups), was merged into Anthropological criminology by consensus some time ago, and Race and crime was protected as a redirect. A new editor is trying to revive the article by posting across multiple noticeboards, suggests sources that clearly fail WP:RS, and has recently recreated the article at Relationship between race and crime. More eyes on all these articles please, and please join in the discussions. I'm not against well sourced analysis from good sources, but I don't want to see the implied racism reappearing. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a blunt disregard of WP:Consensus to me. Speedy delete or redirect to Anthropological criminology.--LexCorp (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

well, Race and crime was deleted on grounds of being WP:SYNTH, not because the topic is inherently invalid. There appears to be a bona fide attempt at encyclopedic coverage at Talk:Anthropological_criminology#Race_and_crime_statistics. But, for the moment, it will be sufficient to just introduce a "race and crime" section within Anthropological criminology. Once such a section has been introduced and proven stable, it can still be branched out as a WP:SS {{main}} article. At that point, and only then, should Race and crime become unprotected. This is just a matter of proper procedure, not of WP:FRINGE.

It is my view that we should not put up unreasonable hoops to jump through for people wishing to document this particular topic in good faith. This would have a nasty smell of censorship (we're not comfortable with statistics on race and crime, hence we're going to make this very difficult for you). The people who want to compile this article must make a reasonable effort of avoiding SYNTH and OR, but it stops there. If they can point to valid resources discussing the question, they are free to write an article about it. I am obviously on the same page as Verbal that "discussion and analysis being supressed or coming from recognised hate groups" isn't convincing as a bona fide effort. But instead of going to lengths to establish that valid analysis is being "suppressed", people could just insert such analysis. It's a wiki. --dab (𒁳) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not particularly comfortable with an article that tabulates raw statistics without any attempt at coverage of expert discussion of the potential underlying statistical relationships (e.g. race←→poverty←→crime). Lacking such coverage, WP:IINFO would seem to apply -- it is "an indiscriminate [and potentially misleading] collection of information". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the "it is a wiki" remark. I was under the impression we were a free encyclopedia.--LexCorp (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anthropological criminology doesn't seem an appropriate merge target for this topic. Some kind of variant of Race and crime should exist in this encyclopedia - it is a topic that is notable and readers should expect to learn about. Raw stats are a no-no, and it'll need watching for racist POV pushers and vandals, but to suppress this article entirely seems like an overreaction. Fences&Windows 19:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A wider and less xenophobic title, such as 'Demographics and crime' might help. Putting the spotlight purely on 'race' doesn't seem to be particularly balanced (any more than putting it on religion would be), whereas a wider view would allow the article to put emphasis on what the experts consider to be the factors most directly correlated with crime, and make it more difficult to introduce WP:UNDUE weight for racist views. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess the solution is add some material to Criminology and/or Quantitative methods in criminology, as these articles already discuss theories of crime, or to start a new wider Demography of crime article, discussing race, gender, religion, age etc. Fences&Windows 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Also note that race and crime isn't a fringe topic: there are 157 articles since 2004 in Google Scholar with "race" and "crime" in the title.[36] Fences&Windows 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you addressed that concern to me, Hrafn, since obviously I am also of the opinion that this cannot be about dumping "raw statistics". I am talking about an actual "coverage of expert discussion of the potential underlying statistical relationships". If somebody wants to write that article, let them. If they insist on just dumping raw statistics, tell them to stuff their statistics and present some coherent secondary source discussing the statistics.

People are extremely touchy about discussing race issues openly. I realize that this is due to the rather recent history of racial discriminatino in the USA, and everybody still feels kind of bad about that. But this shouldn't interfere with our project of writing an encyclopedia. I am actually investing great hopes in President O. and his candid and above-the-board approach to the matter that this situation is going to vastly improve over the next years or even months.

Obama is telling racial minorities to stop blaming colonial slave trade if they drop out of school. We have the same effect on Wikipedia, people whining about historical discrimination if their crappy edits are reverted. Perhaps they need to start considering the possibility that their crappy edits were reverted because the were crappy and not because of some WASP cabal behind Wikipedia. Now that was a rant about the "Afrocentrism" hubbub further up on this page, but you can see how it relates to this point here. We just need to grow out of this sort of thing, its the only way to a better (and for Wikipedia that is: more encyclopedic) future. --dab (𒁳) 21:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson again

The POV pushing over there by some dedicated SPA editors (might need to do some sock checks soon, come to think of it) is still ongoing,l despite repeated notices here. The editors in question insist upon presenting this person's reincarnation beliefs as science at its best and do so based upon very selective choice of sources and WP:SYNTHESIS. They are also wikilawyering klike nobody's business to remove all mention taht reliable sources has explicitly named his work as an example of pseudoscience. Apparently the main argument now is that being mentioned by name as making flawed arguments in a paragraph discussing specific instances of pseudoscience in a section discussing a pseudoscientific topic in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is somehow conveniently not actually calling his research pseudoscience because they do not see the actual word "pseudoscience" in the sentence mentioning the individual. This is wikilawyering at its most absurd, and clearly doing so to censor the majority scientific view while enthusiastically giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to an extreme WP:FRINGE view. It'd be nice if some sane people showed up over there to help out again. It's clear that unless the POV pushers in question get blocked that they will never give up on this article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the talk page you would see that it is now accepted that a source referring to Stevenson's work as pseudoscience has finally been produced (not the one you've been going on about but one that actually supports the text) and discussion has begun there about how to address weight issues. You should also note that there is no synthesis used for the claims that his research is science. This is supported by direct quotations from six sources including some top quality scientific journals such as the BMJ and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. Noirtist (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
So we now have at least two good sources for pseudoscience. I'm not convinced obits copied from his parapsychology departments press release are very good sources. Verbal chat 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, press releases are completely bogus, especially from parapsychology sources when discussing whether something is science or not. It's like citing a UFO newsletter about whether they have any valid evidence of aliens: of course they're going to claim they have, and that has nothing to do with how any reliable expert has to say on the matter. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The Skeptics Encyclopedia source shows that critics have mentioned Ian Stevenson whilst dismissing this field of research, with no direct critisism of his work. I do not consider this to meet WP:V for the statement. If you have a better source showing that crtiics have directly accused him of pseudoscience then please just add it to the page. Artw (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not care if you consider it to have met WP:V or not, because it was CLEARLY used as an example of direct criticism of his work. The mental leaps and amount of cognitive dissonance to require claiming otherwise are quite astounding. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've now done so. Quite why it wasn't done so previously is beyond me. Artw (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Gee, I don't know, probably because it was unnecessary and the only people demanding it were doing so for reasons that violate WP:NPOV. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fringe Causes of ADHD

All the "alternative" causes[37] of ADHD are fringe theories with regards to the Causes of ADHD. Causes would mean what theories would best explain the causes of ADHD. This is best determined by scientists and none of these theories have true scientific backing. Theories in Causes section of the article include, the social construct theory of ADHD. This theory believes that ADHD is a fabrication of society and is a philosophy often expounded by anti-psychiatrists. Neurodiversity is another philosophy not based on science. The Hunter vs. farmer theory has a popular following but is not based on science. This theory believes that those with ADHD carry the Hunter genes while the rest of the population carries the farmer genes. Finally the low arousal theory explains symptoms and not causes. This theory may have been created to sell product.--scuro (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All of them have support from the literature. They are not the most widely held views but are help by a manority and deserve mention. The scientific community acknowlegdes that both the cause and the pathophysiology are unknown and most likely muitifactorial. Comments would be appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
All of them have support in the scientific literature?! This is the "Causes" section of a medical based article.--scuro (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes, all those and more. In fact, many "ADHD" cases are actually something else, misdiagnosed. (My sleep specialist, for example, knows that sleep disorders often are misdiagnosed as ADHD.) This stuff is in its fumbling infancy. Fringe would mean like visitors from outer space or at least the position of the stars at the patient's birth. - Hordaland (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You are telling me that the social construct theory that states ADHD is fake, has support in true scientific journals? I'd like to see that. You example of a sleep disorder is anecdotal and skirts the issue. I'm speaking of true ADHD. Fringe with regards to this case, means simply it has no mainstream scientific support.--scuro (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You're going to have to explain in more detail what the problem is, as that Alternative theories section looks fine to me. Fences&Windows 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) ADHD does not have a "cause". It's the name given to a syndrome. There may be -- and indeed probably are -- several things working together that create it. To say that identical twins raised apart show a greater than 90% incidence of having and of not having would seem to indicate that there's some genetic factor involved (but it's not 100% so there maybe there's something else.) Thom Hartmann's Hunter-Farmer story may be close to linking that genetic change to pre-history. Still not a cause, though. Some are upset that we don't know the "cause" of ADHD; we don't know the "cause" of epilepsy, either, and until recently we all knew (and there were RS for) the "cause" of ulcers being stress. We'll learn more, I hope. Social-Construct isn't a theory of cause, it's a denial of the existence of the syndrome, and thus merits the "fringe" label. htom (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
As with many neurological disorders such as Tourettes or Schizophrenia, there is no know exact cause of the disorder. If there were it would be a disease. There are widely accepted theories within the scientific community about ADHD. All the "alternative" theories in the article, under the causes section, are fringe. They have no support within the scientific community.--scuro (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The social contruct theory simply implies that some cases of diagnosed ADHD are diagnosed not because the patient fullfuls the full diagnostic critia but due to too narrow of a defination of what should be considered normal. And yes there is evidence to back this up.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that there's some problems here. For example, it looks like there's some POV forking going on, there shouldn't need to be so many articles. With the exception of Neurodiversity, the other articles are all begin by centering in on ADHD as the topic. Perhaps they should be merged into the main article? I'm proposing that. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can agree that there are "some problems here", yes. But the main ADHD article is 100 kilobytes long. The 'Diet' section was just forked out because the article is too big. You may be right, but then something else will have to go. Cheers, --Hordaland (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The ADHD article is too long to merge in those other articles, and besides, expanding on these fringe theories within the ADHD article would surely be giving them undue weight within the main article. Articles about fringe theories are fine so long as they make clear that they are fringe theories. Fences&Windows 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Some of this material doesn't fit well in the causes section: wouldn't Alternative theories be better as a part of the section Controversies? Fences&Windows 16:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sudden infant death syndrome

See this edit, adding Viera Scheibner who said that 95% of sudden death of infants was caused by vaccines. See discussion in talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Nothing actionable here; Ed Poor has been around long enough to know what a reliable source is. Firestorm Talk 15:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I added some information which counters the prevailing (Western mainstream) view that homosexuality is immutable, but someone deleted the material even though it was referenced; there's even an article about the organization which provides the information. Is this a case of a "fringe" view being unworthy of inclusion, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ed, the view of some religious right people that they can brainwash homosexuals into some kind of reformatting has been thoroughly debunked. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Look for the silver lining, Ed, you can add it to Conservapedia's Bias in Wikipedia page - if you decide to take a break from blaming homosexuals for Nazism. - Nunh-huh 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Those are not good responses to the question: we mustn't make decisions about what material is acceptable based on whether we like it. The actual problem with the edit was that the views it stated were not derived from reputable sources. Currently the scientific support for the idea that homosexuality is mutable is so limited as to make it a "fringe theory" in the terms of WP:FRINGE. Statements by religious or political advocacy groups don't change that. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Which is pretty much what I indicated: it's unseemly for Ed to try to recruit Wikipedia in his religiously-motivated war against "teh gays": that's what Conservapedia is for. - Nunh-huh 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
They may not be good responses for the question, Looie, but they are great responses to Ed, who knows darn good and well when he's just stirring the pot. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
In that case, wouldn't it be better, as an admin, to warn him for disruption than to allow yourself to be trolled? Looie496 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to issue any warnings you feel are "better", Looie. It's Ed's behavior that's in question here, not anyone else's, and there's no administrative issue. - Nunh-huh 02:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't encountered Uncle Ed before, to my knowledge, so a warning from me would be baseless. But if an admin has enough experience with a given user to see that the purpose of an action is to cause disruption, it is better to give a warning than a sarcastic response. Warnings can be used to justify future action; sarcasm can't. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if Ed has been issued lots of warnings in the past, adding another one is pointless. Not saying this is the case here, but I have found that sarchastic remarks and lack of Good Faith usually have some history behind them. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ed has been active on Wikipedia since The Dawn of Time, and involved in more dust ups on such issues than the Recording Angel can remember. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Newcomers will either have to have faith in the judgement of the oldtimers, or do the necessary research; Ed is the reason that Wikipedia was (until fairly recently) the number one Google hit for AIDS kills fags dead (and our current article to which that redirects is still inadequately referenced and pretty disgraceful). - Nunh-huh 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reducing the statement "sexual orientation may not be immutable" to "zomg Conservapedia Nazis bible-thumping brainwashers" strikes me as a bit of an over-reaction. I have not researched this, but the claim that sexual orientation may change in the course of an individual's life does not necessarily have anything to do with homophobia, or brainwashing. It entails, much rather, that somebody may start out as a homosexual in their teens and switch to being hetero at some later date, or, equally, as a hetero teen that may turn homosexual at some later point. I am sure there are plenty of case studies for either direction of such "re-orientations", even omitting the rather large field of "neiher, or both", and I do not think it is helpful to reduce this discussion to one on ideology from the outset. The question whether such a change in either direction is in any way desirable is a completely different issue, and necessarily subjective. --dab (𒁳) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but Ed's actual edit wasn't about shifting sexual orientations, actions and self-identifications over a person's life - which may, of course include moving from hetero to homo as much as the other direction. It was about 'correcting' the 'error' of homosexual desire. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The most useful question here might be: is the cited source reliable and weighty enough to warrant the edit in question? In this case, the citation is to an advocacy group espousing a clearly minoritarian view. I don't think that warrants inclusion here; I suppose it could be considered in conversion therapy, a more appropriate sub-topic, but even there I think this is not a good encyclopedic source. If we cover conversion therapy in our article on homosexuality, then we should use high-quality, independent, reliable sources - ideally scholarly material, and failing that, reputable major-media coverage. MastCell Talk 18:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This is what I actually wrote:
  • NARTH claims that a third of people who try to reduce or change their sexual orientation or attraction through reparative therapy achieve some form of change. People Can Change gives details of a review carried out of 28 clinical studies covering a period of fifty years. The papers reviewed showed that of the 2,252 participants, 45 changed sexual orientation, 86 were able to have heterosexual relationships, and 287 reported a partial shift in sexual orientation. The review applied different criteria than those used by the original researchers, and re-interpreted the data as showing that 563 (a quarter) of the original participants in the studies over a fifty-year period reported either some sort of shift in orientation and/or the ability to participate in heterosexual relationship.[11]
I fail to see how this violates any Wikipedia policy. I do see, however, how it might annoy someone who doesn't want other people to know that there are reputable researchers out there claiming that homosexuality is mutable for people who want to change.
Is it possible that critics are missing the aspect of voluntarism here? There is a history of others (i.e., straights) trying to force people to change their sexuality - and History of homosexuality ought to document this, if it doesn't. I haven't found any support in the research literature of success with such approaches.
Or is it that regard "unwanted same-sex attraction" as an impossibility - or a prospect that contradicts a given?
I would prefer for the article to take no position on whether it is possible for volunteers to get help changing their unwanted same-sex attraction. An objective article would dutifully report both the mainstream:
  • Can't be done.
  • Hurts clients if you try.
as well as the minority view:
  • Has been done.
  • Doesn't hurt clients who volunteer.
Surely, if this is a minority view then reporting it - and labeling it the view of a minority - won't mislead anyone. And surely also if the view is wrong then scientists have already examinined the minority claims and thoroughly debunked them.
It would help our readers to see the minority scientific view compared to the mainstream critique of its methods and findings. If they've made mistakes (or, worse, committed outright scientific fraud), then someone has probably already exposed them. On the other hand, if their work is protoscientific then maybe no one in the mainstream has given it enough oversight yet. There have been episodes in the past, such as the work of Ignaz Semmelweis, which were dismissed at first but became mainstream later on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"They all laughed at Christopher Columbus", but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. When NARTH becomes Semmelweis instead of Bozo, we'll cover it appropriately - you know, in addition to the link already provided in the homosexuality article before your recent addition added a second. Till then.... not so much. I can't say I hold much hope that NARTH will become Semmelweis, because its method of operation is the exact opposite of the scientific method: they have their conclusions, and collect only such data as supports them, rather than predicating their conclusions on the data. That's pseudoscience, not protoscience. - Nunh-huh 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ed, I think you're talking past the issue of reliable sources. A "review of the literature" performed by a partisan pressure group, and published on their website, is not a good encyclopedic source. It seems reasonable to request, and prefer, that we rely on meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in the reputable, current scholarly literature. The problem is not that this is a minoritarian view per se; it's that even minoritarian views are not exempt from the strictures of appropriate encyclopedic sourcing. MastCell Talk 22:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose a variant of Godwin's Law - as the time available for a discussion of pseudoscience grows, the probability of the proponent invoking Semmelweis approaches one. Other comparisons may involve Nikolai Tesla or Alfred Wegener depending on the field in question. Skinwalker (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention Galileo. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs

Serious attention is needed... the article is full of OR (especially the section: Examination of Apollo Moon photographs#Accusation that NASA uploaded doctored pictures to website, currently the subject of a dispute). Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would put it up for deletion. It looks like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a POV fork. Send it to AfD. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The "challenge and response" essay format is problematic and the article looks to be largely sourced from sites such as "Moon Base Clavius". Agree deletion is probably the best answer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As awful as the article is... I don't think deletion is the answer. Nor do I think an AFD nom would result in a deletion. This is a well known subsection of the claims that the Apollo Moon Landing was a hoax... which is a very notable conspiracy theory... heck, Mythbusters devoted an episode mostly debunking it... and talked about the photos extensively.
I think we are going to have to tackle this the hard way... cleaning out the OR, checking sources, and re-writing the article. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be the subsection that was expanded with OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely going to need more hands... Stubborn POV warrior is refusing to listen to explanations of what is wrong. Simply reverts to "his" version. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... article has been sent to AFD... please look it over and then opine. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We need to keep an eye on Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories too-- I just had to clean out some junk about the supposed bogosity of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter images. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yikes... We especially need to keep an eye on that article... because we specifically mention it in the WP:FRINGE policy. People are going to look at it as an example of an acceptable fringe theory article.... so we should make damn sure that it is. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who would have the time to do this, but maybe we should take one of the articles on fringe theories and push it through FA or at least GA status. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Intelligent design falls into the WP:Fringe umbrella and it is a featured article. Maybe we should be pushing to have it as the example in WP:Fringe instead of the moon landing hoax--LexCorp (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

As I figured would happen... the AfD has has resulted in a Keep. Unfortunately, no rational was given for the result, but most of the comments in favor of keeping were WP:ILIKEIT type votes... and I think many of those arguing for keep did not fully understand that we were NOT talking about the main Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories article but the more specific Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. In any case... the article still has a LOT of problems and we need some people who understand WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:V to address them. Please help. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers is up for deletion

Read all about it here. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to have WP:UNDUE updated to reflect proper etiquette concerns

I wonder if those who run Wikipedia might consider updating WP:UNDUE to indicate that, although giving undue weight to the claims of actual Holocaust deniers is, of course, a good example of what this policy is trying to prevent, it nevertheless is bad Wikipedia etiquette to imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial or engaging in anything akin to Holocaust denial. What I'm concerned about is that some editors invoke this in order to put a chill on debate on the Talk pages, e.g., "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier." A Holocaust denier is someone who wants to spread the manifest falsehood that millions of people were murdered. The average person whose edits manifest a potential issue over WP:UNDUE are people who have merely not sufficiently demonstrated that a substantial minority of people agree with some specific statement. I'm okay with the principle of WP:UNDUE, it's the tenor of the discussion that I have a problem with. We shouldn't be here to belittle people's edits, but to tell them what will fly and what won't. In the specific case I've confronted (on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis page) I've found that some elements first criticized as WP:UNDUE turned out not to be as reliable sources began to report on those elements in more detail. In other words, the "Holocaust deniers" turned out to be people trying to report a dimension of the crisis but simply not having enough evidence yet to make their point. It was legitimate of people to make edits citing WP:UNDUE until those sources emerged. It was not legitimate of those people to compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis. Is there something that can be added to this policy to make it clear that name-calling and guilt by association are not okay according to WP:UNDUE? Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're reading more into WP:UNDUE than it says. It doesn't imply that all views that are given undue weight are morally equivalent to Holocaust Denial. Fences&Windows 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience

A user has requested more sources and evidence of notability for this work. I'm sure people here can provide some. This seems to be related to the Jim Tucker/Ian Stevenson/Reincarnation research debates. Reviews, sources, citations all requested! Thanks, Verbal chat 13:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... it seems to be mentioned by multiple authors in other works... see this google book search. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a bad faith request by a very active POV-pusher. I've removed the tag. Of course sources would only be helpful, but we can't pout up with such obvious attempts at censorship. DreamGuy (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh. He does seem to be raising the same issues about that article that have been repeatedly raised at Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker. However it is true that the book does not meet WP:N, and from Googling it does not seem like the sources are there to make it meet WP:N – adding quotes to the Google books search brings up no substantial mentions [38], and a general web search is just coming up with product descriptions and the like. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. If verifiable sources are provided that meet the notability guidelines I will of course withdraw my nomination, but it seems unlikely. Artw (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Some of Shermer's work is independently notable per WP:BK - for example, Science Friction, Why People Believe Weird Things, and Denying History. I have to say, I'm not finding a lot of independent coverage of this particular work, at least in my initial Google-search permutations, nor does it seem to have spent any time on the bestseller list. If that's the case, it might make sense to merge the available info (which is largely just a description of authors and subject matter) into the biographical article on Michael Shermer. MastCell Talk 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I find it disappointing that an editor has gone straight to AfD without continuing the discussion about addressing notability, adding sources, or the possibility of merging. Verbal chat 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I did the searches, and came up with nothing, and consider it extremely unlikely that the article can be made to meet WP:N. Feel free to try and prove me wrong in this, but I suggest you refactor your accusations of bad faith per WP:AGF. Artw (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The linked article for The Skeptic's Dictionary Does not appear to meet WP:N, WP:BK, WP:WEB. All current references are links to the skepdic site. I would suggest adding some sources there as well – Google doesn’t come up with much that is usable but there seem to be some mentions of it if you do a books search
An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural has similar problems - I suspect it would be better off merged to James Randi Artw (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You cannot even be serious with this recent tagging spree of yours filing AFDs and throwing notability tags on books that are skeptical and that get mentioned here. You can't just start attacking any source that says something you don't want to hear and hope to censor the topic. This is an obvious WP:POINT violation, and if you continue on in this path you should get blocked for it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
See your talk page. Artw (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural is notable by virtue of its authorship (Arthur C. Clarke, together with Randi). Note that virtually all of Clarke's published ouevre is considered independently notable, probably under WP:NB criterion #5. MastCell Talk 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Clarke appears to have only written the introduction, with Randi you may have a point. I'd be happier all round with proper references. Artw (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I'm going to go ahead and say that it doesn't meet 5, as it requires a conciderable level of historically significant that, no offense to him, Randi does not have. Artw (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at this and found an additional ref in seconds, which with the existing refs means the template is no longer needed. I suggest that those of you that do not like the presence of notability templates on those other articles do the same instead of complaining to me about tagging. Artw (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The asrticle on Robert Todd Carroll seems like a rich source of potential references that could be used to bring the The Skeptic's Dictionary to the point where it meets WP:N. I'm not entiurely sure why I mention this, since form the evidence of the last few days conversation you lot are far too lazy and useless to do it and I'll end up doing it myself. Artw (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the recent keep arguments for the Encyclopedia convinced me to vote keep although earlier I was considering voting for a merge. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Moses of Chorene

Armenian patriotism galore. After all these months, this article still hasn't gone past the mandatory handful of diehard nationalists pushing Soviet era propaganda. Many more encyclopedist's eyes needed. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

hello? There are at least three nationalist kids between them "owning" the article. We either need enough bona fide editors to keep the article under control, or an admin with balls to show them the door. --dab (𒁳) 07:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Some one should stop with fantasies and start reading the talkpage. Traina, Mahé, ... have nothing to do with Armenian nationalism. Sardur (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The only "kid" around here is Dbachmann - his language is like that of a spoilt brat whose offensiveness knows no limits and who has never had limits imposed. Meowy 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
says Meowy, who had to place about four rants on my talkpage before understanding the very simple concept of WP:CITE. There is a problem: The Moses of Chorene article is under attack by patriots pushing pseudohistory. This noticeboard is designed to address such problems. Meowy's animosities towards my person have nothing to do with this. Indeed, Meowy could help protect the Moses of Chorene from the trolls and thus contribute to the resolution of the problem instead of stalking me with random personal attacks. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"under attack by patriots pushing pseudohistory": how funny, I'm Belgian and of absolutely no Armenian descent.
On the other hand, Dbachmann is edit-waring and tries to impose his PoV (while scholarship on Moses generally agree that the dating issue is still disputed); and he even doesn't care about what has been reached after request to WP:3O. Who is the "troll" (as quoted from Dbachmann's post preceding mine, not as my opinion)? Sardur (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And even after those 4 "rants" Dbachman still couldn't understand the very simple concept that deleting content is not the same as asking for citations. Meowy 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ahem. I am willing to absorb as many personal attacks as I have to, but the issue of the Moses article pushing pseudohistory still remains. So, the sooner you switch from taking potshots at me to reacting to the actual problem at hand, the better you will pobably look to the outside observer.--dab (𒁳) 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got time to deal with this at the moment (nor for the foreseeable future) but WP:VUE is worth reading on the use of foreign language sources. --Folantin (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"the sooner you switch from taking potshots at me to reacting to the actual problem at hand,..." And the sooner you will actually read the talkpage of the article, the better you will start to understand that quotes from Western scholars have been given for weeks. As for personal attacks, I didn't make a single one. I wish I could say the same from others. Sardur (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with dab. The article is taken over by a group of editors, who prevent others to add any info. If anyone tries to add any info that contradicts the 5th century claim, it gets instantly reverted, no matter how reliable the source you are referring is. The discussions are being stonewalled, and the progress is extremely slow. After many months of discussions I managed to achieve a consensus only on 2 short sections. In general, the article attaches an undue weight to the opinion of the Armenian scholarship, while the western scholarship is being suppressed. Mahe and Traina mentioned above are among the few international scholars who agree with the 5th century dating. Most of the 5th century dating supporters are the scholars in Armenia and the Armenian diaspora, as described by politologist Razmik Panossian: [39] Something needs to be done to bring the article to neutrality, and fairly represent both opinions on dating. Grandmaster 05:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Mahé (whose position in the introduction of his translation is that the issue is not settled) and of Panossian. Sardur (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That's BS and you very well know it! Dab edited the lead against consensus and removed the 5th century date from the first paragraph in its entirety, when both dates were present earlier. You agreed with that version of the lead which was deleted subsequently by Dab! Also, Mahé's translation of Khorenatsi has receieved less negative criticism than Thomson's. Your understanding of what is an international scholar is tainted by your Armenophobia, several of those 'Armenian scholars' have published work in peer reviewed western journals and that's all that matters here (what a shocker that most of them are Armenians, Armenian manuscripts are mostly written in Armenian ... surprise, surprise). It's hard for you to accept that every individual regardless of his ethnicity has equal chance of having his work published in reputable publications if their paper is well researched and respects standard protocols. It's dishonest to come here and claim that the article is taken over by a group of editors and then supporting everyone blindly regardless of the fact that they sabotated the concensus you participated in, simply because they're in a dispute with editors that you consider opponments. Don't forget to mention why you began editing that article to begin with. Thanks.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be good if you refrained from personal attacks on other editors and minded WP:AGF. It is behavior like this that drives people away from editing this article. Like it or not, as it was mentioned above, it is a group of people with certain national POV that edit wars and WP:OWNs this article. It is enough to check who exactly edit wars to prevent the alternative opinions on dating of this author from being included in the article. This is the biggest problem wikipedia is facing with. Many articles are taken over by groups of editors who do not allow others to edit them. The fact remains that the 5th century dating is not generally accepted in the scholarly community, especially that outside of Armenia. All the existing scholarly opinions must be fairly represented in the article, whether someone likes them or not. That's what WP:NPOV requires. Grandmaster 06:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
<sigh>And whether some like it or not, both opinions (though in fact, they are more than 2) are currently represented in the article. Sardur (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception

I removed a section from the article, and there is a very unhappy editor complaining about this on the talk page. If anyone else is interested in this I'd appreciate it if they'd take a look. Maybe some of it should go back, but it was a lot of SPS stuff and I may have missed some relevance that would mean that some of it should go back. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Awickert (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Commented. Basically, looks like their relevance to the book wasn't established and the info on the hypotheses were wrong, for starters. Awickert (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kars, Turkey

A group editors advocating Armenian POV in Wikipedia is persistently attempting to either remove or obscure a reference to the Georgian origins of the name of this Turkish city - [40], [41], [42] (initially removed by a sock [43]). While the city may have been associated with Armenia at some point in history, it is not now, and there is no reliable reference as to either the meaning of "Kars" in Armenian or to the fact that the origin of the name is Armenian, whilst a reference that clearly says the name is Georgian. Can you please, look at the issue and decide whether Armenian transliteration should even appear in this case, when Georgian is not being allowed. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Even worse now. While the source is presented, another source is removed altogether to emphasize only Armenian claim to the name - [44]. Atabəy (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You are reading a hell of a lot into what are actually extremely minor changes. And what does this have to do with fringe theories again? I mean other than the fact that your opponent's presumed "Armenian POV" is clearly fringe, while your own evident Azerbaijani POV is obviously not... (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This is awfully ridiculous. Let's make this clear. If editors follow the edit wars on that article, they will see an attempt to add a modern Azeri transliteration of the word Kars to no avail. After this unsuccessful attempt, Atabey came and removed the Armenian term and replaced it with Georgian. The fact is that the word 'Gari' was never used for the place in English, the word 'Kars' came to us first to describe an entity in Armenia from Armenian literature. While it is true that the word is claimed to have come from either an Armenian or a Georgian word, the naming of the city as 'Kars' came to us from Armenian. It's as simple as that... as simple as providing the original transliteration of the current English language word, just as much as in any serious English dictionary the Latin or Greek original terms are just next to the English word to give them a clue. Also, Atabek's claim of Georgian etymology is contradicted by his own long term behavior on Wikipedia..., as several places like Nakhichevan have etymologically Armenian terms which is backed up by dozens of sources (unlike the one single source he came up with here), but all those were systematically removed. - Fedayee (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a definitive policy about the purpose of listing alternative names for a location. Is there one? In his edits, I think Atabəy was quite conciously distorting the common-sense usage, which would be to list the historical name(s) for a place that has changed its name, or to list the native name(s) where the name commonly used in English is not the same as the native name(s). Atabəy is trying to introduce into the first sentence of the article a specific theory (one of several) about the etymological origin of the name "Kars" [45] and [46]. Those controversial edits form the background to this edit conflict. They are controversial for three reasons. Firstly, there is no evidence that the settlement of Kars was ever called "Karsi". If the alternative names are there to list historical names then his addition is not valid at that location within the article. Secondly, the Georgian word "karsi" is just one possible etymological origin for the word "Kars", and there are other theories - so inserting just that theory is POV. Actually, the concept that every placename must mean something and that that something can be deduced with certainty, is wrong. Thirdly, the core reason behind Atabəy's edits are to remove the Armenian name that appears on the first sentence. That Armenian name is justified because it is a real alternative name, an historical name which differs from the curent name. Meowy 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the opinion of independent (i.e. non related to the region) reviewers would be more valuable in this regard. The argument here is that if there is one possible etymological origin of the name, it shall be listed also, while others are listed. Conversely if Georgian etymological origin is removed, then there is no reason to keep the Armenian one. Keeping one and removing the other from the introduction of the article is clearly an Armenian POV pushing, especially given the fact that the city is located in Turkey not in Armenia.
Another point to be emphasized here, if we list etymological origins of the city in Turkey, why not also list the etymological origins of various cities in Armenia, especially those that do not originate from Armenian? Atabəy (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a plain old content dispute, with nothing to do with fringe theories. Please find somewhere else to resolve this. Fences&Windows 20:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not a content dispute (though neither is it a "fringe theory" dispute). Does Wikipedia have a policy on what should be in the first sentence of an article about a place? Can you suggest where we can go to ask about what is, and what is not, appropriate to include as "alternative names", and whether it is appropriate to include theories about the etymological origin of the place name in that list of alternative names? My opinion is that it is not appropriate because it is the wrong location within the article to place such information. Meowy 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The closest we have to a guideline on this is: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on those guidelines, theories about the etymology of a placename should not be placed in the lead section. Meowy 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lapot (custom)

There seems to be only some shaky evidence for this, and while I'm no longer convinced it's a blatant hoax, I'd like some more people to take a look. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found this, so it's at least not a blatant hoax. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There are now ten references in the article including academic journals. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I put this up while the article still looked very shaky. It's far better now. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Shaolin Wahnam Institute

Lots of nonsense in here.

The worst bit: "Chi Kung practiced at the mind level cures any disease, including diseases considered by some as incurable, such as cancer, diabetes, ulcers and cardiovascular disorders."

Please see its AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaolin Wahnam Institute.   Zenwhat (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've wiped out all the kung-fu woo-woo material. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Viktor Suvorov

Viktor Suvorov is a former low-level GRU officer-cum-amateur historian, who argues without sources and from extremely circumstantial evidence that Hitler's 22 June 1941 invasion of Soviet Union was desperate pre-emptive strike against Communist juggernaut about to attack him (in accordance with long-held Stalinist master plan of world takeover.) He has found extremely hostile reception among professional historians, although a few have made vaguely sympathetic though noncommittal reviews.

Suvorov article as of now is highly promotional. Worst problem: It conflates "Suvorov thesis," which is about disposition of Soviet ground troops in Spring/Summer 1941, with various "Stalin's psychology and ideology" debates, which revolve around his committment to Socialism in One Country versus his possible sympathy for Permanent revolution achieved by military force (ie, Soviet invasions / subversions of other countries.) So you have a lot of legitimate authors saying "Stalin was maybe more aggressive than some people realize," and they have no time for Suvorov, yet they are presented as allies supporting Suvorov's fringe theory. Careful attention has been lavished on accumulation of book and scholarly journal sources, but of those I have checked, many are being blatantly misused.

Suvorov's own article is worst. Soviet offensive plans controversy is about his thesis and looks OK though disproportionate space in text given to his few allies, overall framing makes clear his idea is non-mainstream to say the least. Suvorov influence is apparent in other articles though. He has other wild ideas in relation to not just 1941, for example, he claims that all estimates of Soviet military equipment are wildly distorted by Monkey model bias (that article should probably be AfDd) and his ideas are liberally sprinkled through articles relating to various pieces of USSR military equipment. (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Are you actually disagreeing with any of his points? Find an argument in defense of Onkel Joe and fix the articles. NVO (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Skeptisism related articles that currently do not meet WP:N

Spinning off from the discussion regarding The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience I did a quick survey of articles relating to the feild of skeptisism and found quite a number that currently fail WP:N.

Given their expertise in this field I'm assuming members of WP:FTN will want to do search for third party reliable sources and add them to these pages where they can be found. I'm assuming them will be no brainers, but it does need to be done if WP:N is to be met.

Note that removal of the notability tag without providing sources is not particularly helpful: It is an informational tag that describes steps required to keep an article within Wikipedia, so assuming you don't want to see an article deleted or merged before someone has a chance to fix it you probably want to leave that tag on there. Artw (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you consider the Planetary Society as "relating to the field of skepticism". Cardamon (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It's linked to from List of skeptics and skeptical organizations, so I ended up taking a look at it, but you are correct: It's only tangentially related to skeptisism. Still, I'm sure that someone here would be interested in helping it along. Artw (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

many of these should just be merged without further ado, e.g. Voodoo science into pseudoscience, or Derek Colanduno into Skepticality. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of these perhaps make sense, but some are absolutely ridiculous. Joe Nickell, Ray Hyman, James Oberg are not notable? Thats insane. Just Joe Nickell's bibliography alone is longer than most stubs. It's not enough to write 30+ books? And Oberg has made significant contributions not only to scientific skepticism but also to journalistic reporting on the space program. I'm not sure merging Derek Colanduno makes sense, because he has significant contributions other than Skepticality and has an asteroid named after him.
Is this just very strict adherence to the rules, or someone with an anti-skepticism axe to grind at work here? --Krelnik (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Beleive it or not I actually helping you guys out. You may wish to familiarise yourself with WP:N and other notability guidelines.
And if I was just axe grinding I'd just send them straight to WP:AFD, which right now would be perfectly legitimate. Artw (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, well then thanks for the "help". I really enjoy having a deadline to fix 30 articles all at once, with overanxious "fringe theories" editors hovering over my shoulder. (I find it odd that this list is even brought up here in "fringe theories". Science & skepticism is not the fringe viewpoint, it is the consensus viewpoint). I only noticed this list by virtue of some watchlist items and following several links to find this. A more appropriate venue would have been to bring it up under Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism which most of these articles are connected to. --Krelnik (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought it worth chekcing in relation to the Skeptics Encycolopedia discussion above. If you think it would be reposting the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism then please feel free to go ahead and do so. Artw (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Also there is no deadline here - none of the articles are up for deletion and you have my word that I won't be putting them up for deletion unless I've done a very thorough search for sources. I suspect a few merge discussions to lessen the workload may be a good idea, but I intend to leave that to others. Artw (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Artw has a very valid point. We have to hold the skeptics up to the same standards that we hold the Fringe theorists. That means we have to establish why a skeptic (or any thing else) is notable. If we are going to demand this in an article about some Fringe theorist, we have to demand it in an ariticle about a skeptic. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The follow also need a little work, mostly bringing references in line, to make it clear that WP:N is met, though I beleive from the various links and references on the page that they do:

Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations Julia Sweeney Martin Gardner Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Gene-centered view of evolution Richard Wiseman Randy Cassingham The Blank Slate

(Again, this is a pretty meandering and informal survery of articles, so some of these are only indirectly skeptisism related (Gene-centered view of evolution is by way of Dawkins, that sort of thing) and by nomeans should it be considered a complete list. Artw (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any stated procedure anywhere for removing a ((notability)) tag, so I've added 11 footnotes (cited in 17 different spots) to Ray Hyman and went ahead and removed the tag on that article. Let me know if there's an issue. --Krelnik (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The procedure is that if you think the tag is invalid or (preferably) you improve the article to the point where it no longer applies, you remove it. There aren't a lot of bureaucratic rules for this. So it sounds like you did the right thing. As for some of the articles listed above such as Sweeney and Gardner: they are highly notable (not necessarily primarily for being skeptics) but as Artw points out the sourcing in them is inadequate, so I agree that some improvement seems to be called for. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd say best the procedure is probably WP: BRD. Sifaka talk 18:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice David Eppstein & Sifaka. I'm relatively new, only been editing for about 9 months. I spend considerable time coming up with new material to put in Wikipedia, including actually looking at microfilm at my local library. (What? There are ways to research other than Google?) You can see how it might seem annoying when someone swoops in from a different area of Wikipedia entirely and starts slapping tags on things without attempting fixups themselves. I've alerted several other editors who work on these skepticism articles all the time and improvements are underway. --Krelnik (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If I had my way, article tags would be outlawed for anything except likely hoaxes and major proposed changes such as deletions or mergers. They are very obnoxious, and often are used to push a point of view rather than to improve the article. In most cases it would be better to raise a point on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the list a little to cross out some articles that have been considerably improved. A tip of the hat to Krelnik in particular who is doing some fantastic work with these. Artw (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The list is laughable. I just grabbed an article title at random (China Association for Science and Technology,) put it into Google, and got a BBC article about the president of China speaking at their 50th anniversary dinner. Yes, maybe Derek from Skepticality shouldn't have his own article. But The Skeptic's Dictionary? It's been reviewed in New Scientist, the BBC, etc etc. James Oberg is the foremost Western expert on the Soviet space program and the chief space reporter for MSNBC (and not even particularly well-known as a skeptic.) You're obviously using some strange criteria to make this list and certainly not the WP:N policy you've cited. (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

James Oberg not notable? A clear case of WP:POINT. NVO (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The "strange criteria" I am using here is called "looking at the article", which at present contains references to James Oberg's website and some articles penned by James Oberg. Given the guys stature it a couple of reliable third party links covering his work shouldn't be too much to ask, should it? Artw (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You do not understand WP:N. WP:N is an objective criterion for whether a subject is notable, not an evaluation of whether a Wikipedia article has enough references. If I write article "George W. Bush" referencing only "" this means not that George W Bush is a non-notable subject. Some small fraction of the articles you list are arguably non-notable, like Derek from Skepticality as I said above. Most are very obviously notable, even if their current articles lack third-party refs. (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You are arguing that the above articles are of the same level of obvious notability as George W. Bush and therefore do not require any third party sources to establish notability? Artw (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just User:Artw disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT again. I would suggest that WP:DENY applies here. DreamGuy (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated a number of these articles that do not appear likely to be improved for deletion here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association

Ishango bone

no doubt an extremely important artefact, but it would appear the article has been written by people who want it to be aged 20,000 years, not 9,000 years. That's a huge difference, and raises WP:REDFLAGs. Also the speculative, question-marked "interpretations" seem rather far-fetched. Also raises further {{notability}} issues for the Alexander Marshack and Claudia Zaslavsky articles linked. The lakeside Ishango population of 20,000 years ago may have been one of the first counting societies, but it lasted only a few hundred years before being buried by a volcanic eruption sounds like cheap fiction of the Lost World kind. In any case. my WP:FRINGE detectors went off with this article and perhaps somebody else wants to take a look. Also check out Lebombo bone which imo is a clear case of a ghost-artefact. --dab (𒁳) 08:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also object that a tally stick does not imply counting. In fact, a tally stick might be used because a society doesn't count (eg speaks a language that has no numerals), though of course it might lead to counting. kwami (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
this isn't plausible. Everything points to finger-counting as the natural first step. This of course doesn't leave archaeological traces. number names become associated with that. Additional "tools" like tally sticks are a later step.
but my issue here is not with the Ishango stick being a tally stick, but with (a) the early date and (b) the speculations regarding multiplication / prime numbers etc. and the lunar calendar thing. I find it very very problematic to postulate something like this for the early Upper Paleolithic. --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A quick check shows that there are a number of relevant recent sources on this, but unfortunately I can't download them from home, so I can't figure out which date is supported by the current consensus of anthropologists. Both dates still seem to be mentioned. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're still interested, send me a Wiki email, and I will attach the papers in a response. Awickert (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"the Galileo of the 20th century"

An editor is attempting to push opinion of Harold Lief, a self-described "close friend and indeed an admirer" of Ian Stevenson, that "Either he is making a colossal mistake, or he will be known ... as 'the Galileo of the 20th century'" into the lead of that article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Did Stevenson also drop things from towers and get imprisoned by the Catholic Church? Fences&Windows 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the argument is that he was Galileo in a past life? No, that doesn't work... that would make him the "Galileo of the 17th century", wouldn't it. Never mind. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, someone needs to get out the ban stick for that article. The dedicated determination of the POV pushers there is crazy. And anybody looked into sockpuppet concerns yet, both in general and for banned users? The strategy of civil POV pushing and gaming the system demonstrated there are way beyond what anyone can in good faith expect from newbie accounts. DreamGuy (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So true. Two very hard working red link WP:SPA's have politely ("Cheers!") but firmly tilted the WP:WEIGHT of that article with persuasive pro-reincarnation arguments to rebut each scrap of criticism and successfully WP:COATRACKed material openly supportive of Stevenson and reincarnation in at least three other BIOs. But they haven't done anything ban-worthy per se (unless WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is now a ban-able offense.) I don't have the time to bicker with this crowd. If they want the article THAT bad, I say let them have it for the time being. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well... continued IDIDNTHEARTHAT can be considered disruptive behavior, which can be banned... but only in extreme cases.Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong

The topic area is plagued by POV pushing and personal commentary. I am currently attempting to help mediate the dispute. The current stage of the mediation is focused on identifying serious issues and soliciting uninvolved outside input. I have invited some experienced uninvolved editors to take part in the editorial process, in an attempt to help steer things back on track. However, further specialized outside input would be invaluable. If some of the regulars from this noticeboard could review the main Falun Gong articles for fringe theories and severe undue weight violations, it would be sincerely appreciated. Providing a review at the main article talk page and/or correction of the problems would be particularly helpful. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

One issue, when I originally started working with these articles I came to it as an "uninvolved" editor and eventually found myself being thrust firmly into an anti-FLG mold by the people defending the PoV in the articles for my attempts to remove POV. Some semblance of order is finally descending thanks to the concerted efforts of MANY editors but I have to say, more help is ALWAYS welcome.Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

We have a new editor, ArXivist who doesn't quite get WP:NPOV on WP:Fringe topics. Me and several other editors have tried explaining it to him, but without much success. Our 9/11 conspiracy theories article might need some extra attention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New editor? I. Don't. Think. So. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough about sock puppetry on Wikipedia to form an opinion, but Cs32en is one of the most prolific POV-pushes I've ever encountered. He's been able to grasp the basics of Wikipedia policies and guidelines which leads to some very time consuming rebuttals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


Is it necessary to quote works in English to prove that a theory is not a fringe theory,Can foreign works be used too ? If a publication claims that their book is Academy reviewed or peer reviewed can the publishers word be taken as true ? --Gnosisquest (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We allow non-english sources on wikipedia (although English sources of the same quality or better take precidence over non-english sources). As to your second question, the fact that a book claims peer review does not make it so. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Its like this I have a single reliable source in English language proposing a theory ,There are other sources proposing the same theory but in different languages .So can I use these foreign sources to prove that the english source is not a fringe theory ?--Gnosisquest (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned by your word choice here... If what you mean is: "can I use non-english sources to subtantiate that the topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (per WP:NOTE)?" then the answer is: Yes. If you truely mean "do foreign sources prove that the theory is not Fringe"... then no... the fact that a theory is discussed in multiple languages has no impact on whether it is considered Fringe or not. Fringe theories can come in any language. More importantly, we should not be using Wikipedia to "prove" anything (trying to prove things is biased editing, and violates WP:NPOV)... we should simply summarize what the reliable sources say on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Gnosisquest, I suppose the easiest would be for you to just present your case with what sources you have and see how people react, and things will develop from there. --dab (𒁳) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When you bring a topic here, it's good to provide a pointer to the article in question. We've all had the experience of people describing a dispute in a slanted way and then asking for opinions -- editors here will be reluctant to commit themselves if they can't verify that your summary is accurate. Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson 4

This article is again undergoing edits that change whether Stevenson's research is accepted or rejected at large, possible mischaraterisations and misrepresentations of sources, peacocking, etc. Please take a look. The discussion on the talk page is repetitive and tedious, unfortunately. Verbal chat 13:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(Sigh)... This needs to be bumpped up the dispute resolution chain. POV pushing is never acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Now sourced information is being removed as it's 'unfair'. Sheesh. Verbal chat 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see this article now states that "scientific opinion of his research is split". Wow. This is the first I've heard of a controversy within science that reincarnation is the best explanation for this guy's anecdotal evidence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories and pseudoscience

Question being considered here: Should this article have the pseudoscience tag and template? It's also home to a lot of fringe POV pushing generally, so a good one to add to watch lists. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category does not label the article as pseudoscience, it labels the article's subject. "Moon landing was a hoax" qualifies as pseudoscience. And now excuse me while I hop over to Youtube for the vid of Buzz Aldrin decking the annoying fool calling him a liar, I never tire of watching it. Go Buzz! Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It has win written all over it. Verbal chat 12:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not pseudoscience, it's a conspiracy theory. (Theorists may make use of faulty quasi-scientific reasoning to prove that we never went to the moon, though.) You wouldn't call Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories pseudoscience, would you? --Akhilleus (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Akhilleus... the topic isn't pseudoscience (if it is "pseudo" anything it would be pseudo-history). Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) There is precedent for tagging a topic that is primarily something else and only part of which is a pseudoscience as a pseudoscience. Homeopathy is also tagged as a pseudoscience, although it is primarily a (complementary/alternative medicine) practice, and it's not clear how relevant the pseudoscientific aspects of the belief system and the questionable attempts to support it scientifically really are.
We don't seem to have clear criteria for this. Personally if I feel that something needs to be rooted out once and for all (to prevent further damage, or just because it's so unbearably silly), then I am more inclined to add it to the article than when I feel it's harmless nonsense. I suspect that many people feel similarly. Unfortunately the inclusion criteria are not clear enough to settle such questions, because they don't give a working definition of pseudoscience, and properly defining pseudoscience is a field of active research. Hans Adler 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Would someone please explain (briefly) what parts of the article involve pseudoscience. Are pseudoscientific claims discussed, and if so what are they? Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... Never mind my last question... I have answered it for myself. The section [Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories#Ionizing radiation and heat] clearly involves pseudoscientific claims. I am going to change my mind... the tag does apply. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The whole list of claims that one can tell that there is a hoax is, from end to end, based on defective technical claims. This doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason to call it pseudoscience. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Shifting to neutral gear… I could see it labeled as "pseudohistory" instead as suggested by Blueboar. Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Jenny McCarthy has the pseudoscience tag for claiming that vaccines cause autism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
May I point out that Category:Pseudohistory seems tailor-made for this article? It has a little pseudoscience, but that's solely to back the pseudohistory. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 188 FCs served 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^
  2. ^ Frye, Richard Nelson, Greater Iran, ISBN 1-56859-177-2 p.xi
  3. ^ "Richard Foltz", "Religions of the Silk Road: Overland Trade and Cultural Exchange from Antiquity to the Fifteenth Century", Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. pg 27
  4. ^ J.M. Cook, "The Rise of the Achaemenids and Establishment of Their Empire" in Ilya Gershevitch, William Bayne Fisher, J. A. Boyle "Cambridge History of Iran", Vol 2. pg 250. Excerpt: "To the Greeks, Greater Iran ended at the Indus".
  5. ^ Mallory, J. P.; Adams, D. Q. (1997), Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture, London and Chicago: Fitzroy-Dearborn, ISBN 1884964982. pg 307: "Dialetically, Old Persian is regarded as a southwestern Iranian language in constract to the east Iranian Avestan which covered most of the rest of Greater Iran
  6. ^ George Lane, "Daily life in the Mongol empire", Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. pg 10" The year following 1260 saw the empire irrevocably split but also signaled the emergence of the two greatest achievements of the house of Chinggis, namely the Yuan dynasty of greater China and the Il-Khanid dynasty of greater Iran.
  7. ^ Judith G. Kolbas, "The Mongols in Iran", Excerpt from 399: "Uljaytu, Ruler of Greater Iran from 1304-1317 A.D.",
  8. ^ Judith G. Kolbas, "The Mongols in Iran", Excerpt from 399: "Uljaytu, Ruler of Greater Iran from 1304-1317 A.D.",
  9. ^ Mīr Khvānd, Muḥammad ibn Khāvandshāh, Tārīkh-i rawz̤at al-ṣafā. Taṣnīf Mīr Muḥammad ibn Sayyid Burhān al-Dīn Khāvand Shāh al-shahīr bi-Mīr Khvānd. Az rū-yi nusakh-i mutaʻaddadah-i muqābilah gardīdah va fihrist-i asāmī va aʻlām va qabāyil va kutub bā chāphā-yi digar mutamāyiz mībāshad.[Tehrān] Markazī-i Khayyām Pīrūz [1959-60]. ایرانشهر از کنار فرات تا جیهون است و وسط آبادانی عالم است. Iranshahr streches from the Euphrates to the Oxus, and it is the center of the prosperity of the World.
  10. ^ Judith G. Kolbas, "The Mongols in Iran", Excerpt from 399: "Uljaytu, Ruler of Greater Iran from 1304-1317 A.D.",
  11. ^ [47]