Wikipedia:FTN
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:FTN".

content
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

Contents


Alternative medicine POV pushing

At List of minority-opinion scientific theories a known alternative medicine POV-pusher is trying to claim that various pseudoscientific ideas are actually minority opinions within science because there is a peer-reviewed paper on the subject in an out-of-the-way journal. I let him know on his user talk page that the criteria for inclusion should be that the idea has been described as a legitimate theory within science by someone who does not accept the idea. Since there are thousands of journals, it isn't too hard to get any and all crazy ideas published by somebody. That does not make the idea a "minority opinion" within the scientific community. I would appreciate it if people here would watch this article carefully: a lot of POV-pushing seems to be rampant there.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does this criterion come from SA? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
yeah, I'd like to know that as well - it seems like a pretty senseless criterion to me. --Ludwigs2 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that it's a criterion with consensus behind it, but it certainly isn't senseless. If a theory has a rational basis, scientists that subscribe to other theories will describe how their theory fits the facts better or makes different predictions.
Kww (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Kww - there's a pronounced difference between a theory having a 'rational basis' and a theory having an 'evidentiary basis' - this is really at the heart of how science works. plenty of theories are advanced every year within mainstream science that are perfectly rational (from within their own set of assumptions) and yet still fail to gather any effective evidence in their favor. often those theories continue to be pushed by their supporters long past the point where other researchers would have given up; occasionally they eventually turn up enough evidence to merit reconsideration. the fact that certain AltMed procedures do eventually become mainstream procedures is proof enough that this criterion cannot be quite correct. even some decidedly fringe ideas (like abiogenic petroleum) have strong rational bases - they just have no evidentiary support, and get rejected on those grounds. --Ludwigs2 22:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
But there is no need to discuss them in an encyclopedia before they become mainstream ones. We aren't a leader in thought, nor a site intended to present leading edge material. If something has a rational basis and evidentiary support, it will eventually become mainstream, and we can discuss it then. This is especially true with a field like alternative medicine, where the vast majority of treatments range from useless to deadly. Even the useless ones can be argued to be dangerous, because they prevent the gullible from seeking real medical treatment.
Kww (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Kww - you missed my point. I was trying to tell you that something can be perfectly rational and still be incorrect, and if so it should be presented as exactly that: rational in its own terms, but incorrect. you are exactly correct that wikipedia is not a leader in thought, and so your OR assertion that "the vast majority of [AM] treatments range from useless to deadly" has no place here. when a treatment (conventional or alternative) is identified as dangerous by the medical community, we can report that. when a treatment (conventional or alternative) is clearly identified as useless, we can report that as well. but most AM procedures are simply untested, with no pronounced history of causing harm and a degree of experiential evidence that they do some good. they are rational in their own terms, without scientific evidence that supports or refutes them. why do you have a problem presenting them that way? --Ludwigs2 19:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem with presenting things this way is that it subtly misrepresents how science (or at least medicine) works. Researchers don't go around looking for untested claims to refute. The assumption is that a treatment is no better than placebo. The burden of proof requires someone to actually do a solid, rigorous experiment demonstrating safety and efficacy. Very few alternative treatments are conclusively "refuted" by scientific evidence, because that's not the direction that medical science takes. If you want to accurately represent the scientific/medical "mainstream" view, then these treatments should be presented as presumed ineffective until proven otherwise, not just "untested". Once someone actually shows convincingly that they might do some good, then they may or may not be "refuted" by subsequent studies.

It doesn't make sense to demand upfront proof of "refutation" by medical science, and doing so just leads to a proliferation of crap articles which say: "Snakeoil.com reports that the mango juice enema treatment(TM) has a 100% success rate in metastatic cancer; these data hvae not been confirmed or refuted by the medical community." MastCell Talk 19:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I agree with MastCell on this. To amplify, to simply allow "untested" claims would allow any number of crackpot claims to achieve apparent legitimacy.
Kww (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with reliable sources

I'd be grateful for views on an odd issue that has cropped up on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. (I have cross-posted this to the reliable sources and fringe theories noticeboards as it presents overlapping issues.)

A disagreement has arisen about a statement sourced to this article from the Australian newspaper The Age, concerning an individual named Nahum Shahaf, who has been in the limelight concerning claims that a vast international conspiracy staged the death of a Palestinian boy in 2000. In the context of a critique of Shahaf's views, the source states that Shahaf "has no forensic or ballistic qualifications". Several other newspaper sources say that "Shahaf concedes he is no authority on ballistics", that he is "not an expert" and that he is "known mainly as an inventor". He describes himself as a physicist. It's not clear if he has any formal qualifications as such, since nobody has yet been able to find any sources which describe his qualifications. There is, in short, nothing to suggest that the statement that he "has no forensic or ballistic qualifications" is in dispute by anyone, not even by the man himself.

A relatively new editor, User:Tundrabuggy, disagrees with the source on two grounds. First, he states that the reporter is "considered by some to be highly biased [against Israel]" (i.e. a few pressure groups and individuals have criticised his reporting) and has requested the removal of his use as a source - see :Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Challenge on one of the reporters. Second, Shahaf himself has said that his expertise is based on his having "finished all the stages necessary in learning this topic", "read the scientific material" and "consult[ed] with several experts", but has not at any point that I know of asserted that he has any qualifications in that area. On that basis, Tundrabuggy argues that Shahaf is qualified and it's therefore wrong to state that he has no qualifications. Here Tundrabuggy seems to be elliding the distinction between having knowledge of a subject and having qualifications in that subject. (I have knowledge of the daily struggles of being a man, because I'm a man. I don't have qualifications on that subject because I've never passed an examination on gender studies.)

The rather tedious discussion can be found at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Nahum Shahaf.

It seems to me that this is an example of (a) would-be censorship - if we removed every source that someone disagreed with at some point, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia left; and (b) original research, since Tundrabuggy is essentially arguing on the basis of his personal belief that Shahaf has "qualifications" and it's therefore wrong to cite a newspaper report which says he doesn't, even though the man himself isn't known to have made this claim. I'd be interested to know what people think of this from a fringe theories perspective, since I'm conscious that proponents of fringe sources often claim that they have a greater degree of expertise than is really the case (cf. the ID and anti-AGW crowd). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this falls into WP:FRINGE as a topic. With regard to the information, it appears to be published from what we consider a reliable source. The material should be attributed to the individual. While it should be avoided on a general topic, it is acceptable to include bias or POV materials and sources in Wikipedia, as long as they conform to WP:V. If there is a contrasting viewpoint, than it should also be included per WP:NPOV. Be aware of WP:BLP policies, if this looks like slander or libel, think closely about if it should be included. Also determine if the material contributes to the persons notability. Not everything that is published in the news about someone merits inclusion. Look at the topic point and determine if this particular piece of information is worth mention in the historical biography of that person. Morphh (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be missing something. Where is the link to the WP article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I understand now. It seems a little strange to bring a talk page problem here. Talk page problems usually wind up on the Administrators Noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
AN is a drama magnet; I try to avoid it wherever possible, as discussions on specialised noticeboards are more likely to produce on-topic responses in my experience. The source is certainly reliable; The Age is a major, long-established Australian newspaper, roughly equivalent to (say) the Boston Globe or The Scotsman. The article in question is a regular investigative news report, not an opinion piece, and as such we have to assume that it's gone through the usual fact-checking and legal clearances (I believe Australia has fairly strict libel laws). With regard to NPOV, I'm mindful of the fact that it deals with "conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." That doesn't really apply in this case. The "conflicting perspective" appears to be sourced entirely to the mind of one Wikipedian. No reliable source I know of contradicts the newspaper report - there's no source that says "yes, Shahaf does have qualifications", and the man himself hasn't asserted that as far as anyone can determine. So what we have here is a fairly straightforward, editorially reviewed assertion of fact with wihch no other source is in disagreement. I'm not sure that a qualifying statement is needed in that circumstance. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand why there is so much emphasis on a newspaper article that is nothing more than a compilation from other sources, some of which sources may themselves be either reliable or unreliable. As for Nahum Shahaf, his article describes him as an engineer having extensive experience in weapons development for the IDF, including helicopter missile technologies. So if he does not understand ballistics, I am not sure just what he would understand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning that the article you mention is the subject of some dispute (see the talk page), as it seems to be sourced primarily to the man himself. We actually don't have very much information that comes from reliable third party sources. I had the opportunity to do a Factiva namecheck on him concerning your implied question; I found a number of articles about his involvement in the Muhammad al-Durrah case, in which he seems to have a central role, but nothing whatsoever about him in any other context. I might add that involvement in helicopter missile engineering is no guide to whether a person has a knowledge of ballistics. It would be relevant if you were designing the casing, but not to someone working on (let's say) guidance systems or optronics. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Also the article on Nahum Shahaf was created very recently and mostly written - even its current version - by User:Tundrabuggy, so can hardly be used to back up that same editor's arguments against well-sourced descriptions of Shahaf, unless we truly live in a world of mad circular self-justification. In fact Malcolm, you've just proved the point with the Shahaf article as it's written - people will link to it from the al-Durrah article and make a snap judgement that "well, this guy is a scientist who knows what he's talking about generally, and probably does as well in respect of rifle ballistics or crime scene reconstructions". He may well do, but none of this is at all clear from any serious source, even those currently being used in respect of his more general scientific expertise.
And regardless of those specifics, Wikipedia is not of course a source for itself. The fundamental issue is surely that statements of supposed fact, sourced to a mainstream media outlet subject to editorial oversight and in some cases regulatory oversight, are good as reliable sources here, even if they can be interpreted as being critical. This is non-negotiable, regardless of whether minority nationalist advocacy groups have disparaged that outlet or a particular journalist who works there at one point or other. Nor is corroboration necessarily needed for claims in a reliable source, as suggested below, and to demand it sails pretty close to advocating blacklisting. The day we accept that partisan advocacy groups carry more weight than any other source is the day Wikipedia degenerates into a real POV bunfight. Such groups exist on both sides of any dispute of course, even if some are less vocal than others or get less airplay.--Nickhh (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote the article on Nahum Shahaf using what references I could find. Everything there is sourced. Anyone is welcome to look outside of wiki for more information. The man himself claims he is "qualified," his jobs with the defense industry, his inventions, and his description by 99% of reporters as a "physicist" ought to have some weight. The IDF seems to consider him qualified enough to ask him to lead this investigation. Surely with the high degree of technical expertise to be found in Israel, they could have found some "qualified" person in the area of ballistics or forensics that they could have chosen instead of some dude, as this one reporter claims, "has no qualifications or expertise." In fact, in making a claim of "no qualifications" the reporter has left himself wide open to criticism for not specifying. Is he referring to formal qualifications? He doesn't say so. I have suggested that this is indeed a BLP issue, similar to saying that a doctor or lawyer is "unqualified." It is simply not something one wants to say without some specificity or corroboration. It has nothing to do with partisan advocacy groups. Each question must be determined on its own merits. --09:41, 6 August 2008 Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
In point of fact, ChrisO is mischaracterising my points. I never "requested the removal of his use as a source." Specifically I said: "So my point is, I don't think this is a good source used alone, and vote to strike anything that is backed up by his word alone." (italics added later for clarity) My reasoning had to do with a number of articles accusing the reporter of "systematic bias" - "a talented journalist who brilliantly distorts facts and substitutes opinions for news" - etc --for example see: [1] 2) The concerns ChrisO addresses regarding qualifications are addressed on the article's talk page, [2], in a section I initiated July 23 about just this issue, in which I argue that to claim Shahaf has "no qualifications" is an exceptional claim requiring high quality reliable sources. I can't understand why ChrisO did not point to my arguments, in which he participated, here: it.[3] On July 24th, I initiated a request on this issue at the ongoing mediation page here: [4] He participated in the mediation page as well. This was posted here and at the RS message board on the 28th, and despite being an interested and involved party in the mediation as well as this posting, I was never given the courtesy of a heads-up on my TALK page, and only today was the notification made at the mediation page. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FairTax revisited

Because the previous discussion of this article was long and confusing, let me summarize the current situation as I see it. The article is dominated by a fringe group (proponents of the FairTax proposal), and is strongly weighted against more mainstream views, represented most clearly by the 2005 report of the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform[5]. As a first step toward balancing the article, I added a short paragraph to the lead, as follows:

In 2005, President George Bush established an advisory panel on tax reform, chaired by former senators Connie Mack III and John Breaux. As part of its task, this panel examined several variants of the FairTax proposal in detail. Chapter 9 of their final report was devoted to an evaluation of proposals of this type. The panel concluded that some of the calculations underlying the FairTax plan are based on incorrect assumptions, and that several concerns, including difficulties of enforcement and administration, made it undesirable to recommend a plan of this type.

As I expected, this edit was immediately reverted, by Morphh. Past experience leads me to believe that it is a waste of time to attempt to improve this article without help from an administrator.Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not a fringe issue and should not be discussed here. I feel I should respond though. There are not "several variants of the FairTax proposal", there is only one proposal, which the tax panel did not evaluate. WP:LEAD requires the it to be a concise summary of the article. We should not mention particular studies in the lead, only basic points of view, which the lead already does. Such detail on one particular study (that's not even a study of the actual plan) gives vast undue weight over other studies (that are studies of the actual plan). Looie496 has not shown that this is the "mainstream" view or that any other view is "fringe". Morphh (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my first request for assistance, any and every attempt at making this article less of a cheerleader for this bill has been met with absolute refusal or immense amounts of arguing. There is a multiple post back and forth where Morphh argues the definition of 'most.' The article and subarticles repeatedly makes specific claims about economics and when those are questioned, some are provablly wrong or deceptive, I'm met with the 'no rebuttal evidence is available' argument which is frequently cited by the editors arguing that side is due to the subject being fringe. It was only when I started saying that all these claims violated WP:FRINGE that those editors started claiming this wasn't a fringe idea. In the several weeks I've been aware of and working on this issue many other editors have made comments that they are unsatisfied with the article's bias but with the entrenched editors absolutely refusing to budge and those of us looking to improve the article being too well behaved to start an edit war nothing can get improved. An administrator or other binding process seems the only possible resolution. Kbs666 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, it does not matter if this is Fringe or not. Since it has been extensively discussed by the mainstream media, in Congress, and by enconomic experts, it really does not fall within the scope of the WP:FRINGE guideline, nor this noticeboard. If there are NPOV issues, raise them at WP:NPOV... otherwise your debate must be hammered out at the article talk page. But this is not the correct venue. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent Design has been discussed in the mainstream media and in Congress but wikipedia doesn't present those claims as factual. The FairTax articles present voluminous claims despite the lack of mainstream review of those claims. While the article should exist those sections making economic claims are violations of WP:FRINGE and should be deleted or rewritten. Kbs666 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
there still needs to be enough to explain what it is. DGG (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't look that bad. The tax evasion/enforcement is the biggest hurdle, and it is clearly mentioned in the lead. The other problem is that it won't actually collect as much revenue, and that is also mentioned in the lead. The Advisory committee is not powerful enough to add to the lead, and I'm sure it could be added to the body of the article. II | (t - c) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look. The article is extremely inappropriately weighted, with a vast amount of material sourced to non-peer-reviewed partisan work and from working papers of one or two major proponents of the idea. The fact that this is a notable political proposal does not mean that the actual economic benefits have been studied as part of mainstream public finance (and as such, is appropriate for this board). I'd fix it, except its clearly WP:OWNed by someone. Relata refero (disp.) --07:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Kotlikoff is not exactly outside of the mainstream. Do you have any evidence that they've cut out RS added to the body of the article? II | (t - c) 08:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The whole point of FRINGE articles is that mainstream sources rarely address the particular points made by proponents. In this case, I don't see any peer-reviewed work by this particular economist cited. As I said, "vast amount of material sourced to non-peer-reviewed partisan work and from working papers of one or two major proponents of the idea". --Relata refero (disp.) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sales taxes are a mainstream tax policy in the U.S., as well as around the world. Economic growth is one of the primary points of a consumption tax, which is supported by many mainstream economists. Money Magazine states "the superiority of consumption taxes is almost conventional wisdom these days." What if there is nothing to "address"? What if it is just economically a more efficient tax as all the sources suggest? Economists disagree on how much growth but this is one area that is going to be positive point for the plan. Not everything is criticized and we need present their point of view and research. We've attributed and sourced the points. We tried to source direct studies of the plan but if you want more sources that address the mainstream economic theory, we can do that. Here is a source where it states that Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gave his support to an overhaul of the U.S. tax code and said some form of a consumption tax — such as a national sales tax — could help the economy:[6] "As you know, many economists believe that a consumption tax would be best from the perspective of promoting economic growth — particularly if one were designing a tax system from scratch — because a consumption tax is likely to encourage saving and capital formation". I could add many sources on more general research but it seems more appropriate to describe the particular economic studies of this plan. The economics are not fringe theories just because they haven't been criticized. Morphh (talk) 3:30, 04 August 2008 (UTC)
Cite peer-reviewed articles about this plan, please, not general points about consumption taxes, which are certainly studied by the mainstream. Address the claims to revenue-neutrality and progressivity, as well as simplicity, directly, please. I notice this strange boosterism has spread to our articles on Consumption tax, for example. This is worrying. There is absolutely no reason for a minor political proposal specific to America to be mentioned in a general article. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

African Empires

essentially a WP:SYN-fork of Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. Note that there is no literature on "African Empires". A term that is in de-facto use is "West African empires", referring to the medieval Sahelian kingdoms and their successor states. The term "African Empires" does occur[7], and apparently has some currency in Afrocentrist literature, referring to some sort of imaginary pre-colonial Pan-African "golden age". The term consequently appears in publications such as African Philosophy in Search of Identity, A History of Native American and African Relations (viz., Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories), African Glory: The Story of Vanished Negro Civilizations, Cafundo: My People, My Folk, My Senzala, My Roots, An Introduction to Pan African Studies etc. Not sure whether "African Empires" as a notion in Afrocentrism has sufficient notability for a standalone article or whether it should just be merged back into Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. Note that it is undisputed, of course, that there have been empires in Africa. It's just that this doesn't make for a topic any more than Eurasian empires. --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but why was this listed on the "FRINGE" booard? I don't quite follow the reasoning there. Blockinblox (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I would assume dab listed it because he feels African Empires article if full of pseudo-historical fringe theories that are rejected by the maintream, and he would like us to take a look. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
as I said, the term comes up in pseudohistorical literature (Pan-Africanism, Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories and the like), and unlike "Sahelian empires", "Islamic empires", "Colonial empires" etc. is not a grouping current in serious historical literature. In other words, fringe literature. Which isn't even cited in the article. The article at present has no sources talking of "African empires". But if you wanted to add sources, you'd be left with fringe literature. I found a single source (Vansina 1962) discussing Sub-Saharan African kingdoms as a topic, which I took as sufficient to justify kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa. Note that even Vansina (1962) doesn't discuss "Pan-African" kingdoms, but excludes North Africa from the discussion. As it stands, even Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa may be criticized on grounds of {{onesource}}, since it seems arbitrary to compare the Sahelian kingdoms to those of Zimbabwe. Treating North African and Southern African "Empires" as a single encylopedic topic is like pushing an article on the Chinese, Hunnic, Indian and Roman empires. They all existed. They're all on the same landmass. We don't have any reference suggesting they should be grouped. I might add that I have just fixed European empire on the same grounds. Colonial empires is a valid grouping, but listing the Roman and the British empires as "European empires" is original synthesis (as you might list the Austrian empire and the Ashanti empire under empires beginning with A). dab (𒁳) 13:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you are being slightly over critical here, dab. I think there is a ligitimate case for having broad overview, history articles on "Empires on X Continent"... discussing the rise and fall of various empires within that geographic area. The key is to accurately reflect the historical consensus about which empires had an impact on (or even contact with) others, and which did not. In other words, I don't think the article topic or title is OR. Nor do I think it FRINGE... but I can see how the article might end up being a FRINGE magnet, given the amount of pseudo-history that has been generated about African history. In other, other words: Keep the article, but watch it very closely. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The following link (http://books.google.com/books?id=rd1CzDFXErEC&pg=PA44&dq=African+Empires&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U1vK5iswmSEP_e50JLcBWv103FakA#PPA45,M1) is to a book that discusses African empires (check pages 43, 44, 49). It is published by Princeton University PRess (hardly a bastion of Afrocentric thought) and authored by Jeffrey Ira Herbst (not an afrocentrist as far as I know). What really sucks is that if black scholars or black publishers put out the exact same book it would be written off as Afrocentric. Apparently the only people qualified to talk about African history are white people or predominantly white institutions. That's really pretty sad. I created the African empires page for the convenience of all wiki users. I really regret that this kind of debate even has to take place. What happened to good faith?Scott Free (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
the only occurrence of the string "African empires" in the publication you link to occurs in the context "the African empires in the western and central Soudan, such as Mali and Kanem-Bornu" -- i.e. we are again looking at the trans-Saharan / Sahelian empires, not "African empires". I am not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet about grouping empires by continent, but it is clearly not a good idea. --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It's simply daft to assume that late medieval Sahel states are kingdoms but are not empires. I'm not sure even where to begin with this frankly ignorant (in it's proper meaning) statement. The West African grasslands and Sahel tended to produce larger political units than the forest zone from at least 1000 CE. These states moved from clan based Fula or Maure entities to caste based states like the Wolof or Bambara states, to much larger entities like Songhai, Mali and the later Fula jihad states. These last two categories are clearly (and commonly) better identified in English as "empires" or "conquest states" than "kingdoms". Kingdoms by definition, if not Eurasian practice, are a single hierarchy authority system, based on family secession. West African states tended to be either based on the model of contraputual authority (where a conquest caste or group retains political authority and a pre-existing group retains religious authority) OR a system of caste, clan, or territorially based electors to whom the ruler answers and by whom he is chosen. Neither of these seems to be best described as "kingship" (and most serious works of the last 40+ years reflect this). Of course if you'd been at all familiar with the historical literature, you'd know this. As you don't, you probably should not be making substantial changes in articles on this topic. T L Miles (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
you are shooting down strawmen. Of course the Sahelian kingdoms can be consideredd empires, that's completely beside the point. The question is, why should the Sahelian empires be grouped with the Egyptian Empire, the Ethiopian Empire, various Caliphates and Great Zimbabwe? I would be perfectly happy with an article on West African empires, although that would probably be merged with Sahelian kingdoms. In other words, Sahelian kingdoms is our article on West African empires. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Major changes proposed to WP:FRINGE

Some significant changes have been proposed at WP:FRINGE. Input from a larger segment of the community is needed. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Rastafari

Persecution of Rastafari has no sources. Is this a legitimate phenomenon and is it notable enough to be separate from Rastafari?

Also, see the main Rastafarianism article. A lot of rastafarian theology is presented as fact and the article is more of a sermon than an encyclopedia entry.

Perfect example from the main article:

Rastafari is not a highly organized religion; it is a movement and an ideology. Many Rastas say that it is not a "religion" at all, but a Way of Life.

Also:

Today, Rastas are not just Black African, but also include other diverse ethnic groups including Native American, White, Māori, Indonesian, Thai, etc.

The article is a treasure trove of bullshit. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't mean to demean Rastafari or claim Rastafari itself is B.S.. I'm saying the article is B.S.. -- just in case that wasn't clear.

Also, another thing I've noticed: The article puts forth the fringe theory that the word, cannabis, is derived from the Hebrew "qaneh bosom." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have an article on Rastafarianism. The persecution article is separate to fit inot the series of persecution of religious phenomena articles which is standard WP practice. I certainly disagree that the Rastafari movement article violates POV, it does not preswent rastafari as fact but it does present what rastas believe in. Why is this on the fringe noticeboard. To the best opf my knowledge no Rastas or people with rasta afarian beliefs have edited the article in the last year or so. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Water fluoridation hysteria

I just removed a shittonne of unrelated stuff about fluorosis from the Water fluoridation conspiracy theory. More eyes would help! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Formerly Water fluoridation opposition. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So far no references on the conspiracy theory. I agree that it would be nice if some people would be willing to objectively look at the content. In the wake of the 2000 systematic review published in the BMJ which was "unable to find any high-quality reliable evidence for fluoridation", the BMJ editorial on the subject noted that the cost-benefit ratio had seemingly declined substantially; the editor commented that he was content to get his fluoride from toothpaste.[8] SciAm ran an article in 2007 noting that "expert opinion may be changing", and China has avoided fluoride after several epidemiological studies found an inverse correlation with IQ. There's evidence that it increases the leaching of lead from brass pipes.[9], which is why a couple studies have highlighted this aspect.[10] So far there's not been one person willing to objectively engage these studies, and ScienceApologist removed them all. If there's anyone with an open mind who's willing to read papers, they'd be refreshing among all these closed minds. II | (t - c) 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There was clearly no consensus for the page move, so I have undone it. For any future controversial page moves, please go through WP:RM, thanks. --Elonka 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
From reviewing the page move, while I disagree with the move, it wasn't "controversial" and can (and appear to have been) be dealt with via WP:BRD. Shot info (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Atropa belladonna

We need some incredulous people at Talk:Atropa belladonna who are willing to combat a severe amount of ignorance.

I have two editors who don't belong at Wikipedia tendentiously and disruptively attempting to justify terrible sources (per WP:REDFLAG) about atropa belladonna. I need help. No one is paying attention to this issue.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird article

TWA Flight 800 alternative theories. Read. Weep. Try to fix.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it as a severe lack of independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't actually see the problem. The article seems neutral as to whether any of the conspiracy theories are true. Not clear that this topic is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, but if it is, how else could the article be written? (SA, please give a little more thought to your subject headings and edit summaries.) Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The tone of the article is fine. It's the list of really obscure ideas that probably defy notability that cause consternation. Has anyone actually noticed half of these proposals anywhere other than Wikipedia? As Ronz points out, we need independent sources in order to verify the prominence of these ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Is "alternative theories" not a bit of a weaselly phrase? We are talking about conspiracy theories here. I'm inclined to invoke WP:SPADE here. If we use 9/11 conspiracy theories, we can surely use the same terminology for Flight 800 conspiracy theories. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the article discusses more than just the conspiracy theories. It is certainly full of fringe theories... and most of these are conspiracy theories... but not all. I don't think we can rename to "TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories" unless we cut the theories that don't involve a conspiracy. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychophysical parallelism

Psychophysical parallelism has been changed rather drastically lately. The article is about a concept in psychophysics, which is part of psychology. One editor has attempted to hijack the content and add stuff from an article he already had deleted. Now, this may not sound too fringey, yet, the stuff he adds (and from his former article) are pretty far out there. I ask that people take a look. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychophysical parallelism has nothing to do with psychophysics or psychology, it's pure philosophy. It's the idea that mind and body parallel each other without causally interacting. This is weird stuff, and any accurate description of it is going to look pretty bizarre. Even so, the fact that the idea came from Leibniz, and is well-known even if rarely taken seriously, makes it notable enough for Wikipedia. The biggest problem, though, is that the article is too ungrammatical and incoherent to make much sense of. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I figure it has to do with psychology because of the whole mind body problem and such, and I have, on the talk page, tried pointing out that it is about psychology and philosophy. The other editor is claiming it should be part of the physics wikiproject. He also thinks it is well about all of science it seems. Thanks for looking, it is appreciated. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious deaths of GEC-Marconi scientists

This seems to be a bit too credulous account of a conspiracy theory, with claims like "Between 1982 and 1990 twenty-five British based GEC-Marconi scientists and engineers... are known to have died in mysterious circumstances." Suicide is mysterious? I'd like some more attention on this. Phiwum (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there were some coincidences strange enough to generate a few newspaper stories in the 1980s, but this doesn't seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and in any case the article as written is 95% OR. I think it should be deleted. Looie496 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read the article, but 9 newspaper articles, a magazine article, and a book devoted entirely to these deaths seems notable to me. It certainly satisfies the letter of notability. It seems likely that the article is basically repeating the sentiments expressed in these sources, meaning no OR. It would be better to change the "known" to "believed". II | (t - c) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The newspaper articles, all dating from 1987-88, are not sufficient to establish notability; the magazine article is from Hustler; the external links are trash; the book is nearly impossible to obtain or find out anything about -- it looks like it was probably vanity-published, but at best was a paperback throwaway, from a small publisher that went out of business the same year it was published (1990). This is just another one of the thousands of senseless conspiracy theories that float around. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the articles were from 87-88 is irrelevant. They establish notability as a historical event. 9 articles is a fair amount. Anyway, take it to AfD if you're really all that bothered by it. II | (t - c) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What mainly bothers me is that the article is chock full of unsourced assertions. They may derive from the book, but since the book is pretty much unobtainable (Amazon shows 2 used copies at a min price of $100), there's no reasonable way of checking. When I talk about notability here, what I really mean is that the topic is not notable enough to make the article worth trying to fix. Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A pile of conspiracy theory. It is obviously intended to make it seem like a grand conspiracy is at work throughout the whole article from the title on out. This is a fringe case and a blatant view push of such a degree that it could be held up as a perfect example of such problems. Vassyana (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the article and made a pass at rewriting the lede and overview sections. It needs further verification and drastic work. "It exists", despite the ridiculous conception of notability as such, is not notability and does not automatically clear a topic for inclusion. I strongly doubt the notability of the topic, as sources existing is not sufficient if the topic still would create an article inappropriate for Wikipedia. We're not a tabloid and tabloid-esque coverage is specifically something that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Assistance from people familiar with conspiracy theory issues on-wiki would be vastly appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Submitted to AfD here. Let's see what the community thinks... Verbal chat

Scuffle brewing at The Great Global Warming Swindle

Over the past couple weeks, a small but vocal (gee, go figure!) contingent of editors has been repeatedly acting to remove Category:Denialism and/or insert Category:Exposé from the Great Global Warming Swindle article. A small sampling of diffs: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] (with that diff citing a 7-4 "vote" as consensus, reminds me of someone) [16] [17]. As this, a hokey British "documentary" (in "scare quotes", naturally) allegedly "disproving" global warming using bad science and dishonest methodology, is by now the deadest of dead issues (all the cool kids are over at Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed), it's rather tricky to establish a howling Zerg rush of opposition on the talk page, which is pretty much the only thing these editors respond to (any one person, especially the particular one person who's making this post, tends to be ignored amongst the series of ridiculous straw polls and glorified back-patting). I'm up against 3RR, and quickly running thin(ner?) on WP:CIVILity. More eyes and perhaps a few more eloquent voices than myself would be a good thing. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who feels an urge to get involved here might benefit from glancing first at this: [18]. Looie496 (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but that's only half the story. Half-truths from a global warming skeptic? Color me shocked... I need a break, you're right. It still stands that this article needs a few more sets of eyes, though. --Badger Drink (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) updated Badger Drink (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you all slap both categories on the article and be done with it? Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Not an ideal approach. Essentially both sides are trying to use categorisation to push their respective POVs. It's denialism of global warming! It's an exposé of the global warming scam! All rather childish, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
One way to avoid this sort of thing would be to have a rule against normative categories, e.g., Category:Bad_Articles. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#RfC_on_Category:Denialism

As you can see, there is now an RFC about the category Denialism (not started by me). There is also a war developing on the talk page about including the word controversial (which the film admits to being) and polemical (which the makers of the film and th regulators claim it is). More eyes and opinions on this would be helpful. Verbal chat 07:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The RFC is in the category media, art, architecture or literature. Is there a science category this could be added to. Also, the RFC is broken anyway with the reason not showing. Can anyone fix these problems? Verbal chat 07:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It is listed at WP:RFC/ART. There is a RFCsci, but nobody seems to look at Requests for Comment/All (WP:RFCA) anyway, so the point seems moot. People can't "watchlist" RFCs, unfortunately, so RFCs are basically useless. They don't draw anyone outside of the people who have watchlisted the page, when the point would seem to be to draw uninvolved people. Little rant; I wish my watchlist would give me a message every time a RFC was filed, since I "watchlisted" them all WP:RFC. Incidentally, I wish those RFCs were given a datestamp. WP is such a mess right now, and watching RFCs is one of the things that really needs to be fixed. WP:RFC didn't even link to WP:RFC/A until I fixed it a few days ago.[19] II | (t - c) 08:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason isn't showing on the talk page though. Is that correct? Verbal chat 08:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That's how it works, yep. I copied it down. II | (t - c) 08:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Traditional medicine

This article could do with some help. The "oral tradition" section for some reason has an anti-science/medicine calypso songs lyrics within it, while the (admittedly awful and biased) "modern connotations" section has now been blanked. All of the sections need some work, and this article doesn't really leave you any the wiser about Traditional Medicine (although I did learn a bit about Martin Luther after following some links) Verbal chat 09:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Denialism and Climate change denial

I have a feeling that trouble is brewing on these articles (both need massive work anyway) related to the Great Global Warming Swindle problems discussed above. If people could help out with sourcing, definition, content and balance issues for these articles that would be great. I'm going to be away for a while and will only have sporadic access to WP, so please add these articles to your watch lists (and despair!) :) Verbal chat 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jones/People's Temple and political alliances

I first encountered this new-to-me content on the Harvey Milk bio which I'm pretty familiar. i have been reading about Milk for years. An editor kept adding in a "Milk's Support for People's Temple" even though there seemed to be little support for this content in reliable sources. I did my own research of what any RS's had to state and inserted several neutral sentences but this alone did not appease their desire to see an entire section devoted to the subject. After an RfC, ANI report and full page protection, Wikidemo came to the rescue and started an article to house much of the content that was seen as undue in this other articles. I'm not greatly familiar with all the other players and politicians in the Jim Jones/People's Temple universe so I only commented on what I saw as POV and, IMHO, questionably sourced items in the Political Alliances of the People's Temple#Harvey Milk section. I detailed these out on the talk page in hopes that the main editors there would look into the concerns and hopefully address them. Now I'm being told that I am acting in bad faith and my asking for reliable sourcing is disingenuous in some fashion. It took me 2.5 months to get the "bonus" undue content off the Milk article but now I feel by having an article just on this subject the editors are emboldened to present information without regards to neutrality. I may be over-reacting to this however there seems to be some agenda of painting Milk as a major pro-Jones/People's Temple supporter when my looking into sources shows almost the opposite. Milk stated at the begining he thought they were weird and dangerous. As a politician he basically did what all the politicians were doing. I'd appreciate someone else looking at this as I don't thing anything I say will be received well at this point. Banjeboi 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't belong in Harvey Milk, but it seems relevant to an understanding of Jim Jones, and it strikes me that [20] goes a little beyond "what all the politicians were doing". Looie496 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago, I just happened to have watched the PBS Documentary on Jonestown which is quite good and I highly recommend it. In any case, from what I gathered from that work, Jones was NOT aligned with Harvey Milk per se, but he WAS aligned with George Moscone. Harvey Milk also supported Moscone and indeed Moscone and Milk were assassinated by the same person: Dan White. According to the documentary (which I would deem a reliable secondary source) Jim Jones got many members of the People's Temple to actively campaign and rally for Moscone and, in return, Jim Jones was named chairman of the SF Housing Commission. That's as far as I know any political connection between Harvey Milk and Jim Jones and it's already mentioned. Much of the commentary at the Political Alliances article seems cherry-picked. It's difficult to determine when a politician is being "political" or when they truly are "aligned". In the case of People's Temple, much of the 20/20 hindsight used to associate Jim Jones with some person/cause/idea is done in order to scandalize rather than elucidate. We must be careful not to wax eloquent about chance encounters and happenstance interactions since this is such a laden subject. However, Fringe Theory, this is not. I recommend instead transferring this legitimate complaint to WP:NPOVN. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback. The Carter letter, BTW, is exactly the kind of thing a politician does and we don't know why it was written. However, if we are to accept as as genuine it does seem to cite widespread political support from all of Milk's colleagues and other elected officials. Will take this to WP:NPOVN as advised. Banjeboi 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Atropa belladonna (revisited)

Atropa belladonna. I need some HELP at this page. Please. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article seems OK to me at the moment. One neutral mention of homeopathy is hardly overkill. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that a great many herbs and poisons are "used" in homeopathic formulations (which are really just pure water), and once you let this weed sprout, it will start popping up all over the place. Better to suppress it now than have to take radical measures later. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It really only will pop up and flouish where it has the necessary fertilizer of reliable sources, and where the editorial sunshine and watering of maintaining NPOV, especially UNDUE and COATRACK, keeps it pruned to proper encyclopedic stature (which for many might be by pulling them up). Cetainly we can describe instances of such use in a way which in no way prescribes or endorses it, so I see no need for suppression. After all the most radical measure we'll ever need to make is a reversion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
One cited sentence is pretty suppressed anyway. And that's good, coz homeopathy is crap, but no need to kill that golden goose. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's a source: "An Introduction to Homeopathic Medicine in Primary Care", a book by Sidney Skinner. You can preview the book on Google Books. Appendix A shows the "homeopathic pharmacopea of the United States", as of 1999. It shows over 1500 items. By your rules, every one of these could potentially be mentioned in Wikipedia, sourced to that book. Once we let atropine in, there's no obvious place to draw the line. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, one sentence in each of 1500 articles is not going to break Wikipedia's back. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but 1500 mentions certainly exaggerates the importance of Homeopathy.
Kww (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Considering how big Wikipedia is? Not really. The info is just about encyclopedic enough, doesn't promote homeopathy (god forbid), and one sentence isn't undue weight. I still fail to see the problem. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely with Moreschi. Imagine that a person goes to the store and sees a homeopathic remedy and looks it up in Wikipedia. Our page atropa belladonna provides an interesting, complete and essentially accurate view of what that is. Why not let homeopathy be mentioned when it can be cited to a reliable source? There is greater harm to NPOV in trying to stamp it out than in giving it a quick mention and providing the relevant facts. Any user who reads our article on homeopathy will get a pretty clear understanding of what it is. Placebo therapy is not so bad for many conditions. It causes very little (no?) iatrogenic illness. Jehochman Talk 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
(E/C) I restate my agreement with these last couple posts. I do think I understand the concern, that even within this list from one source, that some of the items will be found only in there for the most obscure of reasons, and so even their inclusion here would be better off omitted on very subtle WEIGHT grounds, even if sourcing policies could be used to argue for inclusion (for a slightly less subtle version of this issue, check out this). But that all said, I would agree with others here that this really isn't a big deal; articles about related topics to this have far more pressing issues, in many cases, and we're not paper. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

People, this is an article on the PLANT, not on the remedy. If we want to have an article on individual remedies, that's one thing. But to pollute articles on an essentailly unrelated subject with homeopathy is my beef. In January I went through and removed homeopathy from all the articles that did not have sources which indicated that homeopathy was somehow important to the subject of the article (Domesticated sheep is an example where homeopathy stayed). This is the last article left that does not have a source which explicitly indicates that homeopathy is important to the plant. Actually, if anyone knows of a source that says something about this plant being famous for its homeopathic use, that would make me feel MUCH better, but as it is the best we can do is an anecdotal mention in the OUP book on health foods (how Deadly nightshade became a "food" I'm not sure, but anyway). That's simply not very good sourcing and definitely looks to me like a WP:WEIGHT violation. People think that just because it's a small instance that it isn't a big problem. Well, we have a system for dealing with these attempted "small mentions" of homeopathy that had found their way into no less than 30 different articles on plants and chemicals: excising.

You know, List of homeopathic remedies is a great page. Why violate the principle of one-way linking? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The plant article refers to many remedies, not just the homeopathic one. So why have you been focused on the homeopathic one for so long? We aren't promoting the remedy, but rather presenting the mainstream's lack of support for its use. The homeopathic remedy has been mentioned, described and/or studied in several reliable sources including books from reputable published, scientific government agencies, and peer-reviewed indexed journals, all of which satisfy your desire to show that this plant is "famous" for its homeopathic use... whatever that means. And the system for dealing with the small mentions which you describe above - excising - seems to have just been your personal ideological campaign to remove information which you don't like. Finally, the "principle of one-way linking" is just your made up rule which only exists on your user page, so who cares if we violate it? -- Levine2112 discuss 08:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is and has always been that there is no PLANT in the remedy named belladonna. So the association is all on the say-so of unreliable sources (that is, homeopaths). Other remedies at least use the plant (if not necessarily in a way that has scientific evidence backing the use). The problem is that this PLANT is not found in the remedy and the association is only done by fringe promoters. And the principle of one-way linking is actually found in WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT too. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I've looked and I don't see any "principle of one-way linking" found on either WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. Can you please point it out? So far, your user page is the only place where I have seen this mentioned. And of all of the editors at Wikipedia, I have only seen you assert your self-created rule as some actual policy which we must all follow. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:33, 10