Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

General help
Report abuse
Request assistance
Noticeboards
Shortcuts:
WP:FTN
WP:FT/N

This noticeboard aims to serve as a place to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Often, such fringe theories are promoted in order to push 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 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, 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 mindful of the December of 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 set forth the following guidance:

Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Contents


New Thought

There are two editors who are sometimes active on this noticeboard, Orangemarlin and ScienceApologist, who I believe are edit warring on the New Thought article and trying to make unsourced changes. I would appreciate hearing the views of other editors here, who I am sure will let me know if they think I am I am mistaken. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You and SA need to have a discussion on each other's talk pages about sources for the article. The section on therapeutic ideas isn't properly sourced yet. You should regard the churches' own websites as primary sources. There are two books from academic presses already referenced. Don't either of these have anything on the views about health and healing? If not, then we must question whether it is a notable aspect of this belief system. If you could find something that explained how these views grew up in opposition to mainstream medical thinking, then that would be really interesting, and could quite easily be written up in a completely neutral way. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I discussion re Iranian nationalist editors

The recent problems with Iranian nationalists pushing fringe theories are currently being discussed at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza, User:CreazySuit and User:Larno Man. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Morya

Not long ago I deleted a lot of material from this Theosophical Society related article because of, what seems to me, synthesis and original research, and lack of secondary sources. All that was just reverted, and I would appreciate it if some other editors would take a look. There is no point in arguing if it turns out I am in the wrong. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just at a glance I can see that these are huge problems on the article. There are some books listed under "Further reading" that from their titles and publishers are good secondary sources, yet the article is written up instead entirely from primary sources. I suggest stubbing it and starting it again using the university press books, and keeping it as short as you possibly can. Right at the beginning it is essential that the reader knows whether this is a supernatural being, a real human being (dates of birth and death?), or a kind of supposition that may or may not have been a real person. The lead should be comprehensible by someone who has never heard of Theosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I know I've brought this here before, but I'm starting another drive to improve the articlce. It seems to be going quite well, but it keeps getting hung up on "quackery" appearing in the lead. Personally I'm not bothered either way, but I have a suspicion that removing quackery will lead to calls for pseudoscience to be removed, then for most of the rest of the science and criticism to be removed... Anyway, suggestions for improvement, highlighting of problem areas, and present more reasoned and knowledgeable opinions re quackery etc than I can. Many thanks. Verbal chat 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not had the time to read the entire article, but I did do a few word searches in it, and I am surprised that there is no mention of Rudolf Steiner, his movement called Anthroposophy (an outgrowth of the Theosophical Society), or the healing branch of Anthroposophy called Weleda which is based largly on homeopathy. I can not recall an occasion, when Homeopathy came up in conversation, that there was not some connection to Anthroposophy. Steiner had big ideas, and developed within his movement an approach to virtually any important subject you can think of:

Anthroposophy has spawned a number of closely related organizations and/or concepts. The Waldorf schools and system of education that Steiner created teach children based on three different seven-year long stages that they pass through. Biodynamic farming owes its origin to Steiner and, in the simplest of terms, involves knowing the relationship between plants, animals, and the soil. Eurythmy, a Steiner-created performance movement art known as the "art of visible speech and visible song," is meditative in its process. Anthroposophical medicine, which generally refers to Weleda homeopathic preparations, was also developed by Rudolph Steiner. [1]

At one time I was fascinated by Anthroposophy, but have now come to regard it as a highly problematic cult. It seems to appeal particularly to people with good intelligence and high educational level (which is perhaps the reason I lost interest in it). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that anthroposophy is sufficiently prominent outside Germany to warrant mentioning it in the homeopathy article. I mean this literally: I am not sure. In the UK there are Steiner schools in many cities, but I think they are generally less dogmatic, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that anthroposophic medicine is very marginal here. On the other hand, the EU regulations on medicine mention anthroposophic medicine explicitly and say that the rules for homeopathy apply. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Verbal, I was in fact going to bring this up as one other thing that needs resolving or an NPOV tag (although I don't know how to tag a category inclusion). I think we all agree that in the arbcom ruling described at WP:PSCI homeopathy fits somewhere between astrology and psychoanalysis. In my opinion it's obvious that it's much closer to psychoanalysis (which is also often called quackery) than to astrology. E.g. articles by psychoanalysts and homeopaths, but not by astrologers, do get published in mainstream peer reviewed journals, occasionally. Psychoanalysis and homeopathy both are both still much closer to their protoscientific origins and a lot more plausible (I am not saying they are plausible) than astrology. Homeopathy and psychoanalysis are payed by public health systems in some countries; I don't think that's the case for astrology. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there is an article: Anthroposophical medicine. It has an external link (Physician's Association for Anthroposophical Medicine (North America)), and claims 60 North American members [2], which is perhaps not so large a number for a continent. It seems to me that a mention might be justified because of its importance in Europe...particularly in Germany and Austria. But my main point (based only on my personal experience) is that those who practice homeopathy, and those who seek it for treatment of illnesses, almost always seem to have some connection to -- or at least interest in -- Anthroposophy. I have no experience with vendors, or manufacturers, of homeopathic cures, but my guess is that many of those also are connected to Anthroposophical Medicine. I have found this [3], which lists "Therapeutic and Medical" initiatives (not necessarily homeopathic) in America, and a lot of other stuff too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has caused enough problems without expanding the scope to include related movements such as anthroposophy, which, properly, has its own article. We are not going to resolve the pseudoscience category problem. Perhaps we should eliminate the category. DGG (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think 'quackery' is unnecessary and prejudicial, and certainly doesn't even have the limited value of the pseudoscience label. I'd go ahead and remove it - I don't see that it will led to a cascade of criticism removal, and if it does it would certainly be easy enough to combat that kind of silliness. if you prefer, I'll remove it myself, and keep an eye out for anyone who tries to capitalize on it. --Ludwigs2 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your first sentence, but I recommand that you don't remove the word "quackery". It would probably not get you blocked immediately, but only because nobody has given you the homeopathy article probation warning yet. If you don't believe me, you can find earlier discussions about the word in the homeopathy talk page archive. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG, Anthroposophy seems to be the main group promoting Homeopathy. It seems strange not to even mention them in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a strong link from anthroposophy to homeopathy. It's probably quite a bit weaker the other way round. In all my literature research for the homeopathy the only place where I found anthroposophy mentioned was an EU directive that treats anthroposophic medicine in the same way as homeopathic remedies. Of course this could be because many of my sources were old books (from before Steiner), but still... --Hans Adler (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure they are the "main group". In the US, HeadOn is probably the "main group". ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
So is it now official that you identify homeopathy with quacks who sell some of their products exploiting an exception for homeopathy? This kind of attitude would explain the insistence to use the word "quackery" in the homeopathy article. (I mean this literally, not ironically. I also don't remember whether you were among those who insisted.) Apparently the same company has also produced an itch remedy with 1 % hydrocortisone. From a homeopathic POV that's probably one of the worst things you can do. It's common but unfair to judge a country by its president, or an ideology by its most extreme proponents etc. But its even worse to judge a group by their black sheep, e.g. judge Belgium by its most famous pedophile serial killer. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how homeopathy as an idea in the age of atomic theory defies the simplest logical arguments, I fail to be able to see a distinction between some homeopathic "doctor" who shakes and dilutes to ridiculous proportions and some company that applies its shaken and dissolved idiocy directly to the forehead. This is just my opinion, mind you, but it isn't one that is solely mine. Wikipedia is under no obligation to distinguish between "black sheep" companies and those whom you or anyone else think hold the "legitimacy sceptre" of this nonsense we call "homeopathy". What is of the utmost importance is for us to describe, characterize, paraphrase, and mirror what independent sources say are the most prominently notable aspects of any given topic. That's the sense in which Wikipedia deals with topics ranging from the mundane to the sublime. That's how we are entrusted to treat homeopathy. I'm sorry if the fabulous Head-On campaign has commandeered and maligned your your pet pseudoscience, but we aren't here to right great wrongs. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I take this as a "yes". --Hans Adler (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cryptovirus

I'd like to draw a bit of attention to this article, and to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptovirus. Looie496 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Polytheistic reconstructionism

Outside input required here. I used to think this was a bona fide topic under Category:Neopaganism, but recent anon activity has led me to review the case, and I find that this has the typical hallmarks of pure WP:SYN.

  • there is no independent third party source indicating this satisfies WP:NOTE
  • the "insider" sources we cite to define the topic (essentially [4]) are online essays written by random individuals

I am not sure whether the article can stand as a topic on its own. Perhaps this will need to become a note at the Neopaganism article that "some proponents have advanced 'reconstructionism'" or similar.

These are my concerns. I haven't made up my mind and I am genuinely looking for third opinions. --dab (𒁳) 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not understanding Dbachmann's reasoning initially, and would hate to see the article Polytheistic reconstructionism deleted, but the assertion Polytheistic reconstructionism is not a bona fide topic under Category:Neopaganism is one I agree with. In fact, along the same line of thinking, the Neopaganism article would also need to be completely reworked. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The terms seems to have been invented by Timothy J. Alexander, in his book "A Beginner's Guide to Hellenismos", which is vanity-published by lulu.com. He seems to use it mainly to describe attempts to revive the religion of the ancient Greeks. Note that we have the related article Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. In any case, the lengthy history of this article seems to indicate some level of notability even if it is hard to find good sources. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that if these are notable it is in the same sense that the Rainbow Gathering is notable. There are certainly people committed to it, and there are events; but it is impossible to define intellectual content, or even any obvious shared intent. It is a very loosely defined group that has events. That would, perhaps, put it more in the category with such things as American Civil War reenactments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The article Polytheistic reconstructionism was started more that a year before Timothy J. Alexander's book. There is no way to link him to the original coining. Nova Roma calls what they do Roman Reconstructionism. CR means Celtic Reconstructionism. It is not an issue specific to Hellenic Reconstructionism. The real issue is if these groups fall under Neopaganism. They may conform to the common definition of neopagan, but they all seem to reject being part of the larger Neopagan movement. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The term was coined by Isaac Bonewits long before anyone actually embraced it as a self-description. The question isn't whether the term exists, but whether we need, or can justify, a standalone article about it. --dab (𒁳) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the term Isaac Bonewits coined was Eclectic Neopagan Reconstructionism, and his concept does not conform to the standards of Polytheistic reconstructionism. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
dear anon, the entire point is that there are no "standards", because we don't have any quotable sources to base them on. Where do you, personally, derive your knowledge of "Polytheistic reconstructionism"? The Web? Your own musings? Anything that may help us build an encyclopedic article? If you just stick to your opinion but won't tell us what it is based on, this isn't going anywhere. Bonewits at least is a published author. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Reconstructionism has been written about and discussed in works by authors such as Michael Strmiska, Christopher Penczak, Barbara Jane Davy, Michael York, Chas Clifton, Graham Harvey, Deborah Lipp, Shelley Rabinovitch, James Lewis, Douglas E. Cowan, Selene Silverwind, Janet Farrar, Gavin Bone, Lauren Manoy, Dana D. Eilers, Jennifer Hunter, and many others. Besides these, as I understand it, and maybe I'm wrong, but 1st party sources are considered "quotable sources". It is only notability that requires 3rd party sources. If that were not the case, then Catholic sources could not be used to write articles about Catholicism, Jewish sources could not be used for Jewish articles, and Wiccan sources could not be used for Wiccan articles. If that is not the case, I hope you are prepared to expand your campaign. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
well, great, I'll be happy to discuss the topic in terms of the publications of the authors you mention. I am not saying there are no sources, just that the article so far isn't aware of them (this has improved with the Linzie papers, too, so I am confident we are getting somewhere). --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis redux

Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs) has jumped right back in where CreazySuit (talk · contribs) left off on Battle of Opis, making exactly the same ridiculous arguments (latest translation is the most authoritative, the author is "superior" to any other authors, the author of another translation can't have translated it herself because her personal web page doesn't say she reads ancient Akkadian). See my comments at Talk:Battle of Opis#A plea for sanity. Is anyone going to help out on this article or is it going to be abandoned to POV-pushers and original research nonsense? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I know Napaheshar as a reasonable and knowledgeable wikipedian and I do not think it is constructive to dismiss his opinions as "nonsense". It does not mean that he is absolutely correct but we should not dismiss his opinions. I am not an expert on the matter but after reading Talk:Battle_of_Opis#Grayson_and_Lambert it appears to me that Nepaheshgar's idea is to present all four available (or whatever are present) translations of the original ancient text giving the maximal weight to the latest (2007 Lambert's). It sounds reasonable. I have also noticed that Nepaheshgar proposed arranging a contact with some authors of earlier research to ask if they change their position after Lambert's work. I think if it can be done it might be valuable. Only the mainspace texts should follow WP:V. If we can arrange a consultation with an expert it might not go to the mainspace unless published but certainly can influence the weight we give to different translations Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My expert says Lambert's opinion is "based on context, essentially a reconstruction of the entire historical situation. So let the historians decide whether there was a slaughter or not. Lambert is a leading assyriologist, NABU is a reputable journal, but neither of these factors are relevant and the argument must be decided on its own merits." And he is definitely an expert, but not the only one. But if all you want is an expert opinion, there you have one. I can see no reason in giving maximal weight to the latest, particularly when it hasn't been discussed yet by other academics (except of course for my expert).
    • I'm putting forward this expert opinion seriously as an expert opinion, but I am not at all convinced that this is the way to go. I'm sure another expert could be found who disagrees. And even though I have the email from my expert, and a similar opinion is on a mailing list, is that acceptable as a way of weighting the main article? One thing that would have helped was my request that editors acknowledge, for instance, that peer review does not guarantee that an argument is correct, only that it is worth publishing, but they didn't. So I doubt that using expert opinion (if not to their liking) would sway editors with such a lack of understanding of how scholarship works. Doug Weller (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This isn't exactly a WP:FRINGE matter, is it? The question is how we appropriately weight different views published in reputable academic outlets; there might be a question of undue weight, but none of the views being discussed cross the line into crankery. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Magic in the Greco-Roman world

I firmly believe that this article is more occult apologetics than an encyclopedic article. Comments criticizing the article go back to 2006 and include describing the article is merely a dump of a research paper, and that it overstates magic in the everyday life of the Greco-Roman world. There is at least one bastardized quote in the article, a number of citations that are misrepresented (Dodds calls Empedocles a shaman, not a "poet, magus, teacher, and scientist". In fact, the word magus is not used at all in Dodds' book The Greeks and the Irrational.), and there is an extensive Resource list (without in-line citations) used to bolster the article, much of which seems to not be panning out as being used in the article's creation. There is an inordinate amount of time spent attempting to persuade the reader in accepting why practices should be considered magic, and historical figures magicians. Additionally, the article is littered with original research. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why "merely a dump of a research paper" is a criticism, unless there is plagiarism, which nobody seems to be suggesting. That looks like a pretty good article in many respects, so it seems like the best approach is for people who know the topic and care about it to work on editing it. Are attempts to improve it are being resisted? Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
To answer why "merely a dump of a research paper" is a criticism, I would refer you to WP:NOT. If we ignore the manipulation of quotes and misrepresentation of citations, this may be a good essay to be turned in for a twelfth-grade term-paper, and it may be a good essay to be posted on an occult website, but it is not an encyclopedic article. In my opinion, the article is occult apologetics, attempting to support and defend occult beliefs and practices, rather than an encyclopedic narrative with a NPOV. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I am at a loss how you could come to such a conclusion. Which passages, do you propose, are "defending occult beliefs and practices"? --dab (𒁳) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The article makes its intent known from the very beginning with the statements such as, "an evolving definition associated with the term 'magic'", "these are teachings that support the central tenets of the magician", and "magic as an independent tradition", and by the fact more than a third of the essay is merely an attempt to persuade readers into accepting a theory why religious practices should be considered magic, and historical figures are magicians. It is modern magicians and so forth, evolved out of 16th and 17th century occultists, that promote the idea of philosophical works as the basis of "high magic", and that there was some sort of independent magical tradition. These ideas are conspicuously absent from works not targeted to those who want to believe in such things. Interpreting philosophical mysticism as magic is one POV, but it is not the dominant or popular interpretation. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
the passages you mention are poorly phrased, no doubt, but I see nothing wrong with the "intent". It is hardly "fringe" that magical thinking is an integral part of any and all religion. Furthermore, the 16th to 17th century Renaissance magic you mention was precisely that: a renaissance of the magical traditions of Late Antiquity. To state that magic was extremely important in Late Antiquity is hardly in "defense" of magic, it is simply the statement of a historical fact, you will still be free to believe magic is bogus. Mainstream education vastly downplays the role of magic in antiquity, it's always about the Classics, high literature, high mythology and high philosophy. This is a Classicist prejudice -- just as it is a common prejudice that the Renaissance was primarily about developing the critical method and studying Homer when it was to a great extent about a revived interest in magic (which had fallen out of fashion during the Christian Middle Ages). It is an important part of this article's job to set that score right. And yes, I can produce references to back up my gist here: but this would be for the article talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If mainstream academia "vastly downplays the role of magic in antiquity" (or even what is and is not magic vs. religion) then how is it not a fringe theory? I mean, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, right? This is not the place to debate whether the dominant academic opinion is prejudiced. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
ahah - but I didn't say "mainstream academia", I said "mainstream education". Meaning, this is the impression you walk away with from college, while actual academia has long (say, since the 1970s) been aware that things lie a little different. --dab (𒁳) 08:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
That being said, you would be hard-pressed to find any work actually on ancient Greek history, culture, and religion to support the claims made in that article. It is limited only to works targeted to a consumer audience wanting to believe ancient religiosity was the practice of magic that you can find such claims, and not beyond. In fact, in works that could be considered academic, such as Luck's Arcana Mundi, they tend to spend a substantial amount of time defending assigning the label magic to such practices. ---151.201.149.209 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
can we please get down to individual claims, at the article talkpage at this point? I am not summarily endorsing everything in the article, and it isn't helful to keep boo-hooing about "the claims in the ariticle" in general. I have noted that you have repeatedly misrepresented claims made in the article in an attempt to make them more outlandish that they really are. Thus, you are claiming at Talk:Greek Magical Papyri that "the article" presents Hellenistic magic as a "cohesive religion", while there is no such statement found in the article. Also, if you're going to pursue this campaign, please consider using an account as a courtesy. --dab (𒁳) 18:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I addressed your concern on Talk:Greek Magical Papyri. The article does assert a "religion of the Papyri Graecae Magicae". --151.201.149.209 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

a "dump of a research paper" would imply WP:OR, but I don't really think it is that bad. It is a difficult and opaque subject, and could definitely do with expert attention, We could apply inline tags to mark the issues raised, but in general I suppose it is natural that the article has magic as its focus without necessarily "overstating" magic. If we saw such a focus on magic in, say, Hellenistic religion, the matter might be different, but this article is, after all, ostensibly dedicated to disucssing magic. --dab (𒁳) 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not an area I know much about, but reading the article, I did think the OP might have had a point. Obviously the Greeks and Romans engaged in all kinds of practices which we would today label "religion", "science", or "magic". But they didn't necessarily divide these up in the ways we would today. The article seemed to me to "protest too much" that there was a continuity between today's magical practices and elements of Graeco-Roman culture that were labelled "magic" without a great deal of discussion of whether the label fitted. I suspect that the answer is to continue developing the article. I'm sure that the references Dieter knows of will be a good addition. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
yes, the "protesting too much" is often a problem when "debunking common misconceptions", since it assumes the reader is holding such misconceptions, which may or may not be the case. This is an issue of style. dab (𒁳) 18:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Magic in the Greco-Roman world is a book report?

As I have tried to delve into the cited sources, and validate quotes and citations, it has become glaringly obvious that this article is, at the very least, a synopsis of the chapter Magic from Georg Luck's book Arcana Mundi. It makes many of the exact same statements, references the exact same sources (which became obvious the original contributor of the article did not read), and in some places seem to walk a very thin line on what could be called plagiarism. Please see my recent comments on the talk page. How does this get handled? --151.201.149.209 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It gets rewritten to avoid the plagiarism. If you can figure out who contributed the text, you should consider informing them of the problem on their talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It is the bulk of the article, which goes back to the original contributor Elvenearth, who does not appear to be active. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I am continuing to find almost verbatim quotes from Luck's Arcana Mundi, but attributing them to research of other sources. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So we went from "fringe" to {{onesource}}. Since Luck (1985) is academically published, I do suppose it is permissible as a source, and it is good practice to start out an article on an academic topic by summarizing the gist of a dedicated monograph. It still remains, however, to avoid copyright violation, and to allow for the presentation of other viewpoints, especially from more recent publication since the source used is already aged more than 20 years. dab (𒁳) 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would have never found it if the sections I deleted for failing source verification were not restored by someone citing Luck's Arcana Mundi. The original contributor used Luck's quotes and citations of other sources as his own, and they were failing verification. So we have both "fringe" and {{onesource}}. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
At last an explanation why the recent sources I found weren't used. Thanks Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

List of UFO sightings

I have begun the process of systematically cleaning up List of UFO sightings. I could use some help. We need to rely on good sources to do this clean-up. I have already removed all the website citations to youtube videos, enthusiast organizations, and conspiracy theories. That leaves a vast majority of the "sightings" without a reliable source reference. We will eventually have to go through and remove the "News of the Weird" citations as well: just because it was a slow news-day doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article on your UFO sighting. Once we've confirmed with the best sources, we can remove the sightings that do not have mainstream, independent, third-party coverage.

Please help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

At the very least I'm prepared to remove all those that don't actually involve flying objects. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

VedicScience (talk · contribs)

Another round of regular "Vedic" quantum quackery for a change. This edit should make clear what is going on. It may be worth to keep on the lookout for the "reference" given,

--dab (𒁳) 11:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. Moreschi (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
also performing at Rigvedic deities. And yes, it appears that they mean it :p dab (𒁳) 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(s)he has added nonsense to quite a number of pages and is using the help of a sockpuppet/"friend" too. Special:Contributions/69.250.46.133. With his ego I doubt he will embrace Wikipedia's rules. Gizza © 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've sent him to WP:AN3 now. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
He's back and complaining to Jimbo - User talk:Jimbo Wales about me, Dab, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors needed at Talk:Zecharia Sitchin

Please see [5]. You need to look at all the article edits made by the SPA IP editor, not just the most recent, to get a full picture. And - this IP editor's first edit was the 27th, fast learning curve? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

AIDS origin

Nature published today an article about the origins of AIDS and so I looked at what Wikipedia says about this subject.

AIDS origin lists two hypotheses as subsections: Cameroon chimpanzees hypothesis and Oral polio vaccine hypothesis. The later is "generally rejected by the scientific community" and yet, it holds much more space within the article. Isn't this against the Wikipedia:Undue policy? bogdan (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm here only to state guidelines on weight, not to reflect on the reliability of sources and the topic itself: an topic within an article should reflect how much reliable sources say about it. If there are 10 books on the origin of AIDS, 8 of which are about Cameroon chimpanzees, 2 about oral polio vaccines, and a pamphlet about the CIA tampering with smallpox (I made that last one up) the article should reflect 80% about Cameroon chimpanzees origin, 20% about oral polio vaccines, and perhaps nothing about the CIA. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a bit too rigid. The article should be written in a way that gives readers an accurate view of the distribution of opinions in the scientific community, and should give the most prominence to information that the scientific community as a whole views as most important. That doesn't necessarily mean using 800 words about chimpanzees for every 200 about polio vaccine. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I recognize the issuoe of the original post, agree with the spirit of M's reply, and acknowledge L's caveats. That said, a confounding issue is that a significant part of the polio section are inconsistencies with the theory and opposition to it. So it is not as simple as space=support. To me the issue with that section is mainly an editorial one; such poor prose is in fact common on topics where there are strong but divergent opinions. The resulting text ends up being various POV threads tied in a Gordian knot of nominal NPOV. It reads quite messy, even if the overall coverage of the positions mirror the sources well. Nothing a good rewrite can't overcome though. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I can provide a bit of editorial context: the OPV AIDS hypothesis (polio vaccine hypothesis) is a widely discredited belief which has been pushed hard by a handful of dedicated - some might say overly dedicated - accounts. The response has been to add material indicating the hypothesis' lack of credibility, and hence the bloat. We have a POV fork: OPV AIDS hypothesis. The AIDS origin page should very briefly summarize the key points and link to that POV fork. That will fix the WP:WEIGHT issue on the AIDS origin page, and the detail can go in the OPV/AIDS fork. I'll try to work on this as time and inclination permit. MastCell Talk 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Followup: [6]. MastCell Talk 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's what I call a good rewrite. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Titanic alternative theories

I am trying to add a section to balance the "Ship that Never Sank" section in Titanic alternative theories and am meeting some opposition. Would someone be willing to look at my proposed draft in Talk: Titanic alternative theories (Section 5.1.1) and give their opinions as to whether the level of detail I include is appropriate? Thanks. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your additions clearly benefit the article. Go for it. I'm watch-listing the article. Since the, um, fringe-pov-pushers on this are IPs, it should be possible to solve any edit-warring you run into by asking for the article to be semi-protected, if it comes to that. Looie496 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
'clearly benefit the article'. how is that so?24.11.214.147 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Gardiner's theory is very fringe, verging on "tiny minority". The article needs to make that clear. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Looie, thanks for your input. There's been a flurry of editing by others and myself these past couple of days, and I think the article is improving. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Root race

I deleted a chunk in this theosophy-related article that rehearsed pseudoscientific arguments against plate tectonics. It might get reverted. And it would be good to have some geologically knowledgeable people looking at the articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, pretty much every single bit of biology, geology, and paleontology in that article is bogus according to modern science. What's more, it looks like it isn't even Blavatsky's bogosity, but the poorly-sourced bogosity of a guy named David Pratt superimposed on Blavatsky's bogosity. I would favor either reducing the article to a stub, or else AfD'ing on the grounds of being unfixable. (Even the dates for the geological time periods are way off the mark.) Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I hadn't noticed that it strayed so much from Blavatsky's views, which are to some extent notable. I'll be bolder. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a problem when the article relates Blavatsky's "root races" with Steiner's "epochs".
I do not think that there is much doubt that when, for example, Blavatsky calls the "fifth root race, the so-called Aryans", that she really was talking about a (supposed) racial group. Likewise Alice Bailey, who discusses root-races extensively in her books. That seems very different than Steiner's periods of time. I know for certain that Bailey said that the root-races actually expended across time periods. Bailey considered the Chinese the fourth root-race, and I recall her referring to the Australian aborigines as remnants of the third root-race. I am not as familiar with Blavatsky as with Bailey, but my understanding is that Bailey took the concept of root-races directly out of her studies of Blavatsky. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Please take Steiner out and if Bailey uses the exact-same term put her in. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
That will take some time. The Alice Bailey books are no longer available online, so it will be necessary to do web searches to find enough material. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Practical Kabbalah

This article has no real sources, and may contain nothing but original research. It is difficult to know what to do with it because, if I started to delete problematic and unsourced material there would probably be nothing left aside from the Gershom Sholem quote. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of potential sources though, as I've noted by adding them as "Further reading". I've also fixed the existing refs, though I'll agree page numbers are needed. I didn't write the article though, but, say, are you stalking me now? Bob (QaBob) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This article does seem to have huge problems. Googling produces two radically different sets of results: Jewish results which take a completely mystical approach (particularly connected to one Laibl Wolf and to chabad websites, and esoteric sites which seem to understand it as Jewish practice of magic. I do not see this reflected in the article at all, especially since some of the first type of sites emphatically rejects the legitimacy of the second type of site. I see significant fringey problems here. Mangoe (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am attempting to improve the article, but was not the original author. It needs significant organization and expansion from someone who actually has the sources at hand, though it is clear that they exist and present varied viewpoints as you suggest. Bob (QaBob) 02:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The issue I see is that it's questionable whether there really is such thing. The Jewish sources don't seem to think of it as a thing unto itself, and the fringey talk seems to be making a claim about the Jewish qaballah that isn't true. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no question whatsoever that there is such a thing. The Hebrew term is Kabbalah Ma'asit and Gershom Sholem writes that it actually predated what is simply known as Kabbalah. The real question appears to be what sources are reliable and what sources are not. Bob (QaBob) 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There are profound differences between religious Jewish Kabbalists and academic historians of Kabbalah (not to mention Hermetic Qabalah). To many of the religious students to Kabbalah, any publicly available information on Kabbalah is a source of worry, and Kabbalah Ma'asit is considered far too dangerous for any person but the most saintly:

Does any of this sound dangerous? Yet countless times I have heard from people and scholars that this area of study is both deadly and dangerous. Sometimes these scholars bring evidence from scattered souces in the practical tradition of Kabbalah. Again, we turn to Rabbi Moshe Miller in the introduction to his new translation of the Zohar: “The practical tradition of Kabbalah involves techniques aimed specifically at altering natural states or events – techniques such as the incantation of Divine Names…. However, Kabbalah ma’asit [practical Kabbalah] is meant to be employed by only the most saintly and responsible of individuals and for no other purpose than the benefit of man or implementation of G-d’s plan in creation.” Rabbi Miller goes on to point out a very important fact: “Even in the era of the great kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac Luria, known as the holy Ari (mid 16th century), there are indications of these techniques being abused by unfit practitioners [as they are today]. The holy Ari himself admonished his disciples to avoid [in fact he forbid it] the practical arts of Kabbalah, as he deemed such practice unsafe so long as the state of ritual purity necessary for service in the Holy Temple remains unattainable.” [7] (This site is the site of a very religious publisher, and after sundown today it may be unavailable until sundown tomorrow.)

Interestingly, it is frequently the people least qualified who think they are most qualified. In any case, having spoken to many religious Kabbalists, I can assure you that they consider even the best academic historians of Kabbalah to be mistaken in the extreme in their views of Kabbalah. In a way the differences remind me of the comment by Walt Disney that "first we do it and then the critics tell us what we have done." Artists, like Kabbalists, tend to think the academics who analyze their work are unqualified to understand, and the academics tend to think the artists do not really understand their own work. Of course, since this is Wikipedia, the weight tends to go to those scholars who are academically notable, and the standard for inclusion in articles is verifiability not truth. I suppose nothing else is possible under the circumstances...but it is not difficult to see the limitations. However, in the case of Kabbalah, there are highly notable religious scholars (frequently rabbis), and their views do need to be included. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that the rituals of Aleister Crowley are 10 times more dangerous than anything practical Kabbalah may have to offer. Orthodox Hinduism also condemns Tantra, which itself is a rather mixed bag of spiritual techniques mixed together with trashy sex manuals. What can one do but pray in whatever way seems right to us. Bob (QaBob) 23:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

English Qabalah

This article has sources, but seems to synthesize a number of primary sources that have little in common into an article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It recently passed AfD, sorry, old chap. Bob (QaBob) 23:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Surviving an AfD does not mean that the article does not have serious problems that need to be corrected. I have just explained what I consider the main problem on the article talk page [8]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no synthesis. You are misusing the term. But thanks anyway. Bob (QaBob) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think in a particularly technical fashion it could be termed a synthesis. It would be useful to find some survey matter on the subject, but mostly what I found were various proponents/whatever of the different systems who more often did not seemed to lack any notion that other people had tread the same ground. As far as fringeyness is concerned, however, the article is sober and does not endorse any system or indeed make any claims one way or the other as to the worth of these systems or the notion in general. There seems to be a running battle going on between the two in question, but this is not a fit arena for it. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I am grateful for your opinion. It reflect what I and Sticky Parkin were attempting to achieve from an article which started out as spam for a specific self-published book on the topic. Bob (QaBob) 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edit summaries

Please look at the last 50 contributions of Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who seems to be back on his campaign no remove qualifiers whenever "psychic", "mediumship" or "parapsychology" is mentioned. Two illustrative examples of things he's done in the last 48 hours:

  • [9] Which he justifies with, "See Three layer cake with frosting for the status of parapsychology." Eseentially using the arbcom to claim that parapsychology must always be treated as a "science" in Wikipedia. I think this is a misapplication of arbcom rulings and would like someone other than myself to tell him to stop.
  • [10] Where he removes the word "self-proclaimed" (though it is obviously correct) with an edit statement: "per ArbCom on the paranormal Cultural artefacts" which is taking extreme license with the ruling, in my humble estimation.

Looking at his contributions over the last few days, it seems clear to me that Martinphi is back on his a campaign to remove verifiable caveats associated with parapsychology, psychic powers, and mediumship from across this encyclopedia. This is the type of disruption he was sanctioned for by arbcom. However, I need to get some outside opinions as to whether this is enforcement-caliber problems.

SA, would it help if I tried to broach the subjects with him? NB that I might agree about removing qualifiers, as I don't think this is usually the right way to distinguish science from non/science topics. (I do think they should be distinguished, however). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
My main issue is not with removing the qualifiers (sometimes the removal is okay, sometimes it is not), but him assuming the mantle of arbcom to do so. He uses this as a form of immunization from legitimate discussion about single words. There is nothing in any arbcom ruling that says we cannot describe someone as a "self-proclaimed medium", and yet, according to the summaries I have above, Martinphi seems convinced that arbcom has given him some sort of mandate to waltz across Wikipedia removing words at his whim. Please have a word with him. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please look through his contributions (especially those which contain the two edit summaries I outline above) and see if you see a problem. The history between him and myself makes it difficult for me to intervene directly.

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, these are WTAs or the equivalent. In a properly framed article, the reader will have ample opportunity to understand the the subject is controversial or discredited, without our having to use such weasel words. I assume the mantle of the ArbCom because the ArbCom was very clear in its decision. I know a lot of people don't like that decision, but till they can get the ArbCom to modify it, I think it should be followed. Perhaps my edit summaries should read "remove weasel wording," and then point the the ArbCom. See also, this, as it talks about framing. As to the status of Parapsychology: We talked long with the ArbCom about that very issue, explained it thoroughly, and that is what they put in their decision. Did they make a mistake? Some think so. Did they do it by accident? No way. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


I've opened a request for clarification on the Three layer cake point: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_Paranormal. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ADvaitaFan

Could this user be a sockpuppet of User:VedicScience. They both like to reveal the "truth" to "uneducated" editors. Gizza © 08:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, both need careful scrutiny. Doug Weller (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

clearly not the same user, but clearly one with a similar set of symptoms. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He might be the same actually. He's from the same metro area. Look at his knowledge of Wiki and his talk style. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Not just you, my friend dbachmann, I've been watching the new account on the block too! I'm blocked right now - courtesy of Dougweller! What is notable is he (or she) seems to have the same impression of admin Dougweller. Doug's latest rv note says "We edit Wikipedia by consensus (not verifiable facts)" - go figure! I am wondering why Wikipedia would make this guy an admin! But I got it - how this whole thing works and is bound to fail, especially if nothing changes. I was going to contribute a lot more on so many topics but I am going to stay put until Wikipedia fixes this "bandit ring game" which includes mainly POV dimmies who contribute nothing but are undo addicts tripping up good faith editors into 3RRs. What's really dumb is even long-timers dabble in mindlessly just to look good within the circle of favor, and even a few admins can't seem to separate wheat from shaff!!! All this would be clear to anyone who can barely go through edit histories. I wonder why all the smart people of Wikipedia haven't realized this yet. Wikipedia definitely needs to look closely at revising rules on admin monitoring. There should be an automated score for each user based on edit warring history and admin privileges controlled based on score. With so many who are in for "my way or highway", all this will ultimately and most certainly lead this nice project to a disastrous "dimipedia" over a period of time, not an encyclopedia! It's a shame, but hard truth! My 2 cents. VedicScience (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, stop this. Seriously, quit trolling. Final chance. Moreschi (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Pretty funny. I didn't block him, and he's made up the rv note "We edit Wikipedia by consensus (not verifiable facts)" -- how about a diff for that, VS? And now he's complained to Jimbo. Doug Weller (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Avanduyn

I'm not sure if this belongs here or not, but this editor is adding loads of OR (including a map he created himself, [11] "Known Emigration of Abraham's Children to Katura". Can someone take a look particularly at Xerxes I of Persia which he has heavily edited. I'm removing some of his OR but I expect he'll put it back. Is the map something that can go to AfD as OR? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He relies heavily on Seventh Day Adventist Bible commentaries, are they a reliable source? And an inerrantist website, www.studylight.org, clearly not a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
SDA commentaries would be reliable sources for the SDA point of view, no more or less. It is unlikely in most articles that the SDA viewpoint would be appropriate to include. As a general point, material of that nature would be more likely to be appropriate when drawn from a larger/more prominent viewpoint. For example, Catholic Bible commentary or Saudi Quran commentary would be more likely to be appropriate for inclusion (as larger/more prominent viewpoints) than Adventist commentary. Vassyana (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you perhaps talking about Midian? I can't see anything more than slightly problematic in Xerxes I of Persia, but Midian definitely has issues. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
And incidentally, the map at the very least has a bogus source description. He wrote that it is entirely his own work, which is obviously not true. Looie496 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of almost all the articles he edited in Sept and July [12] . The rift valley stuff, the map, and his reliance on 7th Day Adventist literature (I see he is some sort of pastor in that church). The Xerxes edits rely heavily on 7th Day literature. I agree, the map itself is not his own work. But I'm not familiar with what we do about images like this. Doug Weller (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen any evidence yet that van Duyn is not a reasonable person who can be worked with, and I don't like the fact that people are simply trying to bulk-delete his material without discussion. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
His rift valley claim has no source. It was removed from some articles in July and he's replaced it. I did do a quick search to see if I could find one and failed, so removed it. His map, besides possibly a copyright infringement, has a route with no source either. He may well try to claim Adventist literature as a source, but he needs more than that and in any case, despite frequent references to such literature, hasn't used it for the rift valley claim. I think the onus is on him to justify these edits. Doug Weller (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I've posted to his talk page asking for sources to the rift valley claim. Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

it is a good sign to see him openly stating where he is coming from, self-identifying as a SDA pastor. We should encourage him to contribute to SDA topics and refrain from using SDA sources for historical topics. --dab (𒁳) 15:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Carantania, History of Slovenia

Several articles concerning the history of Slovenia have seen a lot of disruptive editing in the last few days. The problem involves fringe theories and improper, non-academic sources. The articles are putting forward a disputed claim according to which a Slovenian state existed in the Alps in 595 AD and that this was the same entity as the medieval Dutchy of Carantania. The idea has been taken from a non-academic historian Jožko Šavli.

The actual background is roughly as follows: when describing the fights between Slavs and Bavarians in 590s (595 AD being the year when Slavic-Avar army defeated the Franks), the Lombard historian Paulus Diaconus refers to the area populated by Slavs as "provincia Sclaborum" (for more on this see: [13]. J. Šavli claims that "provincia Sclaborum" means "the state of Slovenes" and that this was the same entity as the later Carantania, which in fact is a myth since Carantania is not mentioned in historical sources prior to 660 AD.

The affected articles are:

I have reverted many of the edits in the last few days, on the grounds that they involved distorting historical data, as indicated in the edit summaries, but believe somebody with administrator's rights should intervene here. Please note that the issue has been put on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard before: [14].

In my opinion, particularly the article on Carantania should be kept on administrator's watchlists as the issue is a popular topic of Slovene nationalism. Regards, Jalen (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don´t agree with you Jalen, pease read [15], and you can see that your opinion is discussed there. You can disagree with Dr. Jožko Šavli, but I´ll not allow you to offend him. And please stop reverting my editions without answering in the discussion page first.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm looking through this. Moreschi (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Moustafa Gadalla

I'm not sure what to do about this. The guy is fringe, his books are self-published through his foundation (and at least one has been used as a reference elsewhere). I found this comment about him on a web forum " the modern pyramidologist Moustafa Gadalla, not really a scientist or historian but possessor of a B.S. in civil engineering from the Cairo University. He is author of the Pyramid Handbook. Gadalla's claims are wild in the extreme, the essence of which is that all of the masonry pyramids from Dynasty 4 were in reality great energy collectors that attracted a mythical space gas called orgone to create an even more mythical substance called psi-org energy." Ah, now I didn't know this, evidently the bluehouse effect drastically increases when you laminate a pyramid. [16]. Fantastic! Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD. Not notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moustafa Gadalla. I agree. Moreschi (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

fringe theory promotion at Psychic

See for yourself. I've reverted for now, but... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also note this ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This won't be resolved unless editors from both sides are able to have a reasoned discussion about it. Really ought to be possible since all concerned are experienced Wikipedians. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If each side would refrain from overly strong statements which cannot actually be supported, and allow the other to make more limited and qualified statements backed up by sources, it seems to me that the problem would be quickly resolved. The talk page shows certain editors hold extreme positions and seem intent on inserting them using sources that don't actually say what they are being represented as saying. Bob (QaBob) 15:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
QaBobAllah, which editor are you referring to as more reasonable? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about any editor being reasonable. I did say some editors seem extreme. Your edits seem perfectly reasonable, though. :-) Bob (QaBob) 15:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mordvins (and subgroups)

Another "ethnic" mess. Note that we get ethnic mysticism mixed with valuable (as in difficult to find) bona fide information in broken English here. Lots of patience and good judgement is needed. Still, the epic "history" added since July is quite clearly mostly bogus. See also this note on my talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh god. Some of this is {{essay-entry}