General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Page importation • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations and wide-scale infringements • Spam • Proposed mergers • External links User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring & 3RR • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board

Shortcuts: WP:FTN WP:FT/N

This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where questions relating to articles on fringe theories can be answered, and to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Often, such theories are promoted in order to promote a particular point of view, which violates our rules on neutrality. As the guidelines given at Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus.

If you wish to know whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream (especially outside of the fields of science and pseudo-science), you may ask for advice on this noticeboard.

If your question is whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the No original research notice board.

Note that the purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that proper balance is maintained. Indeed, for pseudoscientific claims, Wikipedia has an entire category dedicated to pseudoscience. Wikipedia articles dealing with academic topics aim to reflect both the consensus and the diversity of mainstream academia. Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as "fact."

When acting on articles and issues raised here please be aware that in December 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as fringe, questionable and pseudo-science in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The ruling gave the following guidance:

• Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
• Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI

• 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without further justification or demonstration required.
• 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
• 3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
• 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

While this guidance was directed towards pseudoscience, the intent of the ruling can be applied to any discipline or topic area.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Contents 1 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident 2 Demon Cat 3 The theories of Dr. Bernard Leeman 4 Max Muller 5 Pondicherry interpretation 6 Walter J. Levy, Jr 7 Colorpuncture 8 Croquanna Island 9 Recent edits on Bogdanov Affair 10 Formosa Island, Japanese Territory 11 Great Year/Platonic year 12 Vedic astrology and Jyotiṣa 13 Neocatastrophism 14 Russell Blaylock 15 Examples on Jungian archetype/personality type articles 16 Mileva Maric and historians 17 Speaking of socionics 18 Solastalgia 19 Collapse of the World Trade Center 20 Dajjal flag 21 Oahspe: A New Bible 22 New Chronology (Rohl) 23 Global Warming 24 Angel Moroni (LDS) being rewritten as though it is factual 25 Global warming scepticism as "Fringe" 25.1 It's not fringe 26 Chiropractic source question 27 Somers' New Target: Conventional Cancer Treatment 28 Could someone review edits by Place4us 29 Greater India Society and Kamboja-cruft 30 A2 milk 31 Hindu mythology 32 Aquatic ape hypothesis and Bipedalism 33 Global Consciousness Project 34 Climate change

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

[edit] Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Our article on the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident could probably use some watchful eyes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of watchful eyes. The article is being targeted by numerous ranting IPs, socks and general-purpose nutcases. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks as if the article had been slashdotted. But I checked, and Slashdot seems to be innocent. Hans Adler 09:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked this case specifically, but Google News frequently links to news-related Wikipedia articles nowadays. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Watching the article. One thing I noticed was that the George Monbiot piece in The Guardian is accurately quoted, as far as that goes, but the balance of his text was not reflected. From our article you would miss the fact that only one third of Monbiot's piece was about the incident itself and the remaining two thirds a scathing attack on climate change deniers. How do people think this ought to be corrected? I would say that Monbiot's view is notable, but we may be up against the news/op-ed distinction. This could also have BLP implications because the email authors are named; ought there to be a post on BLPN? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We need more watchful eyes on this article. Unfortunately, fringe theorists tend to be more dedicated in promoting their agenda than those who don't care about fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is already on the BLPN, though the response has been disappointing. In response to Hans, the reason why the article looks like it's being slashdotted is because right-wing bloggers are linking to it and denouncing it as an example of "liberal" perfidy. They want the article to be called "Climategate" or "Climate Research Unit scandal" (to which the article was moved before being move-protected), they want to call the scientists criminals and they want to hail the hacker as a heroic whistleblower, in contradiction of what all the reliable sources report; some don't even accept that there was a hack in the first place. It's a festival of OR, blatant POV-pushing and batshit craziness. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, still more eyes on this article. And more discussion on the talk page - and that includes all those who are battling to keep the article neutral. Article is racing out of control and suffering from rampant recentism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Socks of various banned users are swarming all over this one, so if it's new and unnaturally familiar with wikimarkup, policy etc, let us know or block on sight if you can. I've done a couple yesterday and some more today. Moreschi (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

84.72.61.221 around a week and arguing like a regular. To check out? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

More eyes again, please, so that those who have been involved since the original post .... don't fall out between themselves. A very frustrating article to work on. I may need to withdraw from it. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame you. The amount of soapboxing, ranting, tendentiousness and general nuttiness on that talk page is quite unbelievable. It's as if a mob of birthers or 9/11 truthers had set up camp there. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically the same folks, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely - the birthers and truthers are a fairly fringe bunch, but the anti-climate science brigade are much more widespread. You only have to look at any article on climate science on any newspaper website that allows reader comments to see that you literally can't write anything on the subject without being inundated with people ranting about socialism, conspiracies and Al Gore. Much the same is happening here. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely what has happened. But the reason I posted again is I am concerned that the effort to hold the ranters at bay could be overshadowed by misunderstandings between some of the editors who have been putting in the hours to keep the article neutral (not you, Chris). Simply, as many eyes as possible please. An RfC or two would not be out of place while the article is still locked down. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• This whole thing gets creepier with every iteration. At least a few of the more persistent editors and admins who have an entrenched view on this should recuse themselves at this point. Please allow the public to properly comment, rather than constantly reversing and undermining every single entry that conflicts with your preconception of Climategate. The notion that this is called 'Climategate' or that it is a genuine controversy is not an attack on science, a set of personal attacks or whatever. Mercifully for me I had an account set up prior to this ridiculous mess. Otherwise, I would be one (perhaps will still) of the people accused of being 'sock puppets'. If you just look at Wikipedia itself, you can see that the majority of entries call this 'Climategate'. It seems that only the pages unduly influenced by the small group dominating this subject on the English pages continue to pervert discourse. If you have a shred of decency you will look to truly NPOV editors in other areas of science on Wikipedia and ask them to monitor the pages for vandalism while you remove yourself from the debate. Disagreeing with your little gang is not an act of vandalism. What has been done by the DontCallItClimategate cabal here, OTH, certainly is vandalism. In my opinion, it is vandalism of an extreme nature that reflects very badly on the entire Wikipedia enterprise. The fact that the Internet is trying furiously to route itself around your censorship should be a clue that you have gone off the rails.

[edit] Demon Cat

"Because those that see the apparition have to worry about keeping a security clearance, sightings are not always well publicized to coworkers, the outside world, or at all." Amazing what you can learn on Wikipedia ; - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Humm, this reads like a joke article. The "Demon Cat", which foretells the future of Washington DC, is repeatedly abbreviated to "D.C." and lives in the "catafalque". Paul B (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, googling "Washington Demon Cat" does actually get some results. I'd be surprised if this was genuinely notable but the story doesn't seem to have been a joke thought up in school one day. Moreschi (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[1]. Seems like not hoax. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Capitol Demon Cat" gets even more results, including the "Monstropedia" entry here using the book above as a reference. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh it's in the book alright. It's discussed among several other wonders of the age such as "James Garfield's Psychic powers". The question is whether this is a joke made up by the author of the book. Can we really have an article soley cited to a book with chapters on the following?:

---THE WORKERS WHO NEVER LEAVE, JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ETERNAL SPEECH, THE NEW YEAR'S EVE PARTY IN STATUARY HALL, A DOUGHBOY'S SALUTE, THE RETURN OF GARFIELD AND HIS ASSASSIN, UNCLE JOE CANNON AND CHAMP CLARK, FISHBAIT MILLER'S CHICKEN GHOSTS, GENERAL LOGAN'S CONSTANT CONCERN, THE INVISIBLE GUARD, THE SLAIN LAWYER, BISHOP SIMM'S SONGS, BOISE PENROSE CATCHES UP, HENRY WILSON'S PERPETUAL TUBBING, BLOOD ON THE HOUSE GALLERY STAIRS, PIERRE L'ENFANT'S SORROWFUL VIGIL, THE LIBRARIAN'S LOST CACHE, A CONTINENTAL SOLDIER PAYS HIS RESPECTS, DEMON CAT, THE CURSE ON THE CAPITOL. Paul B (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Washington capitol ghost cat" produces several google books entries, at least some of which directly mention this alleged phenomenon, here. I acknowledge that cannot prove, one way or another, that someone did not make up the story sometime, but it does seem to meet notability criteria. Exploring the evolution of the idea is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is folklore, I don't think we need to worry about whether this "demon cat" actually exists ... What we need is evidence that a legend about a "demon cat" actually exists and is notable. Compare this to say the legend of the Headless Horseman... While that is purely a fictitious tale created by Washington Irving, what makes it notable is the fact that it has been discussed by other sources, and has been made into movies, etc. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the real thing but the book in the article is the only book published by the Washingtonian Book Trading Company. However, [2] Here's an old (1892) news story from the Chicago Tribune, or rather a snippet [3], a recent free story (most aren't free) [4] and another book "demon+cat"+catafalque&ots=fl-6oz5SON&sig=LsXNBAVL8XTr9Skt0uqkF8Zwc3o#v=onepage&q=demon&f=false. I can find some other 19th century articles you have to pay for. I'd work on the article but I really want to fix Queen of Sheba so it isn't quite so certain there was a historical Queen and king(queen?)dom. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I admit the reality of the Demon Cat. The truth can be supppressed no longer whatever it may do to my security clearance. All who tamper with Queen of Sheba will draw down the wrath of the Ethiopian true believers in the Queen. Dare you tackle Race of Jesus? Paul B (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Answering "yes" would probably count as a suicide threat, wouldn't it? John Carter (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked that "Race of Jesus" isn't just a redirect to Jewish. That would be funny. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would be reverted due to virgin birth of Jesus & immaculate conception, meaning one could argue that, at best, he was one-quarter Hebrew. (And then there is the subject of Christology, which arose due to Greek scientific thinking that carnal & divine were absolute qualities & could not exist in the same matter -- or living person.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a half decent ref from CNN.com for the folklore angle and trimmed to reflect the absence of other WP:RS sources, though its likely there are some out there. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Race of Jesus must resist urge to stubb down to "If he existed he was human." Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The theories of Dr. Bernard Leeman

Just a head's up about the edits of Ntsukunyane Mphanya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who is adding material about the theories of one Dr. Bernard Leeman. (This appears to be all Ntsukunyane Mphanya is adding to Wikipedia.) Yes, Leeman has a Ph.D., & last I checked he is a member of the faculty of some accredited university (IIRC, in Brunei). However, the man's field of study is political science -- he was an armed activist in South Africa -- & he has published an book of dubious value which incorporates a number of other fringe theories in an Afrocentric framework. These edits have been popping up in articles relating to Biblical studies, Ethiopian culture, & other tangentially-related articles. (I've left the material in Kebra Negast only because I have encountered a lot of difficulty in finding works which actually discuss this important work, rather than mention it in passing, or in summarizing Ethiopian history/culture, & Dr. Leeman's work has led me to the only monograph I've found written solely on the Kebra Negast.) So far, I have been reverting these additions based on POV-pushing & undue weight. -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I've also been reverting them for a few days. I can't remember if I contacted the editor. If you haven't, could you do so since you know about Leeman's background? Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks to Llywrch and Doug, I enjoyed that immensely. As a side-note, I wonder if the ideas of Yosef Ben-Jochannan, a (supposed) Ethiopian Jew and radical Afrocentrist, might have been an influence? Moreschi (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Doug, yes you have: a (IMHO) diplomatic request for pages to the source N.M. was citing for his edits. (I'm wondering whether a more stern message is needed.)

Moreschi, that's quite interesting that Ben-Jochannan claimed to have been born in Gondar in 1918. At the time Gondar was, if I may say, very isolated from the rest of the world, & hardly the place the average Puerto Rican of any faith would find his/her way to -- it was difficult enough for credentialed representatives (i.e., legates, ambassadors, etc.) of a major power to get there. -- llywrch (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Gondar was very difficult to get to at that time... it was in the middle of a war with the Wainriders. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait... I was thinking of Gondor... never mind. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit, though unsourced, indicates that the user can also contribute (very) non-fringe material. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

However, "this revert" (see edit summary of reverter) indicates that it's not just the Afrocentrism/Leeman stuff that needs attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a lot of citations to Leeman, mostly to his book "Biblical Scholarship and the Queen of Sheba". Google turns up no other books published by Queensland Academic Press. If it's not self-published, then I'm the... Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely self-published. And free on the web. It's a bit hard to tease out his background. I find him teaching Business Administration [5] "I also set up a scheme in two UK ESL colleges so students could get a very cheap BA in Business Administration. They took between 14 and 18 exams of the Association of Business Executives (available on 2 to three disks for about 65 pounds). Exams, registration etc came to less than 800 pounds. This gave them two years exemption at several British universities. The final year could be done by distance from the University of Sunderland for about 1500 pounds." [6] "I am involved in MBA, MA and BBA online courses at an Australian university.". [7] "Khanyi and Kellie. I originate in Songea Tanzania but my home since 1968 has been in Kilimanjaro. I became involved in Lesotho in 1970 and served in LLA and APLA. I am nomadic. I am in Australia at the moment but will go back to Indochina soon. My PhD is on BCP/PAC, my mathers in Applied Linguistics, my BA in African History, my present PhD in Cultural Tourism. (Jul 24, 2007}" and his Amazon profile [8] "was raised in Tanzania and South Africa. I took a BA degree from London in African History and returned to Taznania. From 1970 until 1986 I was involved in political and military work for the BCP of Lesotho and the PAC of Azania (South Africa). Since then I have been an academic in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Sweden, Australia and Morocco and also a language consultant for the Australian Army's UN Rwanda Force. My interests and publications concern the Chagga language of Kilimanjaro, the Queen of Sheba and Old Testament history, The Latos of Eritrea, Southern African history, the East African Campaign 1914-18, the Berber language and establishing an Afghan Women's University." Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[9] "I have recently published a book “Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship” (Queensland Academic Press) free as an email download, which sought to provide a solution to the bitter struggle within Biblical archaeology as to whether the pre-586 BCE account is fantasy or a true story. My work, which took me 19 years, utilizes Arabian and Ethiopian evdience to conclude that the Old Testament is a true historical account or events that occurred in western Arabia not Palestine. In short, Modern Israel is in the wrong place." Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Good digging. That would appear to be an almost impossible number of academic jobs spanning far too many countries. The inevitable suspicion has to be that most of these employments are simply passing associations with degree mills. The BA in African history might well be true, I suppose, and if he did that at London University, that surely means SOAS. Perfectly checkable if anyone feels the urge. I notice we're not told where the masters and PhDs come from, but none of them seem to relate to political science, which is what Doug tells us he actually teaches. This is highly entertaining, although not quite yet on the level of Dr Boubouleix-style lunacy, and it's interesting as well in that here we actually have something of a bona fide African Afrocentrist, which is really quite rare, Diop and the little school surrounding him apart. I wonder where this guy got his ideas from.

At any rate, it's pretty clear this stuff about Western Arabia is totally unsuitable for the 'pedia, so that we can just revert on sight, and block if attempts are made to edit-war it back in. As for the rest? Deal with it as it comes. Moreschi (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Side-note: quickly checking Howe, it would appear that ben-Jochannan has also proposed a version of the "black Jews" meme, and, like Leeman, linked this to Ethiopia. Perhaps that's where this is coming from, although the idea has, I think, a longer history within Afrocentrism, and at any rate I would assume Leeman's work is mercifully free of the poisonous anti-Semitism found in the works of the Puerto Rican ben-Jochannan (and others, see Tony Martin, Leonard Jeffries, etc). Moreschi (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Leeman clearly has some connection with SOAS since he was using a SOAS email address as recently as 2006 [10]. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He also has a history of involvement in unaccredited institutions, though these debates suggest that he is keen to assert his legitimacy. [11] Paul B (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been googling him too - hours of innocent fun - and have pulled up far more biographical information than needs to go on this page (BLP policy). He was brought up in England, not Africa. First degree from SOAS, probably also a doctorate from there on South African resistance movements, although he boasts elsewhere of having obtained a doctorate in Germany with a thesis written in English. He taught at SOAS, probably as a language assistant or on courses in English for international students. He has also had lvement with at least one university in Australia. User: Ntsukunyane Mphanya is closely associated if not identical. All may be irrelevant unless we want to take up COI. The QoS book is definitely SPS and shouldn't be sourcing anything here. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He claims to have two doctorates, the second being the one on Cultural Tourism. It was not clear to me that the pro-Palestinian Australian Bernard Leeman was the same person. Paul B (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ooohh, please do email all the gory details, I love this kind of stuff. Makes me go all weak at the knees. Interesting to find out the SOAS association is genuine. I can't wait to see where this goes, could be hours of entertainment. Moreschi (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait for it Moreschi... It's me! Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you cc me too on this, Judith? Your research on Leeman only confirms my suspicions about Ntsukunyane Mphanya's off-wiki identity. (He was the one who pointed me to David Allen Hubbard's thesis -- available thru ILL -- so I am willing to give him something of a break here. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to sign off wiki now and won't be around much next week either. I'm going to be too busy to email the results. Just try googling with "+Sussex" in the search and again with "+Songea". One, two, many Bernard Leemans. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there is a real Ntsukunyane Mphanya, who is a former leader of the Basutoland Congress Party and who appears to have an ideological/historical alliance with Bernard Leeman regarding the history of Lesotho. [12] Paul B (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That probably explains a lot. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor still active, complaining about censorship at [[13]]. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And he left an unsigned comment at Talk:Dʿmt claiming that Dr Nadia Durrani is quoted as stating one thing in her publication, yet in email to him claims she believes the opposite. Not that her book is being misquoted, or that she changed her conclusions in a later publication. He also claimed that "the matter has now been taken to the arbitrators with copies of Dr Nadia Durrani’s emails". (I'm scratching my head over his complaint: why doesn't he just provide the evidence requested?) -- llywrch (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this text (and more) from Aksumite Empire: "However when a plan was suggested to use rubble covering Yodit's alleged grave below Adi Kaweh to repair a road local resistance was so intense that it was not only abandoned but led to archaeological excavations by a joint German-Ethiopian team that has so far unearthed a Sabaean temple with an altar inscriptions mentioning Yeha; and a skeleton, said to be male (Tesfa-Alem Tekle, Jimma Times 30 November 2007), although this is open to question given Yodit's career as a childless cavalry commander (Leeman 2009)" after finding the Jimma Times article here - lovely use of a source, eh? He was editing as an IP, but as edits, articles, and use of Harvard referencing in conflict with the referencing used in the article shows it to be the same person, presumably not logged in. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also removed a lot of unsourced stuff, BLP and OR, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharpeville_massacre&action=historysubmit&diff=331590156&oldid=331442742 at Sharpeville massacre. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've stayed away from his non-Ethiopian edits; I honestly don't know enough about African-American history for my intuitive sense of what is plausible to be correct. On the other hand, it is frustrating that he finds some useful sources, & is correct that Wikipedia needs to pay more attention to the Jewish/Hebrew influence in Ethiopian history (as well as the archeology of that part of Africa), he insists on adding these fringe theories, & persists in this unconstructive manner, which only serve to bring disbelief to those who aren't "true believers". -- llywrch (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Current complaints at Talk:Ark of the Covenant, and latest spam for Leeman at [14]. This is getting a tad tedious. Can someone please thoroughly explain WP:NOT to this fellow? My suspicion is that we dealing with an ideologue who needs extensive reprogramming, but he deserves a chance at least. Moreschi (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I left him this attempt to engage him concerning his peculiar approach to one of his points of contention. So far no response. :-( llywrch (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

He thinks Wikipedia is a blog, see Talk:Sharpeville_massacre#Neutrality. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And Leeman is an editor here Bntleeman (talk · contribs). Evidently when he edited he added a lot of his personal knowledge, ie OR. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Max Muller

I can't make sense of the demands from newly-returned user:Bharatveer on Talk:Max_Müller. Well, I can guess -- I suspect some Hindutva website(s) are circulating fringe assertions. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Bharatveer banned? If he wasn't, we're just looking at more wasted time, this is a hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool ideologist with no interest in mere facts. --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bharatveer (talk · contribs) was banned for one year by Arbcom on 24 November 2008, so the ban expired a couple of weeks ago. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer - first edit-restricted, then banned for a year. I think it's been conclusively proven we don't have to actually waste any more effort over this particularly member of the Hindutva brigade. Just ignore, and if he starts causing any serious trouble then I'll just ban him. Moreschi (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Bharatveer's recent edits on Talk:Romila Thapar, which seem to share the same ideological space with his edits at Talk:Max_Müller. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He has brought this up in June 2008,

Wikipedia article is not calling thapar a "marxist" ; it is merely reporting that in the book "A Textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to A.D. 2000" , her works are discussed under the chapter "the MArxist phase". This shows the scholarly perception of her works.

which was answered adequately by Akhilleus (talk · contribs),

Are you contending that a textbook written by a transit engineer is representative of the mainstream scholarly evaluation of Thapar's work? That's probably not the case.

There is nothing to see here. We aren't calling people Marxists who state that they aren't Marxists and that they are insulted by the epithet. Actual Marxists embrace the label "Marxist". "Marxist" is just a label the hardcore nationalists like to tag on any Indian author who is not staunchly to the political right of Attila the Hun. --dab (𒁳) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Its got nothing to do with what you want to call her or not. See these references:1) George Thompson writing on Thomas McEvilley, says that the latter supports the view that Thapar's works were Marxist http://www.springerlink.com/content/jk216x2499w12730/

2) Daud Ali's review of A History of India: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=333711 interprets many of Thapar's views/ works as Marxist.

3) Economic and Political Weekly Jan (2000) Gopal Guru and V.Geetha refers to Thapar as a " Marxist Historian" in a discussion of Dalit culture.

4) Thapar is quoted as one of the marxist historians in the entry "Hinduism" of a "A Dictionary of The Marxist Thought"(Tom Bottomore et al, 1983, Harvard Univeristy Press, p.204)

5)Ronald Inden in his "Imagining India[1990:pp. 154-156, 197] refers to Thapar as a marxist scholar.

6)Shankar Goyal discuss thapar's interpretations of ancient india in the sections on Marxist Historiography in his book "Recent Historiography of Ancient India, Kusumanjali Prakashan: Jodhpur (1997)

7) Ravi Shanker Kapoor refers to thapar as a "Leftist Historian" in his book " More Equal than Others - A study of the Indian Left, Vision Books: New Delhi (2000)

-Bharatveer (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• My patience just gave in. I've asked for a community ban at AN. Moreschi (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pondicherry interpretation

Pondicherry interpretation - what is this? Is it genuine? is the man with the red link really qualified? I Googled and he does have a Physics degree. Rupert of the New Age (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The text is copied directly from some of his articles (the ones I found were not peer-reviewed but just published on websites) with some OR added. Needs to be turned into a stub at the very best. It hasn't changed much from the initial edit creating the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

just what the world needed -- a Sri Aurobindo interpretation of quantum mechanics. --dab (𒁳) 19:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ujm (talk · contribs) is the author, writing about his own work, referring to himself in the 3rd person. Reminds me of David Rohl. I doubt we can keep this article. dab (𒁳) 19:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

He's published in a couple of reputable journals/books (I think, could be wrong) but I can only find 2 very trivial mentions of his work. If it doesn't go to AfD it should only be a brief summary of his work, not an essay by him. Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I also find he is a bona fide physicist, but by all appearances he is also, if you excuse my Klatchian, full of himself, or else he wouldn't give a bunch of articles written by himself the grandiose title of "Pondicherry interpretation" (implying that we have "Pondicherry" answering "Copenhagen"). He also feels called to publishing snippets of personal emails as "endorsements"[15], and of course he feels called to write extensive articles about his own work on Wikipedia.

This is still about a series of bona fide physics papers. I haven't plodded through them enough to grasp the issue, but it's mostly about Mohrhoff publishing a flurry of papers "explaining" the measurment problem (although, in spite of all the "to be is to be measured" I have yet to catch him explaining what he thinks a 'measurment' is, the Gretchenfrage of qm interpretations) and two papers by other authors which grant that Mohrhoff's ideas are interesting but which at the same time point to formal flaws. The question is, does this meet our inclusion criteria? --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Walter J. Levy, Jr

I am starting work on improving Wikipedia's coverage of telepathy, parapsychology etc. There doesn't appear to be much about selection bias or 'file drawer' effect or on statistics generally in the articles I have seen. Statistics is very important in reporting this stuff as, in the total absence of any known mechanism to explain these reported phenomena, deviation from chance is the only real evidence. Is there any material I haven't seen yet? I have looked at the main articles, which aren't very good. I.e. they talk about 'scepticism', when what they should be talking about is whether there exists any sort of evidence at all. Also about fraud and so on. Speaking of which, why doesn't the article about Joseph Banks Rhine mention the fraud of Walter Levy http://www.answers.com/topic/jr-walter-j-levy? Is this because of a biographical concern? Is Wikipedia allowed to report fraud where the subject may be living? Thanks Rupert of the New Age (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Colorpuncture

More eyes needed on the Colorpuncture article. Edit warring, addition of unsourced content, socking, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Croquanna Island

I came across this article during New Page patrol and it appears to simply be an unsourced conspiracy theory. I'm tempted to send it to AfD, but I have virtually no history in dealing with fringe theories on Wikipedia. Could someone more knowledgeable take a look and advise the best way to proceed? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I prodded it. If it reappears, then AfD would be the next step. Obviously, it's complete nonsense. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this may be viral marketing for an upcoming film or something.[16] --dab (𒁳) 16:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the extra eyes. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a 'film' being made for something called Betrayalfest 2010 whose producer says it's genuine [17]. See also [18]. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

clearly falls under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Speedied. --dab (𒁳) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits on Bogdanov Affair

An editor (Afteread) has recently made a slew of edits on Bogdanov Affair. By and large, these edits have been productive, but I'm concerned that some of the edits are injecting personal opinion rather than verifiable claims into the article. Perhaps a few more eyes on the page would be helpful. Phiwum (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, for instance, that Afteread has removed all mention of the apparently fictitious supporter, Professor Yang. Personally, I find that bit of the affair interesting (though perhaps that section went into too much detail). Is the Yang thang appropriate for WP? Phiwum (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a problem. As Alain Connes wrote in Le Monde, almost all of their work is just gibberish, mixing up Donaldson theory with Tomita-Takesaki theory. User:Afteread's personal POV-pushing could lead the reader to believe that they were just misunderstood geniuses rather than charlatans, as the article in Le Monde makes clear. Afteread's edits should be watched carefully. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that Afteread (talk · contribs) marks all his edits to WP as minor, even when they are not so. (He has only been editing since December 12.) In addition note these diffs [19] [20] to the Kent Hovind article. He has now been warned about both these points. Mathsci (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

These edits [21] to Antony Garrett Lisi remove large parts of the text with no justification. There are various wikipedia policies that he does not seem aware of. Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Update This appears to be just one of a series of sockpuppets of a banned user described but not identified on WikiProject Mathematics here. Mathsci (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole treatment of this incident seems utterly asinine. But, then, I haven't privately asked for details. Apparently, if you do so, you'll learn enough about this secret evil user to recognize and publicly proclaim the wisdom of ArbCom (judging from that thread). Phiwum (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Formosa Island, Japanese Territory

Relating to an unresponded to discussion an IP editor has added the Republic of China to the Government in exile article. Past consensus has been that the Republic of China is not in exile, as the IP editor has claimed; therefore, without new consensus or references provided, the content was removed from the article. Relevant articles relating to this topic are Political status of Taiwan, Legal status of Taiwan, and Treaty of Taipei. This is a highly contentious topic, and as such WP:NEU clearly applies, and discussion should attempt to remain civil.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely Taiwan began with the Kuomintang as a government in exile? Whether it is now or not is another matter, but it definitely was considered to be a government-in-exile in the 50s.[22] Fences&Windows 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Was there a period of time during which the Kuomintang did not control any part of the previous territory that it had governed? If so, it would have been a government-in-exile during such a period. If not, then it would not have been a government-in-exile, even if some sources would describe it as such.  Cs32en  19:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the KMT would probably question the "government in exile" label if you asked them today. Simonm223 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Great Year/Platonic year

Someone has recently revised the Great Year article to emphasize that the "Great Year" and the "Platonic Year" are two different things. Would this constitute a fringe theory? As far as I can tell, the scholarly consensus is that the "Great Year" and the "Platonic Year" refer to the same thing. -38.112.107.3 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

With the caveat that I'm not familiar with any of this stuff, the article says that a Platonic year is different because it requires that the planets, and not just the constellations, return to their original positions. The article does at least have some POV issues, however, with phrases like "it is truly unfortunate that...". Looie496 (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that our Axial precession (astronomy) article has "called a Great or Platonic year in astrology" in the intro. -Pollinosisss (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

the article needs cleanup, both before and after the anon's edit, so there is little point in reverting. Somebody needs to sit down and do it properly. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vedic astrology and Jyotiṣa

For a long time, the first was a placeholder redirect to the second. I've now removed the redirect and started an article. Hopefully from now on no one wil be misled by following links to Vedic astrology. Meanwhile, unfortunately, gremlins and entropy have already brought their usual horrors to Jyotiṣa, the erstwhile redirect/link target. Back in July someone went to town with the article and, besides eliminating all but one source of references, also thoughtfully deleted all of the historical and contemporary information that Dab and I had collected (as part of a cleanup effort a while back) and which had a secondary aim of hopefully warning off the "vedic" enthusiasts. The article is now shorn of all references except to the works of someone who is practically unknown to Google scholar (basically, a David Frawley clone.) And, sure enough, with nothing to warn against it, in the fullness of time the "vedic" bogey has been written into the lede. It's possible that any attempt to restore sanity to the article may be resisted, considering statements such as this and this. rudra (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you didn't just revert to the last good version. This was quite obviously an attack on the article's integrity, and we have enough policies to smack people with who make such attempts. It is, however, disturbing that nobody noticed the attack for almost half a year. It appears that other than Rudrasharman and myself, nobody is watching this article, and when the two of us aren't looking, the gremlins are free to just tear it down yet again. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, an integrity attack wasn't that obvious to me. In fact, it looked more like an instance of Clark's Law (and he did add some flags that made his expertise level clear). So my first thought was that merging/editing might be a better response than reverting. (WP:BOLD, that massive green light for the adventurously clueless, struck again, it seems.) rudra (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

On further examination, I do have to agree that the net effect of this fellow's efforts have been quite destructive. All over the place, he has deleted the older scrutable albeit unreferenced text, and his replacements are "referenced" gibberish/woo ("In Jyotisha, the zodiac is called kalpurusha, the eternal time that has no beginning or end. In the Vedas, the ecliptic is referred to as the Sudarshan Chakra, the wheel in the hand of Lord Vishnu, the creator of the universe. [...] The progression through the zodiac signs represents the cosmic evolution of the soul."). I think we need to rethink the cleanup process with a view towards preventing future recurrences of a disaster like this one. E.g., convert this article to summary style. rudra (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I frankly don't care whether this was malice or cluelessness, as our reaction is going to be the same either way. I like your expression of "gremlins and entropy" . -- it's irrelevant whether it was a gremlin (India must be brimfull of these) or just entropy. The Jyotisha article is a troll magnet because it combines the "astrology" troublespot with the "Hindu patriotism" one. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neocatastrophism

Saw it on DYK. Cites two sources, some synth issues with one of the references. I get a bit nervous about any article purporting to be scientific that has both a very limited range of sources 'and' WP:SYNTH issues of any sort so I thought I'd mention it.

Perhaps a cosmology specialist can take a look and, if legitimate, expand. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Subject is legitimate speculation and there are often whimsical proposals written on the subject, though I've never heard it called "neocatastrophism". ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It does appear in at least a few RS's (like the University of Regina website) here, Google scholar here, as well as the (God help us) Velikovsky Encyclopedia, so the term and subject seem to be notable, although the content could probably use work. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Catastrophism is a term from geology, while the neocatastrophism in question is more about cosmology (or astronomy?) than geology. However, it seems that the hits you've found are related to geology and hence are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Phiwum (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

the subject is certainly notabe enough, the question is, do we need a separate article under this heading? What this is, effectively, is one angle on Fermi's paradox, and I see no reason to split it off its main article. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is a merger proposal, I think that would be a reasonable idea. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, neo-catastrophism as I have heard about it has nothing to do with the subject of the article, or very little to do with it. John Carter's found the sorts of sources I expected the article to use when I saw the subject heading. It's a variant of catastrophism relevant to the Earth, eg [23] [24] [25] - it's worth looking at the Velikovsky Encylopedia's first 2 definitions [26]. Perhaps we need to to have a redirect called Neocastrophism (astrobiology) and another to maybe Catastrophism, then there is paleontology to deal with perhaps? See Talk:Catastrophism#NeoCatastrophism. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Blaylock

I have started a new talk page section about why he's notable. This article is in desperate need of coverage of his fringe POV. The article reads more like a hagiography. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Examples on Jungian archetype/personality type articles

Did you know that the articles associated with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Keirsey Temperament Sorter identify historical figures and living humans as belonging to various archetypes and personality types as intuited by "experts" (who might be classified as "true believers")? Since these are simply the opinions of pseudoscientists and not facts, I recommend either a hefty couching of these lists or an outright removal. They are extremely misleading to the casual reader and also possibly BLP violations.

Did you know that Kristi Yamaguchi is an ISFJ or that Sandra Day O'Connor is a Supervisor (Role Variant)? No? I bet they didn't either.

Please help clean up this walled garden.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This personality type material quite apparently has the tendency to attract cruft. Remember the circus surrounding Socionics we had a whileback. We just need to insist stuff is referenced closely, and prevent articles from sprawling out into sub-articles. It's not a problem to have a lengthy article on each type, even with this kind of dubious sorting of historical individuals, just as long as things remain closely sourced. --dab (𒁳) 13:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm OK with notable and sourced speculation. But every random psychological typing website isn't a notable source. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with psychological typing until they do two things: 1) suggest the set of patterns and categorizations applied to people are indicative of underlying structures within the mind that are universal and not just ideas used by those who subscribe to them.

2) Start applying the type to people who have not participated in a typing scheme. So, basically, my question would be this: is there a RS stating that Kristi Yamaguchi self-identifies as an ISFJ?

The funny thing about the MBTI in particular is that the authors of the program are aware that the results are not valid without conscious self-selection. So typing strangers is basically the worst sort of bad behaviour from an insider perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mileva Maric and historians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87

The following amended sentence was posted on the Mileva Maric page on 19 December 2009:

A few historians, outside the consensus, have argued that she may have played some role.[33]

The full context is as follows:

The question whether (and if so, to what extent) Marić contributed to Einstein's early work, and to the Annus Mirabilis Papers in particular, is controversial. However, the overwelming consensus among professional historians of physics is that she did not.[32]. A few historians, outside the consensus, have argued that she may have played some role.[33]

Reference 33 cites Margarete Maurer, Senta Troemel-Ploetz and Evan Harris Walker. However, none of these are historians of physics, historians of science, or indeed historians at all.

Margarete Maurer is a lecturer for theoretical aspects in the Life Sciences at the universities of Innsbruck and Vienna, especially "nature", "gender" and philosophy/sociology of science. http://www.epws.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=4652

Senta Troemel-Ploetz is a linguist and writer on feminist themes. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senta_Tr%C3%B6mel-Pl%C3%B6tz

Evan Harris Walker was a physicist, but at the time when he wrote about Maric and Einstein he was the Director of the Walker Cancer Research Institute which he founded. He also published books on the nature of consciousness. http://www.pdonovan.com/blog_face_reviews/evan_walker.php

I therefore propose that the sentence in question be amended to:

However other academics argue that she may have played some role.

[Open to suggestions]

Esterson (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

classic fringe material. This theory has been discussed and found lacking merit. There are just a few die-hard feminists who keep assuming there must be a conspiracy. It's a question of WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of socionics

There has been a big Arbcom case on this. I've looked it over again and still see big issues with information metabolism; if anything, it's worse than ever. I've asked arbcom for comment about my editing in the matter, since I am technically an interested party, but I would invite others to take another look. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Solastalgia

What to do about this "new concept in human health and identity"? It is supposed to mean "distress in the face of environmental destruction". I am sure that the reaction to environmental degradation has been studied and is a notable topic. But Glenn Albrecht (talk · contribs) pretends that by slapping a made-up portmanteau on the topic it becomes a "new concept". The man appears to be university professor at Murdoch University, Perth, which is pretty much the only reason I haven't speedied this.

The only third-party reference quoted based is critical[27] dab (𒁳) 12:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipeida does not usually accept articles on neologisms... have any third party sources used the term? If not, the article should either be deleted or merged to some other article that covers the concept. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

google it. It does verify in assorted online blogs, magazines and glossaries. There are third party sources, as I state above the article even cites a critical one. The question is, does this suffice? The other question is, what would be "some other article that covers the concept"? If I had found one, I would just have silently merged. But our environmental degradation article is disgracefully stubby. --dab (𒁳) 14:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that Google hits and blogs are not WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

sheesh, I am the one reporting this here. How about some sort of constructive suggestion on how to deal with this? --dab (𒁳) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are not meaningful, but Google Scholar hits usually are, and this term gets over 30 of them, many independent of the creator. In my opinion there is enough literature to support an article. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

for chrissakes, I know that "google hits are not meaningful", ok? Please keep telling me that. It is surrealy to tell me that and then go on to argue that the article should be kept because the word got 30 hits on google scholar. Google hits are a useful indicator. If you get, say, 8,000 hits on google scholar, or 1,200,000 hits on google, chances are that the topic is notable one way or another. 30 hits on google scholar (how many of them due to Albrecht himself?) tell you nothing. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was actually directing the comment about Google Hits towards HandThatFeeds; sorry for the confusion. I agree that Google Scholar hits are not automatically meaningful, but it generally gives a much better filter than Google Web, and in this case my impression was that the specific things that showed up were sufficient. Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

← Maybe I was a bit blunt, but the point is that the number of results doesn't even mean this term is notable enough to get meaningful references. Has anyone delved into the Google Scholar results to see if there's more than a passing mention to the term in those 30 hits? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Collapse of the World Trade Center

Could some outside editors have a look at the discussion at Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center#Conspiracy theory section heading, which concerns whether a fringe viewpoint should be represented in the article. Hut 8.5 21:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Weighed in. Other comments welcome. Moreschi (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dajjal flag

Creator of this masterpiece User:0XQ has also made a number of other, er, quirky edits. Paul B (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to print off and pin up on their walls this work of genius, before it gets deleted in a couple of days. Truly brilliant crackpottery, and seemingly all the better because it would look to be fairly agenda-free - or there's not an obvious agenda, at any rate.

Some cleanup work may be needed of the author's other edits. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See also Spirit spouse, Exomissiology, Exotheology, and Vanaspati (god), interesting pages with various degrees of sanity. Moreschi (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. rudra (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oahspe: A New Bible

Another channelled text, article needs a lot of cleaning up. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Put it up for prod. Simonm223 (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

See also this AFD, where a SPA is valiantly defending a related article against a tide of consensus for delete. — æk^Talk 22:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Now up for AfD. [28] Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Chronology (Rohl)

A classic WP:FRINGE article, notability is arguable because there have been TV shows about it and what not, but at the same time the thing has zero credibility in academia. But in this case we have User:David Rohl, the author himself, keeping a tight watch on the topic to ensure it is presented as favourably as at all possible. Same problem at the David Rohl bio article. Rohl is touted as an "Egyptologist" because he once got a university degree in that field. He neither has any academic affiliatin, nor does he have a PhD, so I think the label (and the category) aren't appropriate without qualification. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is straightforward WP:COI, surely? At least he is doing so honestly. If he wants to watch over the biography article, fair enough (BLP and all that), but really, the New Chronology stuff should be left to outside editors. Doubtless Rohl's help is appreciated in establishing what his thoughts are but he shouldn't be touching any evaluative content. Moreschi (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I told him as much, and he was being rather cooperative about it, agreeing not to edit the article. He is more or less restricting his activities to the talkpage, but he is dominating the talkpage. The text he contributed to the wiki article on his theory would probably fill another book by now. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that he can rant all he wants on the talk page... as long as he isn't editing the actual article it does not really make a difference. Or am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

yes. Your first reaction is "COI!" Your second reaction is, bah, let him fill the talkpage. And then after a year you note how the article never makes any progress because Rohl is putting so much effort into his "suggestions" on talk where they are picked up by the credulous and the fringily inclined that Rohl is in effect editing by proxy. We do have a bunch of editors who are very much into Rohl's chronology. This isn't evil or anyting, but it's below-par scholarship with the potential of significantly eroding the quality on little-watched articles about ancient history. It's not a big deal, but I am putting it here in the hope that the article will get more attention from editors experienced in dealing with fringe theories. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

{undent} Not to mention how defensive Rohl is... it makes for an uncomfortable editing environment. He doesn't want to admit he has a CoI! Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He's now suggesting that it's "loony" to disbelieve his chronlogy... which he refers to in the third person. On the plus side he seems to become so antagonistic to me that he's forgotten entirely how angry he was at dab. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and disbelieving the veracity of the bible is now, apparently, ignorant dogma. ROTFL. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's sad. I really enjoyed A Test of Time at one time. In a way his books are a good example of how a somewhat legitimate exploratory historical revisionist goes complete loony over time.--LexCorp (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It happens. The early works of Tony Martin were reputable, scholarly pieces (if a little one-sided) on the life and times of Marcus Garvey. More recently, however...Moreschi (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that I'm much less interested in egyptology per say than I am in historical revisionism; it has been a very potent political tool in the past. I wasn't aware of Tony Martin previously; thanks for pointing me in his direction. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming

More eyes please. There is presently an RFC about whether it was removing vandalism to delete inappropriately referenced claims that human-caused global warming is discredited. Argh! Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Angel Moroni (LDS) being rewritten as though it is factual

I reverted an edit by a named account, only to be reverted myself by an IP. [29] The lead now begins "The Angel Moroni (pronounced /m?'ro?na?/) is an angel". Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I always got a chuckle out of the idea that the angel who purportedly gave the tablets to Joe Smith was a moron(i). Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For those who watch South Park... "dum dum dum dum dum". Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What I want to know is why Moses just got plain ol' stone tablets, not gold ones like Smith, in addition to getting mooned by God. Poor guy. Auntie E. 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's why Moses got to keep them, and Smith had to return his for the deposit. - Nunh-huh 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be confused with The Angel Zamboni who sculpted his tablets in ice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming scepticism as "Fringe"

I would like the assembled masses to provide insight as to whether global warming scepticism is "fringe" as defined in Wikipedia. While this scepticism is not mainstream, there are nonetheless significant papers published by notable scientists in reputable academic journals (here's one of the latest) and there is significant support within the scientific community. Therefore, I would classify global warming scepticism as a minority viewpoint. I ask in particular because two editors are apparently deadset (I'm trying to determine their exact position) against any statement from a global warming sceptic supporting Jim Inhofe, using WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE as their argument. Honestly, the argument that the article cannot include a quote from a (or any) sceptic supporting Sen. Inhfoe is just incredible to me. Madman (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Global Warming scepticism" is a fairly abigous term... It can refer to those who believe in climate change, but have concerns about how data has been collected as well as those who out right deny that Global Warming exists (and a host of opinions that fall between these extremes). Some scepticism is definitely Fringe, some scepticism is mainstream (at least in the general population... the scientific community is fairly solid)... So I would say it depends what you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar nails it. On the one hand there are some alternative hypothesis that are not generally accepted but at least are scientifically plausible. On the other hand there's the far side of fringe, like the stuff this guy is pushing. We have to take it case by case based on criteria like whether hypotheses have been published in reputable journals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the talk page, it does seem that the editors to that article are having some POV and ownership issues. But that does not surprise me in an article on such a controvercial topic. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pace Gore, the science is not settled, and the opposition—right or wrong—is not fringe. - Nunh-huh 23:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Which "science" is not settled, exactly? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Every science in the world. To say that science is settled is to say that science isn't self-correcting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an erroneous conclusion. Climate change scepticism is like creationism: a largely political controversy about an issue on which there is scientific consensus. There are, to be sure, some "dissident" scientists who reject the consensus, but they are very much a fringe within the scientific profession, just as scientists who dispute evolution are a fringe element. The science is "settled" (not fixed, note) in the sense that the overwhelming majority support the consensus viewpoint and its key conclusions, which are not in any serious dispute any more than the key principles of evolution by natural selection. That doesn't mean it's not self-correcting - it simply means that all the lines of evidence have converged on a single point which is now overwhelmingly established and accepted. They could in principle be overturned by some new discovery but this isn't a field which rests on one single point of failure, any more than evolution or atomic theory, so such an event is pretty unlikely.

Because the CC controversy is essentially political rather than scientific, unfortunately this means we get a considerable number of non-scientists who (just like creationists) falsely claim that CC is a "theory in crisis", that their views are being suppressed and that some new event or discovery has disproved all of climate science overnight. Anyone who is familiar with the tropes of creationism will recognise the same tropes being used by climate change sceptics (who are, in reality, anti-science political activists) and, indeed, some of the parties in both controversies are the same, like the Discovery Institute of intelligent design infamy. We have to be on our guard against attempts by political activists to make false statements about the science. Just because some journalist or politician makes a claim, that does not mean that it has any scientific validity - which is true for any area of science, not just this particular one - and we have to avoid giving the false impression that it does. When it comes to scientific issues, we follow the scientific consensus view. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor analogy. Skepticism in this matter doesn't require a belief in the supernatural, only the belief that people are human and can be mistaken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The origins of the "scepticism" actually aren't relevant. The point is that in both cases the "sceptics" hold a prior belief - motivated by religious, economic or political concerns, it doesn't really matter - that the scientific consensus is wrong, regardless of the state of the actual science. It's not a matter of a "belief that people are human and can be mistaken", which might apply if the science was based on a single poorly-documented premise. Creationists and CC "sceptics" have a common, rather naive belief that the science they are attacking has a single vulnerable point which, if "discredited", will overturn the entire science. That is why, every time some minor controversy arises, you get swarms of such people trying to declare evolution / HIV / cosmology / climatology to be a busted flush. The challenge for us as Wikipedians is to manage such influxes of the clueless and naive. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Have you seen Penn & Teller's take on the subject? Search YouTube for clips of the "Global Warming" Bullshit episode.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen it, but I do know their claims were pretty much eviscerated. I think you need to aim a little higher than Penn & Teller for your scientific knowledge... -- ChrisO (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I searched YouTube for the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Global Warming episode and got this. [30] ;) Dynablaster (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in our article about the dangers of Confirmation bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, of course the science isn't settled. Science very rarely (never?) is. That's the whole point of science. The most that can be said is that there is a general consensus, which there does appear to be, and per policy Wikipedia should reflect that. If this was the 15th century Wikipedia would have a described heliocentricity as coming under WP:FRINGE: that's just the way we work. Global warming may turn out to be of no more validity than geocentricity, or it may turn out to be as valid as heliocentricity. I don't know, and don't really care. As far as this website is concerned it doesn't matter. Moreschi (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate between scepticism and denialism. Scepticism includes a wide range of opinions... Scepticism includes those who are have concerns about the way the evidence for global warming has been gathered;, it includes those who agree that Global temperatures have been rising, but don't agree with why the rise has been happening; it includes those who don't question the evidence, but do question the conclusions as to what will happen next. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No it's not really about consensus. There was a scientific consensus in the thirteenth century about Aristotle's physics and biology. The question is about the weight of the evidence attaching to the theory. See my remarks below. Also, it's not about whether Wikipedia should reflect scientific consensus. Yes it should. But that is different from whether it should label sceptics as denialists or cranks or pseudoscientists or whatever. The weight of evidence for the current consensus about the age of the Earth justifies labelling 'creation science' as pseudoscience. On GW scepticism, I'm not so sure. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the Global Warming or Climate Change skeptics I think it is counter productive to label them fringe. The term fringe is often used to establish preconceived ideas and lead people to believe one point of view before the research is done. Regardless of whether you call it fringe or not the same scientific process should be done to determine whether anything is true or not. Furthermore another big problem is the excessive coverage on the most controversial aspect of pollution. This is distracting the public from other important aspects of pollution that are not in dispute or shouldn’t be like the pollution of many lakes and rivers depriving the people of clean water to drink and deforestation. These things are clear and they need to be addressed yet they are being ignored. If more attention can be drawn to other aspects of this it could lead to productive activity rather than never ending debate and more pollution. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia can't fix society's infatuation with the global warming controversy. And the scientific process is still in progress, but all the evidence to date says the deniers are fringe. Skeptics are still working with the data, trying to find answers to their questions; deniers outright ignore the data and simply say "it isn't so!" — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. They are in-line with my thoughts on the matter as well. Madman (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] It's not fringe

I do not want to take a strong view on this particular issue, not being an expert. But, the extent to which a sceptic is judged a crank or denialist or what have you depends on the evidence underlying the position to be denied. Generally, anyone denying established mathematical theorems is regarded as cranky in the mathematical profession. That is because of the rigour of mathematical proof, and because there is no empirical evidence required for mathematics. Anyone denying accepted science for which there is a great deal of disparate and different evidence, is rightly regarded as cranky, rather than sceptical. E.g. the weight of evidence on the age of the earth comes from so many different sources and disciplines that any other explanation is highly improbable.

Turning to global warming. What probability attaches to the empirical evidence we have? Scepticism about the long-term historical temperature may be justified because of of the Divergence problem. The short term historical record shows a recent increase in temperature, but what probability attaches to it being a trend, rather than noise? I don't have a deep knowledge of statistics, but looking at the temperature record does not suggest the recent 'trend' is a six standard deviation change or anything like that. I believe I could easily generate a random number sequence with similar characteristics.

Turning to the theoretical evidence. This seems stronger, but again, what probability attaches to it? If a very high one, why the need for empirical evidence at all? We don't check different triangles to see if the sum of the angles equals 180 degrees. The theory of triangles is sufficiently strong that we don't need to do this. From what I have read in the climate change literature (I mean academic peer-reviewed papers) there is considerable uncertainty about the climate models.

I'm not saying any of the theory is wrong, nor that the weight of probability does not support the current scientific consensus. What I am saying is that the probability of the current consensus being wrong is high enough that we shouldn't call a global warming sceptic a crank or a denialist, both of which are pejorative terms. I'm a GW sceptic, in that nothing I have read suggests strongly to me that there is a warming trend caused by human activity. Some of the evidence is compelling I admit - but not compelling in the way that the evidence for the age of the Earth is compelling. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PS A site search of crank.net does not include any global warming sceptics. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic source question

Could a few regulars familiar with the complementary and alternative medicine topic area look over Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Regulated professional trade publication's reliability and provide some feedback? It would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

One editor was good enough to speak up, but the voices of a few more editors clued in about the area would help make sure the matter is resolved firmly. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Somers' New Target: Conventional Cancer Treatment

This AP article covers many subjects relevant to articles about alternative medicine:

• Somers' New Target: Conventional Cancer Treatment

Brangifer (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was certainly...ahem...entertaining? Perhaps we should have newsflash bulletins posted to this noticeboard on a regular basis whenever some celebrity comes up with similarly cretinous pronouncements, so we know to pay extra special attention to various bits of our watchlists. Moreschi (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the irresponsible views of some celebrities fortunately get a nice spanking in that article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, and to think some people think certain editors use the Fringe Noticeboard as a canvassing board. stmrlbs|talk 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the stricken comment was certainly appropriate and really needn't have been stricken. Defending me against a personal attack was perfectly appropriate. No canvassing involved. The purpose of these boards is to bring to the attention of interested individuals some topics they might find useful. This noticeboard is for "fringe" topics, and that article certainly deals with it. Immediately after posting here it dawned on me that another board might also find this subject interesting, so I posted there as well. It's both a fringe and a medical subject. Now if pushers of fringe POV like the complainant above would like to comment there, be my guest. These noticeboards, just like projects, are a level deeper in Wikipedia than the article talk pages and all kinds of interesting things occur here ;-) If you want to get even deeper, where things like the NPA policy aren't even enforced, go to any ArbCom proceeding. There mayhem rules the day, with all kinds of policy violations. They often resemble mob rule and a kangaroo court, unless a really good clerk is doing their job. No, this is pretty standard and innocent posting of information. We try to keep it civil and not attack people who use the boards appropriately. If my posting had been off-topic it might have been a different matter, with the posting getting ignored. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of this board: "This noticeboard aims to serve as a place where questions relating to articles on fringe theories can be answered, and to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Is there an Wikipedia article on this? Is there undue weight being given somewhere about this Somer's opinion in a wikipedia article? You didn't mention the wikipedia article that you were referring to. stmrlbs|talk 05:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Suzanne Somers discusses this and should use the above article as a source. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone review edits by Place4us

Place4us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

A quick glance at some of the user's edits seem a bit odd, and far beyond a typical new account. This edit [31] and this one [32] just feel odd to me. Ravensfire (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A few seem okay, but others seem rather odd. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban evader, indeffed by User:John Vandenberg. Well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Greater India Society and Kamboja-cruft

How do we handle old history books and articles by members of the Greater India Society (e.g. Majumdar, Bagchi, see Greater India for a helpful explanation of where they were coming from)? Should ideas sourced to them be taken out completely on the basis that their scholarship was nationalistic and is now long superseded? Or do we need to take a more subtle approach? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, they are primary sources that can be cited as primary sources for the topics of Indian and particularly Bengali nationalism and cultural chauvinism. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Case-by-case basis. In instances where the scholarship has not fundamentally altered, we might as well leave such references in place, but in cases (probably the majority) where their work has been superseded, we relegate them to the status of primary sources as per Dieter. Moreschi (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, so I need to know what the best recent sources are for this period of Indian history and use them to the full, now and again calling on the earlier texts as primary. Further guidance and more eyes very welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A2 milk

This needs some attention. Currently it gives significant coverage to the theory milk with predominantly A1 β-casein is harmful without making it clear most independent reviews have found the evidence is too weak to support the conclusion e.g. http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/policy-law/projects/a1-a2-milk/ Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely the obvious thing to do would simply be to revert this edit, hence cutting the more fringey material at a stroke. Moreschi (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu mythology

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs), evidently something of a long-term trouble-maker, is apparently trying to argue (at Talk:Hindu mythology) that Hindu myth should be taken as historical fact, because neither Dbachmann nor myself has a time machine to verify that Indra didn't exist, or actually slay a real dragon. A somewhat startling reversal of the burden of proof, it certainly makes for excellent entertainment. This hasn't got far, beyond the addition (swiftly reverted) of a bunch of highly tendentious {{fact}} tags, but some more eyes would be appreciated, and the humour value certainly makes this worthwhile. Moreschi (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, for another incarnation of the Hindutva crowd, see Madmonk11 (talk · contribs) at Dravidian peoples, claiming that AIT is now "discredited". Moreschi (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a doppelganger. He knows his way around WP. So far, edits on the Indian military, Indian football, and South Indians. And, of course, AIT. Anyone with that interest set sanctioned or blocked lately? rudra (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

IAF (talk · contribs) returning? Would certainly fit with the military/aeronautical edits. Moreschi (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Rudrasharman, of course he knows his way around Wikipedia. He's been around for over 2 1/2 years. Vassyana (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Moreschi, based on my previous knowledge and experience with IAF and BalanceRestored, they are almost assuredly not the same person. They have differing views and their particular interests within the same topic areas are quite distinct. Vassyana (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, I will touch base with the editor on his talk page and try to nudge him in-bounds. I have dealt with him before. If some reasonable guidance fails and he really crosses the line, I will use blocks as necessary to get the point across. Vassyana (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Vassyana, we were talking about the new user Madmonk11 (talk · contribs). If you could apply some cluebat to BalanceRestored as well, however, that would be much appreciated :) Moreschi (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

((discreetly wipes the egg from his face)) Ah! I understand how the military background or interest and Hindutva POV are suspicious. However, it's not a terribly uncommon combination for that sort of editor and there is no overlap (so far) with IAF's identifying hot button issues. At the current time, I'd say keep an eye on him as you would any suspicious SPA. As for BR, I'm trying to discuss things with him now to see if we can clue him in. Vassyana (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I never asked anyone to do this either "Hindu myth should be taken as historical fact". Again, what about the writings we have accepted today as history? do you take the burden to save adequate proof about their verifiability either? What would be the situation with today's history 10000 years after? would it be fine, if future humans call them myth?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, did you not compare Hindu mythology to Newton's laws here? That would seem to negate your assertion. Auntie E. 16:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) is indeed something of a long-term troublemaker. He has escaped being banned because he is pronouncedly un-aggressive and mostly confines himself to trolling talkpages. When I say trolling I refer to what I think is a deliberate show of naiveté bordering on complete lack of basic comprehension. He is taking the stance of Socrates, which is the stance of a four-year-old toddler, that if you put completely naive questions to people long enough sooner or later they realize that they really know nothing. This may be cool for a guru, a Zen master or a Greek philosopher, but it is of course in egregious violation of everything Wikipedia aims to be, and it is also an insult to the intelligence of every editor unfortunate enough to come across this user.

So, while BR isn't doing any positive damage, he has also failed to contribute or show a good faith interest in contributing to the project and I believe a community ban is well arguable at this point.

This is purely a question of user conduct, btw, because BR isn't making any points of content worth bringing up even on this board. --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A far more interesting case is ICouldBeWrong (talk · contribs). He is the exact opposite of BR in that he is displaying his intelligence openly, and I haven't quite figured him out, but I strongly suspect an attempt at camouflaging a Hindutva account. I have only very rarely encountered elaborate attempts at building "reputation" for a new account in making actual useful contributions in another area before turning to the actual agenda. The approach may be "intelligent" because you have plausible deniability, but then it never really works because you spend far too much time on unrelated items for the little effect you end up having on the actual issue. It's interesting to see people try this but one should not overestimate the damage they do. Hell, they even contribute good content even if it's only as part of their cover :) --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For the interesting contributions from ICouldBeWrong, see the most recent threads at Talk:Sanskrit and Talk:Rigveda. We shall have to watch and wait on that one, I think. I'd be surprised right now if this is a reincarnation, as all the previous Hindutva boys of my acquaintance never got close to that level of mental and wikipolitical sophistication, unless Watch844 (talk · contribs) or someone like that actually got themselves an education. But quite possibly a cover for a clued-up newcomer to the party. We shall see.

Speaking of education, this is precisely the problem with BalanceRestored. I'm not sure his Socratic show is as deliberate as Dieter thinks. IMO this an extreme example of a well-observed phenomenon, of which Hkelkar (talk · contribs) was the best example. The educational background of the Hindutva crowd (many of whom were ABCD, although this does not seem to include BR) apparently precluded any serious study of the humanities: as a result, they have never learnt how to analyze sources, or to think in anything other than terms of black-and-white. And like Hkelkar, BR is from a physics background. At any rate, whatever the reasons, this mindset has repeatedly shown itself unfit for Wikipedia, and if BR keeps wasting our time (not to mention insulting our intelligence, as Dieter points out), then a community ban is probably in order. Moreschi (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "mention insulting our intelligence". When did I insult? BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

When I ask someone to justify, reason should that be taken as an insult? BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 18:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And this time I only added a {{fact}}BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Aquatic ape hypothesis and Bipedalism

Just saw a plea at WikiProject Rational Skepticism for eyes on both of these articles. The AAH one has been protected for 2 weeks, the other is unprotected. My experience of this debate elsewhere has not been pleasant. Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this could use some attention. The first thing that hit my eye was that both participants could potentially use a break from their rollback buttons. Moreschi (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found that the person on the AAH page who included the references from the website has been very amenable to reasonable suggestions. This could be resolved positively yet.Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Would the participants be able to agree on a to-do list for the AAH article? My impression was that it was informative and presented info neutrally but that it was a bit sprawly and potentially needed restructuring. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Global Consciousness Project

An IP editor keeps introducing WP:OR with unreferenced "claraifications" for the vaguer parts of this vague piece of pseudo-science. Furthermore thye IP editor is claiming I have a WP:COI because of my materialist and skeptical user badges on my user page. Eyes needed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try to help out by improving the article Gonefishingforgood (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Climate change

Pleas esee Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)