Misplaced Pages

:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:35, 31 October 2009 view sourceKww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits Gibbs Paradox: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 18:23, 1 November 2009 view source Verbal (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers21,940 edits Human suit: canvassing??Next edit →
Line 98: Line 98:
***I just posted a comment on the talk page. The entry is a mess of editorial synthesis and you are right to request sourcing. Of course I doubt there is any, which is why you are getting push back. Interestingly I've found several uses of the term "human disguise" in scholarship on ] and ]. If an encycopedic entry can be built around such a concept it would have to be done from scratch.] (]) 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC) ***I just posted a comment on the talk page. The entry is a mess of editorial synthesis and you are right to request sourcing. Of course I doubt there is any, which is why you are getting push back. Interestingly I've found several uses of the term "human disguise" in scholarship on ] and ]. If an encycopedic entry can be built around such a concept it would have to be done from scratch.] (]) 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
***Apparently some abstracted version of the Hebrew Bible is OK to use as a source -- .] (]) 19:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) ***Apparently some abstracted version of the Hebrew Bible is OK to use as a source -- .] (]) 19:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
**** Apparently my edit here above is inappropriate canvassing. I don't think it is, as this section already existed so I added relevant information that it had been renamed and a new AfD had opened. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


== ] == == ] ==

Revision as of 18:23, 1 November 2009

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    ShortcutsBefore posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

    We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

    Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.


    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Archiving icon
    Archives

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
    51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
    61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
    71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
    81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
    91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
    101, 102, 103



    This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Admin attn required on Talk:Parapsychology

    Rodgarton (talk · contribs) is engaging in persistent personal attacks against editors on the talk page of this and related articles, and his own user page (where he calls other editors "retarded"). He's had several warnings about this, and related blocks. Could an admin look into this please? Verbal chat 12:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

    Two weeks for him. Moreschi (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    Just a note that he's since been indef'd. Verbal chat 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Fringe or significant minority viewpoint?

    There is a debate going on here about what constitutes a fringe viewpoint and what constitutes a significant minority viewpoint. Namely: is it sufficient to be able to name a few notable proponents of an idea (even though they may be notable for other things) for this idea to be considered a "significant minority viewpoint"? Opinions are most welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

    the significant minority viewpoint needs to be debated, and its existence needs to be recognized, in peer-reviewed academic literature. It doesn't matter so much who or how many people propose the view, it matters what impact it makes in academia. --dab (𒁳) 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

    And don't forget that the debate moves on. What is the mainstream at one point may not be so for ever. Consider whether that can be addressed by using a chronological structure, or by finding scholarly histories of the contentions. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Lord, what a mess. This is one of those times where we really just have to make a judgement call and hope it all goes well, because it is an ongoing debate and the tertiary sources we could base meta-descriptions on haven't caught up with the research. My general impression is that the "hereditarian" position on race and intelligence - that is, a position that posits a 50/50 role between genetics/environment in explaining race and intelligence data - isn't "significant minority" and isn't "fringe" either. Probably "small minority" gets closest, if anything does. It's not a widespread view but evidently there is a small community of reputable people out there who go for it. As to what impact they make in academia - in a topic such as this naturally quite a lot. The type of impact is a different question altogether. Moreschi (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It is funny, sad and interesting to me that wikipedia is trying to purge articles that are 'fringe'. Misplaced Pages is quickly coming just a run of the mill encyclopedia, like any other. The vision of what wikipedia could have been, ie: an encyclopedia that anyone can add to, is simply gone....this sux, i didn't get the memo until a few days ago. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talkcontribs)
    No... Misplaced Pages does not try to "purge" articles that are 'fringe'... this policy is explicitly about which fringe topics should have articles, and how to write them. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Chronic Fatigue, ME, and Viruses

    BBC website has a story about a possible link between virus and ME. This will be picked up by many people. There are some people who think ME/CFS can be effectively treated with graded exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy. There are other people who say that CFS is different to ME, and that you can tell the difference because "real" (their words, not mine) ME doesn't respond to CBT or graded exercise. The latter camp seem to say that the illness has no psychological component (and also seem to say that a psychological component means it's not a "real" illness.) It's this group of people who'll seize the reports of a possible link with the virus and they may distort the findings. Here's a linky. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8298529.stm 87.115.68.252 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

    It's more than a "possible" link, the story is based on this Science article, which is pretty compelling. This is a major development, and the story is going to be in flux for a while -- we'll just have to handle it as best we can. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    This is no fringe theory. Viral or other physical causes of CFS have never been fringe theories. Psychiatric treatment being effective and an underlying cause being triggered by an infection, autoimmunity etc. are not incompatible, but the debate has been wrongly polarised into "All in the mind" vs "Proper illness". Fences&Windows 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    just mentioning that there have been additional extensive stories on this in major conventional medicine sources. The problem is going to be keeping it from being used as a vindication of all fringe theories whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    User:Freelimbic

    Not sure if this entirely qualifies as fringe, but the authors autiobio makes me think so. Relevant articles are:

    The first article in the list seems wacky, which combined with the self-promotion angle made me bring it up here. The editor in question has also been removing tags (improvement ones and CSDs) that I and other editors placed. Rather than get into an edit war, wanted to let other eyes take a look. Best, --Bfigura 04:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    This doesn't solve the massive COI and notability issues with this editor's contributions. I've prodded the articles listed above that weren't already there. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    something to watch out for

    Nothing major, but another rather amusing floating IP pushing the bizarre theory that various Indian languages are connected to Finno-Ugric: this proves, apparently, that the PIE urheimat is to be located in Scandinavia, and that "the Nazis were right after all". See contributions. Moreschi (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Geolocates to Finland. I can't recall ever having seen a Scandinavian nationaist take on this issue before. Something of a first, eh? Moreschi (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Finally a nationalist crank who is not from the Balkans, the Near East or India! My faith in humanity is restored :op --dab (𒁳) 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    You've forgotten the Netherlands...Moreschi (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    And England vs Britain. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    You mean British Isles vs. "the Celtic archipelago that shall not be named". But that's not crankery, that's just whimpitude of the "how dare you hurt our extremely tender sentiments you imperialist" kind. Actually, I meant this debate. Wrong again, you Swiss person, you. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    ah, now I would just love getting my hands on a Swiss nationalist crank, that would pay for all the Indian and Persian soap opera. They exist, but thankfully for all RL purposes they are very rare. --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    The Netherlands have produced at least one Wikipedian with a nationalism of the decidedly cranky kind, but that's a case resolved two years ago, with no sock armies come back to haunt us.

    however, I sadly have the impression that our "Finnish" crank is in fact a Haryana expat. No Finn out to prove a "Finno-Ugric-Aryan" relation would pick Haryanvi in particular for the 'astonished fact' that 'the Nazis were right all along'. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    Water fluoridation

    There are two issues of interest here, I think. 1, There has been a lot of vandalism here today (anti fluoridation TV show somewhere?), and 2, there is a talk page discussion about whether the page is "balanced". Cheers, Verbal chat 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Today's featured article on the Main Page, which at least explains the vandalism (if not the talk page stuff). --Bfigura 22:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    Water fluoridation is a contraversial topic within a relatively small sector of society, as are related topics such as fluoridated toothpaste. The article as it stands (and as was promoted to FA, for what little that is worth) acknowledges the controversies in line with WP:WEIGHT: it is mentioned, but it is not the main point of the article. Physchim62 (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

    Hekate and Hekat

    At Hecate, one editor thinks that "Hekat" should be given as an alternative name of the goddess in the lead sentence, based on 2 neopagan sources. Another editor thinks these are pretty poor sources on which to base the first sentence of an article about a Greco-Roman goddess. Input welcome at Talk:Hecate#Hekat. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    Commented. Moreschi (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    Human suit

    Mentioned above. Now in AfD. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    Not so much fringe as fan-cruft for a few hard sci-fi stories but still agree that it should probably go. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    The Jesus thing isn't hard sci-fi. Maybe fantasy... --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    LOL True enough. Regardless, with the exception of the Jesus one-liner this isn't a fringe matter but it is an appropriate AfD matter. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    The deluxe model comes with a free tin-foil hat.   pablohablo. 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    So far Icke has not been mentioned on this article. Let's hope it stays that way Pablomismo.Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    Don't tempt me!   pablohablo. 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • NOTE In a clear abuse of process this article has been recreated with the name Human disguise despite the recent AfD being a clear delete. The article is worse than it was before, and has been sent to AfD again - which doesn't link correctly to the previous AfD. Verbal chat 20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I've just been accused of vandalism for requestion reliable sources for unsourced sections and paragraphs, and WP:BRD is just being ignored. Verbal chat 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I just posted a comment on the talk page. The entry is a mess of editorial synthesis and you are right to request sourcing. Of course I doubt there is any, which is why you are getting push back. Interestingly I've found several uses of the term "human disguise" in scholarship on Homer and Euripides. If an encycopedic entry can be built around such a concept it would have to be done from scratch.PelleSmith (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Apparently some abstracted version of the Hebrew Bible is OK to use as a source -- .PelleSmith (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Apparently my edit here above is inappropriate canvassing. I don't think it is, as this section already existed so I added relevant information that it had been renamed and a new AfD had opened. Verbal chat 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Stanley Krippner‎

    A fringe bio which is having a lot of back and forth. Mostly consisted of a dubious biography and dubious praise. The AfD seems to rely a lot on GHITS and his large "publication" record. Verbal chat 09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    Don't forget the ever-entertaining accusations of bad-faith editing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    cross-post: nationalism and the wiki

    For those interested, my recent post at WP:AN#Misplaced Pages and nationalism - this is not getting any better might be worth looking at. Moreschi (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    Shamanism

    Please see the etymology section ]. I could not find any of the google book links the person mentioned. But I did check etymology ]. I tried to put the information there, but was reverted with what appears to be a WP:SPA in here: ]. I did a google books search and they mention the word as either Tungus and many sources relate it to the Sanskrit word. Also prominent Turkologist like Gerald Clauson are not sure if Tungus can be classified as Altaic. ]. Any help clarifying the etymology of this word is appreciated. Also I rather not edit that article, but the article requires some work. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    More Turkophilic stuff. If they can come up with a reference in English which we can assess, it could be included as an alternate theory if shows any signs that there are non-Turks who give in some credence. Replacing the whole section is a no-go given the strength of the references backing the Tungus theory; claims that the latter is Turkic can remain in that article. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    This was just vandalism. Roll it back, a brainless s/Tungusic word/Turkic word/ replacement, the editor didn't even bother to adapt the spelling šamán. It is a paragraph I wrote back in January. It was already somewhat deteriorated before the vandalism.

    The article is already aware that the word made it into Turkic. If more detail on the history of the word within Turkic is added that would be fine, but is it too much to hope that the Turkic history of the word can be documented without vandalism to the non-Turkic content? --dab (𒁳) 18:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    Conspiracy theories and WorldNetDaily Books

    I'm not sure this is the right venue and please feel free to move this to another venue if appropriate. A new editor named Islamrevealed (talk · contribs) (which is a bad sign from the get go) has been edit warring for the inclusion of a conspiracy theory published by WND Books about the Council on American-Islamic Relations on that organization's entry. The text he put in the lead originally read:

    • CAIR is also the central subject of a book titled "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America", which was released by WND Books on October 15, 2009. Written by P. David Gaubatz, a former federal agent and U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and counterterrorism specialist, and Paul Sperry, a media fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a former Washington bureau chief for Investor's Business Daily, the book is reportedly an undercover expose that catalogs the ways in which CAIR carries out a "well-funded conspiracy to destroy American society and promote radical Islam".

    I have reverted this editor twice and don't want to continue edit warring. In the current version the editor simply removed the name of the publisher and the description of the book from the inserted text as if that changes the fact that it is a fringe conspiracy theory published by a group with a known anti-Islamic POV. Some attention to this by others would be helpful.PelleSmith (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    The flap is all over the news, so I think an accurate version could be sourced to real news organizations. Try this one from Reuters, for example. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    That reuters source is not reuters, it's PRNewsWire. WND Books does not, in my opinion, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They should not be used for statements of fact. If the publication of the book, or the book itself were notable, article about those events would be discussed in other, obviously reliable, sources. Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

    Cyrus cylinder as a charter of human rights, redux

    The issue of the Cyrus cylinder as a supposed charter of human rights has come up yet again on the Human rights article (summary version: Iranian nationalists and political figures claim that the CC is the world's first "human rights charter"; historians reject this viewpoint as tendentious and anachronistic). This has been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on two previous occasions. It's being discussed at Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder, where the usual suspects are demanding that it be included. Some input from outside editors would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion in full flow! Now also starring on ANI! Essentially this is an old piece of the Shah's propaganda that our modern-day Iranian patriots are attempting to revive at a completely offtopic article. Moreschi (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    The AN/I discussion, for the record, is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles. I have asked for intervention to block three disruptive editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    I do not understand why people are always so eager to discuss this yet another time? All that can be said about it has been said several times over. It's 1970s propaganda, certainly notable in its own way, but anachronistic in any discussion of the Iron Age. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    This is still going on and the three disruptive editors have been unblocked (regrettably, in my view). Some assistance would be appreciated; these people are nothing if not persistent. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

    Sungazing, again

    Fringe claims that staring at the sun is safe and can replace food and water continue to proliferate at sungazing. Outside input would again be welcome. Skinwalker (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

    I thought you were joking above. Having taken a look at the article, words fail me... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    Mmmm, smells good. Who needs bacon for breakfast when you have hot, burning retinas? --Nealparr 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    The guru of sungazing, Hira Ratan Manek, has pictures of himself on his website which show that he has a chronic case of arc eye. I suspected a hoax until I saw that. Skinwalker (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    It's a mess and there are some editors dedicated enough to inserting the fringe views I wasn't able to keep up on reverting the harmful misinformation. Thanks for the assist guys. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

    Passage meditation

    This article just came to my attention. Could do with a cleanup and perhaps rebalancing. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

    It's spam, advertising a 2008 book. We should also check out the merge target. Eknath Easwaran -- comes up with 74 google book hits, almost exclusively as author. Apparently next to no independent coverage, not even in bibliographies. Among the very rare instances of unrelated authors quoting Easwaran is Magic Power Language Symbol (2008), and The Aquarian conspiracy (1980). The only non-incidential coverage I can find is The making of a teacher: conversations with Eknath Easwaran (2006). However, this isn't independent, as it appeared with Nilgiri Press as the rest of Easwaran's books. Notability not established. --dab (𒁳) 15:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

    The article says that his translations are critically acclaimed and certainly they are selling well. 50 titles available on Amazon. So I would like to hang on until we can find out if there was indeed praise for the translations. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

    Nilgiri Press is run by Easwaran's own "Blue Mountain Center of Meditation". This is essentially self-published literature. Without reviews from notable independent sources this stuff has no place on Misplaced Pages. here we have some "critical acclaim" (listed without any publication details). Perhaps some of it can be used. "Critics" listed include Henri Nouwen, author of The Inner Voice of Love – Huston Smith, author of The World’s Religions – Wilson Library Bulletin – Yoga Journal – NAPRA ReView – Library Journal – Wisconsin Bookwatch – Spiritual Life – “Book Bag,” Marilis Hornidge, The Courier-Gazette – The Hindu – Holistic Health & Medicine – Cosmos – The San Diego Union – The Book Reader – Book News Previews, Burton Frye.

    I tagged the Eknath Easwaran article, but this does not mean that I think it should be deleted. This just means that the current revision lacks sources establishing notability. It should remain tagged (not deleted) until such sources are added. The Passage Meditation article, however, can just be merged into the Easwaran one. --dab (𒁳) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

    Understood. I don't think we're looking for any particularly serious or scholarly reviews, just an independent indication that he is a major author/translator in the "spiritually uplifting" genre. After all, we have quite comprehensive coverage of romantic fiction, read in similar quantities and for similar purposes. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    of course. Any independent verification of the claim that 100k copies of the book were sold should be sufficient. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    I have concerns that some refs may be misrepresented by some editors at this article. Simonm223 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

    I think we have this under control. There is some WP:COI, but the editor is being collaborative about it. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    I added an NPOV tag as I think recent editing is problematic and the article is still a mess. Please review, and offer opinions on the talk page. Verbal chat 17:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Creationist edit-warring on Creation Ministries International

    Creation Ministries International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Worst creationist POV problems:

    • describing a film by CMI as "unbiased movie about Darwin's voyage"
    • Stating that it "has anti-Creationists ranting"

    Other problems detailed at Talk:Creation Ministries International#Unsourced POV additions. The POV is so extreme that it even has one of the creationist editors there criticising it. I've reverted, but am now coming up against WP:3RR. HrafnStalk(P) 05:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    I'll help. Awickert (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    I'm putting a neutrality tag on the article as well as general issues (for unrelated matters) in hopes it can catch a little more attention and I'll post on the talk page there. The film section doesn't feel right to me either, and if you look at the article for it specifically it directly contradicts the information in this article. The vast majority or resources listed are self-publication or links to the organization's own website. That's all from the outside that can be done reasonably... I'll link this discussion here on the talk page, also, hoping for more opinions. Datheisen (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    Guess I didn't do anything because things seemed to be under control every time I checked. But feel free to leave me a message if you (plural) do need a hand, Awickert (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

    Colloidal silver‎

    Can some people please have a look at this article. Floydian (talk · contribs) apparently WP:OWNs this page, and is editwarring to his preferred version and engaging in personal attacks on other editors on the talk page. The dispute revolves around the alt med use of colloidal silver, and using in vitro studies of silver (not colloidal necessarily, or of the alt med treatments) to support the alt med section. A summary of the alt med evidence base is also being removed from the lead. More eyes and opinions required, I find it hard to engage with the level of vitriol directed at othhr editor though. Verbal chat 17:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but anyone from this noticeboard is inherently NOT neutral. Keep it over at the NPOV noticeboard. I'm not claiming to own the page, but I am claiming that Verbal is misrepresenting others to get their own way. There is clearly not a consensus for Verbals selective cherry picking of sources in order to present only the negative studies in the lead. A clear violation of neutral point of view to remove several sources in order to swing the weight to the negative source in order to put only it in the lead. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    Floydian should read WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    Floydian, remember that any editor can respond to issues raised on this noticeboard. It's true that most regular contributors are keen to see a mainstream scientific view predominate over anything that could be seen as pseudoscience, but there is also commitment to collegiate editing, to good sourcing and to policy generally. If you're also committed to those things then you can contribute here too. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    I am a contributor. I don't often contribute since I do not know most pseudoscience, but I do contribute to those I do know about (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Homeopathy and this article). You are right that the great majority of regular contributors will have the mainstream view dominate the minority view. This means that they can quickly buddy buddy themselves together and overwhelm the minority or constructive editors who take to the opposing view. The summary that I removed was not the summary, it was a horribly worded piece of information from a source that I dispute the accuracy of that is intended to downplay the efficacy of a substance whose efficacy has not been tested. The summary need not include a contended piece of information when it can summarize everything else quite neutrally. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 20:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity what do you think an EM field is?Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    An area that is being influenced/manipulated by wavelength energy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    All energy has a wavelength. That's because all energy is composed of quanta of energy commonly called "photons". That's right - Microwaves, RF, Visible Spectrum light, UV, and Ionizing Radiation all are made up of the same stuff. The difference is to do with things like the length of the wave and, consequently the level of energy present. The more energy, the more harmful. Next question: Is RF more or less energetic than yellow light? Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    Floydian, try arguing the points through, referring to policy and to good sources. You will find that most experienced editors are fair-minded and that you can learn a lot from them. But accept that you will win some points and lose some. When consensus is against you give in - I know that's not always easy. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    LOL I've been shot down, despite being certain I was right on more than one occasion. You roll with the punches, shrug and go well that's the consensus model for you. Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    Believe me, I'm not new to the wiki process. I have created and built consensus many times before, often agreeing to disagree (Afterall, consensus is through compromise). These editors are not doing that, however. Its their way or the admin noticeboard for 3RR (Which is easy for them, again, as I'm far outnumbered). I'm sure I could go gather 50 people with my POV and brute force my views, but then I'd be a politician and not an editor. I still hold to the point that this is not consensus building, its brute forcing a point of view by grabbing everyone that agrees with you and creating a "consensus". WP:NOTAVOTE applies to consensus building, and I've made plenty of points to which the other editors mostly offer moot points or completely dodge the subject (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Rather than actually answer my points, they just accuse me of things (See File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg, most editors are on the yellow section). Simonm223 is perhaps the only editor with the opposite view of me that has actually sat and communicated properly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    I am another editor that has been a regular editor on the colloidal silver article. Recently, a bunch of editors, including Verbal, have descended on the article, reverting sourced information with no discussion about the reverts. I guess Verbal felt that putting NPOV on the comment was good enough and how dare Floydian question that. I am not surprised that Floydian has reverted much of the "fly by edits", and am surprised that he has kept his cool as well as he has. stmrlbs|talk 01:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    You mean the cool that has led to the protection of the article, the accusing other editors of being "scum" that should "fucking" do what he thinks. Pretending that we haven't justified our actions doesn't mean that we haven't. He is editwarring and being abusive, and should now be blocked. Verbal chat 14:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    You are referring to the sentence "Removing the rest of the about 11 sources that claim an antibacterial effect is the biggest fucking piece of point of view pushing I've seen on this website." Care to point out where I am personally attacking an editor? I make an accusation of POV pushing (Which is hardly a personal attack on a site with a core policy of WP:NPOV), which I am emotional with (Hence it being the "biggest fucking example"). After searching the colloidal silver talk, neutral POV noticeboard, and this noticeboard, the only use of "scum" I found is in your post, Verbal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 17:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    When I came in I saw Floydian trying to remove a referenced statement about the lack of efficacy of swallowing quantities of metal as opposed to (or suppelementary to) traditional health care. Considering what I know about the history of swallowing metal as medicine I'd say a referenced statement that doing so doesn't have a known health benefit is appropriate. I'd also suggest that people who want to edit articles on biology and chemistry should have a basic familliarity with the disciplines in question. This is something that certain editors have not adequately demonstrated. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    I was trying to remove a reference in the lead, which is duplicated in a later section. This fully conforms with WP:LEDE#Citations. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    You tried to remove a referenced statement from the lede. That is rather different. The reference is being left in as without the reference you are trying to argue against the statement. Also please answer my question with regard to relative levels of energy in a photon of RF and a photon of yellow light. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    I've read the article that uses physics to disprove EMHS... But that should be discussed on the appropriate page since this is for the colloidal silver discussion. I did remove it from the lead at one point because its very POVish to delete the sentence that says "it has an anti-microbial effect in-vitro" yet leave the one that says "This reference says no study has proven its efficacy, but we can't reword that to say no studies have been done in the first place to prove or disprove its efficacy even though theres no proof of a study that has indicated its lack of efficacy". I am not trying to argue the validity of the statement, with or without source, I am trying to argue the validity of the "reliable" source, NCCAM. The sentence still appeared in full, with citation, in the As an Alternative Medicine section. This is how the article is biased.
    Besides, it was one edit, and like every other edit, was quickly reverted by an editor that never has and probably never will look at that article again now that their version has been quickly ratified. How many more off topic discussions and accusations will take place before someone actually sits down and discusses the changes made? I've cited at least half a dozen policies/guidelines that go against these edits, and the only responses I've gotten are "Stop attacking editors", "don't 3RR", and "maybe you need to be blocked" . - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    Misplaced Pages's biggest POV-push is up for an RFC again. It only violates half-a-dozen core policies, though, so I'm sure no real changes will happen. Shoemaker's Holiday 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    Sweet merciful atheismo, how did this survive 3 AfDs?!?!? Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    The POV-pushers show up en masse to the discussions and shut them down. For instance, the second one was non-admin closed within hours citing WP:SNOW. Shoemaker's Holiday 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    There could conceivably be such an encyclopedical list - debatable though. But the above article is nothing like a real WP list. That reminds me to go back to List of basilicas in France, which is a real WP list. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    Can i ask out of interest what that particular POV is to you? (ie. what POV is the article supporting) For everyone i suggest reading through the AfD's (i just did again), and consider them, personally i think the first AfD should be enough, since it was the one with the most comprehensive argumentation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    The problem I think is that the majority of Misplaced Pages articles Strongly lean toward the man-made global warming theory and tend to be dismissive toward the idea that there is any controversy on the subject. Even the Global Warming Controversy article has some of this and because it is a controversial subject and has a number of aggressive editors, even legitimate changes that weaken the argument for man-made global warming are left out of the article. The result is frustrated editors and the article in question. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    • I suggested at the last AfD that we should add information on the other unconventional views held by these scientists - for example, several denied that CFCs caused ozone thinning, and some believe in UFOs. They've got form on being contrarian. Information on their links to and payments from businesses would also be a useful addition. Fences&Windows 23:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    One of the big hold ups for some editors is the quotes. Misplaced Pages does not endorse those quotes, and the article in question doesn't even use them as proof against the consensus... I fail to see POV in quotes when they are used specifically to show that those scientists hold the belief/opinion that global warming isn't real/man-made. What POV is being pushed besides that man-made global warming is fact (Which obviously the scientists in the list feel isn't the case)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    Now that would be POV. The list as it stands does not in any way or form make a judgement as to whether the quotes in question are corresponding to a realistic scientific opposition or not. The quotes are not picked for ridicule (which your proposal would do), nor are they picked to laud a particular position. They are picked for one reason and one reason only: To document that the scientist in question does divert from the mainstream opinion on climate change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    The list is inherently a POV-push - it is the same as the "Scientists who dissent from Darwinism" or "Scientists for 9/11 Truth" lists floating about the web. The aim is to give credibility to the fringe position. My suggestion was partly tongue-in-cheek, but isn't it interesting that Sallie Baliunas was also on the fringe over ozone depletion? Fences&Windows 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    Even in an article on a minority or fringe viewpoint, shouldn't the majority viewpoint be adequately explained? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    Of course it should - and my response to that would be the question: Isn't it? If the article hasn't changed much since i last looked: The title and the whole of the introduction (lede) is dedicated to this exact thing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    Climate Change is a tricky issue, especially here on Misplaced Pages since notability and public opinion have a more significant weight here than in a more traditional encyclopedia. The lead to the article explains what the article is and isn't and explains that the opinion of the scientists listed is outside that of mainstream science, I don't see a problem on that front. The bigger problem is that the article is mostly just a list of quotations.
    Further, There are POV issues on pretty much all the Global Warming Articles, for instance Scientific opinion on climate change is carefully written to omit any real mention of dissenting opinions. Unidentified Flying Object actually gives more weight to pro-UFO theories than Global warming controversy gives to any controversies. If List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming has survived 3 AFD attempts maybe it would be better to let it be. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    Swedenborgianism... again

    The usual suspects are up to their tricks, trying to represent this rather dull out-growth of Christian theology as an evil occult conspiracy... Honestly I don't know why they bother. Anyway I have removed the offending WP:SYNTH but more eyes would be useful. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

    I'm a bit worried about the list of signatories section. If nothing else, the academic backgrounds seems an argument from authority. Worse, in many cases, they're wrong: the list is well-known for misrepresenting the academic connections of the people on it, and it looks like at least some of it was copied from there. Shoemaker's Holiday 12:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, copied from where? Looie496 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    The Discovery Institute's original listing. HrafnStalk(P) 06:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

    The List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was recently merged into A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism without any prior discussion. HrafnStalk(P) 06:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

    I think that's because I prodded it: It was an incomplete list, and the information was, at the very least, misleading. For instance, consider the qualification given for Berlinski. Shoemaker's Holiday 13:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    I must admit that I was never in favour of the list in the first place. This was originally a category, the category was CfDed twice, both times closed against consensus as 'Delete' by an activist Admin, the first time I had the deletion reversed on review -- lots of bitterness, wild accusations and a partisan block against me -- so I didn't bother the second time around. HrafnStalk(P) 05:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    this is a classic case of attempting to abuse Misplaced Pages as a platform for ideological/religious propaganda. The entire thing belongs merged into Discovery Institute, as it is a propaganda stunt intended to be "controversially" covered in media beginning to end. It turns out that there is nothing "Scientific" about the document at all, and that it is never discussed, even by people pushing it, in terms of any "scientific" points that it makes, it is all about the list of signatories. Unsurprisingly so, seeing that the actual "petition" doesn't make any kind of point other than expressing skepticism towards "Darwinian theory", without specifying the nature of this skepticism, or any reasoning behind it. It's a propaganda stunt for the consumption of the popular media beginning to end. --dab (𒁳) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    366 geometry

    According to this article's creator, it is " recreation of deleted article made necessary because of new incontrovertible, easily-checkable evidence on the ground in new book by Butler and Knight", presumably Megalithic geometry deleted at DRV. Whatever, it is certainly fringe and could use some attention to make it NPOV and well written. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    Just about anything written by Christopher Knight should be viewed with extreme skepticism. He is best known for writing "alternative history" (speculating that something might have occured in one chapter, and then building from that, acting as if the something is proven fact, in later chapters). Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    It is beyond me how you can use the internet to "check the facts" on prehistoric metrology. I was under the impression that the internet was developed in the 20th century, significantly after the megalithic age. It is also beyond me how people can waste their time writing books as obviously worthless as this. Well, it's probably more satisfying than just watching TV, but they could spend their time writing good fiction instead of bad science. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

    I cringe at anything that says "incontrovertible". That's like the ultimate red flag. --Nealparr 19:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, I'm not even sure where to begin with that article. It's full of wild speculation. The "incontrovertible evidence", as it turns out, is that anyone with the Google Earth software can confirm this ancient 366 geometry by looking at, of all places, modern Washington DC. All of this is "incontrovertible evidence", by the way, "of the continuing existence and (secret) use of 366-degree geometry within modern Freemasonry". I'm not sure cleaning it up cuts it. Maybe remove most of the copy and merge it with the authors who have articles. --Nealparr 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    The six secret degrees of the circle are the hiding place of Cthulhu! Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    Where to begin is with the merge discussion. Someone started it but only one vote so far. Of course people might be able to suggest other merge targets and other options. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah... the problem is that authors like Knight and Butler have very good publicists... so there stuff sells. Thus, we can not simply delete the article... it may be pseudoscientific rubbish but it is somewhat notable pseudoscientific rubbish. Merging works for me. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    why should we delete it? It's classic WP:FRINGE material. It's just, we already have an article on this, currently located at pseudoscientific metrology. Just redirect it. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    Say it in the merge discussion, dab. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    seeing that I suggested the merge, I suppose that already counts as a vote. I don't think there is any argument against merging, the question is just, which parts should actually be merged, and which should just be dropped. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    It looks like there is solid support for merging... suggest that the discussion over what to merge take place at the target (Pseudoscientific metrology) article. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    I was wondering about that, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Donald Howard Menzel

    Menzel, an early UFO skeptic, apparently had his theories rather readily refuted, at least if the criticism section in his biography is any indication. Mangoe (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    Started fixing criticism section. I can't believe that unreferenced hearsay evidence purportedly from Jacques Vallee's journal was included. This needs oversight. Rest of article still pending review. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    Note that the USAF report on mirages used to debunk Menzel may not actually exist; at least, searches in the Usual Places don't turn it up. Naturally there are hits at various UFOlogy sites. Looks like another case for WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    Good call on that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    Peripheral to this James E. McDonald is weasel word central. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    Oy. That is just awful. Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    {undent} Tell me about it. And it's way too busy at work today for me to give it the attention it needs... short of just stubbing the page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    Having grazed across a swath of Ufologist bios, it looks as though there is an anti-skeptic cast to most of them. Sigh. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Nine Unknown Men

    Can some more editors add this article to their watchlist, and if interested, help source and de-fringe it ? I have been reverting the more egregious edits from probable sock accounts, but the article can use more help to make it encyclopdic and even establish notability. Abecedare (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    The only person who says that the Iron Pillar of Delhi couldn't have been made is that racist, lying hack of a fiction-disguised-as-fact author Erich von Däniken. I have changed accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Well, is there a sentence in the article that is not "fiction-disguised-as-fact" ? :-) Abecedare (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Von Daniken holds a special loathing in my heart because of the underlying racism of his premise that any ancient non-europeans must have had alien help to do anything lasting. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    excellent find! this links to a wealth of WP:FRINGE articles that had so far escaped my radar, Talbot Mundy, Louis Pauwels, Jacques Bergier, Le Matin des magiciens, Fantastic realism (literature), Planète (review), etc. --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Nice work Dab and Simonm223. I must say that I had some affection for the pre-encyclopedic version, which was so over-the-top, it was hilarious. Guess, we are better off with the sober version though. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Other (less direct) connections: Andrija Puharich, Uri Geller, Stuart Holroyd etc. Perhaps it is all connected. Abecedare (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Brilliant! This reads like someone decided to create the ultimate conspiracy theory, the compendium of all the conspiracy theories ever, and put it on Misplaced Pages. Extraordinary, and superbly entertaining. On a more serious note, it looks like the extensive cruft built up around Pauwels and Bergier could use some serious cutting and merging. Moreschi (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    There is no blasphemy strong enough to describe such a perfectly bad Misplaced Pages article. It's not only the ultimate conspiracy it's also the ultimate in how not to write a wikipedia article. Weasel words, un-sourced statements, directories of loosely connected people, fancruft, pov stuff, it's got it all! If there is a hall of fame for bad article versions this should be on it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    You ain't seen nothing yet. Start there and keep scrolling down. Moreschi (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Eeek! Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    I have the sad duty to announce the tragic demise of The Nine Unknown Men: they have gone from this to this; and from links with Ashoka, Jesus, Louis Pasteur, Buddha, Nazis, Theosophists, Popes, Extra-terrestrials etc to 1920's fantasy fiction and 1960's counter-culture. What a sorry letdown. Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    that's why the pseudoscience people hate the rationalists so much. Their own world is just so much more exciting. So many scenarios too beautiful not to be true have been destroyed and thrown into the mud by mere puny "facts". I ask you, would you be pleased if you sat in a cinema to enjoy the full splendour of a 3D movie with 22.2 surround sound to have some pathetic little man rip off your goggles and jump up and down in front of the screen shouting "it's all a lie, an illusion I tell you!" Of course you wouldn't, you would complain to the management and ask them to throw him out. --dab (𒁳) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    I laughed uproariously at this. Of course, it's so true. And indeed escapist fantasy is perfectly harmless, but to spend your whole life "plugged in" (a la the Matrix) is to miss out on something rather wonderful and fulfilling. It is outstanding how many intelligent minds are trapped in the sub-Marxist sludge of a previous era that really is terribly dated by now (and of course, useful as such fantasy may be to some, it has no place in an encyclopedia). The main theme seems to be the obsession with conflict: the so-called "repression" of AltMed by those damned scientists, or the repression of the Afrocentric truth by those Eurocentric academics - the inability to see that debates, disputes and humanity in general is not all one big zero-sum game. Moreschi (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    Wow, The old versios is CLASSIC! Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    I love the claim that Jews are really Hindus, but don't know it. That makes everything so clear! Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    Maybe we should institute an 'Emperor Norton Museum of Gloriously Eccentric Article Versions' (WP:NORTON for short), linking to the most baroquely fantastical versions of articles. HrafnStalk(P) 15:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    an excellent idea, sir! This would be a worthy sequel to WP:BJAODN and at the same time a showcase of the work done by this noticeboard. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Putative energy breakthrough

    There may be a claim that the Emotional Freedom Technique has a scientific basis following a certain study on placebo analgesia. See edits , . Would someone care to read the ref and confirm that it is WP:OR to mention it in these cases? Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Wow, DancingPhilosopher (talk · contribs) is really excited by this new Science preprint. Unfortunately, there really isn't any need to hypothesize mystical energies in order to explain placebo effects in the spinal cord. I had already done a rewrite of the edits he made to placebo, and I've now reverted the changes to Emotional Freedom Technique, which were indeed pure OR. Looie496 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Cart ruts/electric universe

    I've just run into a user adding links to a "cart ruts" site which is part of an Electric Universe site - rings a bell and clearly fringe, but I'm off to bed now. See for the articles with the links. Some serious stuff on these ruts is at and and there's an article in Antiquity Magazine but I don't have access. Dougweller (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Just to enlarge, the 'Electric Universe' concept is the brainchild of David Talbot taken up by Wallace Thornhill and is inspired by Velikovsky. . Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    Just to avoid directing people keen on inserting fringe anywhere and everywhere to build a Frankenstein, the 'Electric Universe' is the two T Talbott. The one L lama is David Talbot, founder of Salon.com. Hatchetfish (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_30#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    The deletion guidelines, Misplaced Pages:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, state:

    Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant.

    Misplaced Pages policy requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid original research and synthesis, respect copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.

    The closing administrator seems unaware of those rules. Shoemaker's Holiday 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    This is forum shopping, isn't it? Fences&Windows 00:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    Gibbs Paradox

    After nearly 30 monthss of people expressing serious doubt about the validity of the article but not doing anything about it, I have reverted the article back to the February 2007 version.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic