Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Egyptians

We get some standard, but apparently rather severe, nationalist antiquity frenzy at this article. More eyes are welcome. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

whoah, a bad case. Some admin needs to chastise Tammoor (talk · contribs) a little bit, and the responsible party appears to be Zerida (talk · contribs), who already began the standard procedure of outing my nefarious history of ... cleaning up articles affected by nationalist nonsense. I have to be off anyway, but it would also be nice if I didn't have to fix this all by myself. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
On it. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Also Bayoumi (talk · contribs). We currently have duplicating material at Egypt and Egyptians. The length of the identity section at "Egypt" is probably unncessary. It should be cut down to one paragraph with a link to "Egyptians" for further reading. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

yes -- we need to be clear on the scope of the Egyptians article. There are several possibilities, but the article needs to be clear about it. It cannot announce one thing and then discuss another. The page could also be a disambiguation page between Demographics of Egypt, Ancient Egyptians (History of Ancient Egypt) and Copts. I am not saying it needs to be that, but these are the {{main}} articles it needs to accommodate. The "Identity" section I find more at home in an Egyptians article than in Egypt, the article on the country. I created a National identity of Egyptians redirect. This can be a section redirect to wherever the topic is addressed, or even be made a standalone article. The Pharaonism substub probably also needs redirection. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

no improvement yet, responsible user insists on ignoring the issue and (predictably) is trying to politick his way out of it by making noise about "personal attacks". Help, please? --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked to Greeks. Will return and have a look shortly. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Theosophy

This page has a habit of claiming the religious beliefs of the Theosoph...anic? sect are true, saying things like "Blavatsky showed that [Theosophanic belief presented as fact]. Wouldn't surprise me if the same didn't apply to all pages on the religion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems less an issue of fringe theory than of simple attribution, making sure assertions are attributed, no? It's not as if this is a fringe view of a larger question; it's simply a description of the beliefs of Theosophists. I was thinking hey, this is something I could do, but it looks as if someone else has already fixed it, since the assertions seem to be attributed now, as in "Theosophists believe..." etc. Woonpton (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is an issue of attribution. For example, in the article Ascension of Jesus, the statement that he physically ascended can only be made in the context of attributing it to the beliefs of a particular religion(s). Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reddi's back

Reddi (talk · contribs)

You might want to check this user's contributions in case free-energy suppression stuff starts to seep in to mainstream science pages. Also, he likes to hide fringe science in paper laundry lists and he is a big fan of listing patents. These things should be resisted.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

does anyone see a point in having an "unlimited energy" article in the first place? --dab (𒁳) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Boils down to whether it is a notable notion. I guess it is if it crops up frequently in science fiction. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably not. Just redirect to perpetual motion, or a disambig with renewable energy also. It seems like Reddi is trying to say that workable sources of unlimited energy are out there now, but we're not being allowed to know about them on account of that fount of all evil, the US Government (is there anything those chaps haven't done?). Evidently the first law of thermodynamics is dispensable here, judging be the mild-mannered description of perpetual-motion-machine inventors as "eccentrics" :) An article on Energy in science fiction might be justifiable, though. Moreschi2 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
He thinks he should be the final arbiter of what is acceptable as an external link or reference also. Thanks for the headsup.Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Show me a device that turns indefinitely, and I'll show you a crank. Will take a look. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

KLA and Organ Trafficking

I'm concerned about an issue I've seen popping up on Kosovo-related articles over the past few weeks. Apparently, Carla del Ponte's upcoming book (The Hunt: Me and War criminals) alleges that ethnic Albanian rebels in Kosovo were kidnapping Serbs, killing them, and selling their organs during the Kosovo War. Sources for this allegation range from poor (blogs) to decent (cautious references in CNN, WSJ, etc.).

From my perspective though, there seem to be a few problems with this. First, as far as I can tell, the book is unpublished; Amazon doesn't even list preorder information on the title. Thus, it's impossible for us to independently verify the stories. Leaving aside the blog sources (which, as I understand it, don't count as reliable sources), mainstream news accounts seem sketchy as well. The mostly focus on reports that HRW and other international agencies have sent a letter to Kosovo authorities for explanation. Maybe my google-fu is weak, but I can't seem to find a copy of the letter.

I'm not willing to cry hoax on this. There has to be some traction for this story because it has appeared in major news outlets; but as sensational as the topic appears, I would have expected more coverage. Maybe this can be chalked up to "Western anti-Serb bias", but I'm not sure. It looks to me more like news agencies are reporting the story but hedging in case it doesn't play out.

My biggest concern is that this issue is being used as a big stick with which to beat a number of Kosovo-related articles, in keeping with the on-Wiki pissing contest over the independence declaration. Outside views, both on the story's accuracy as well as on it's relevance, would be welcome. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

it's a matter of WP:UNDUE. It's a book. You cannot treat something as fact just because Carla del Ponte said so. For the book to be used as a source for the main Kosovo article, there would at first be some sort of consensus as to its reliability (a consensus among notable critics, not among Wikipedians). Not to mention that it needs to be published first. dab (𒁳) 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Folantin (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
correction, it has been published, a few days ago. Just in the Italian original, no English translation. --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

Can somebody take a look at Dysgenics, as the article seems more and more to be pushing a fringe theory as accepted, mainstream science. Additional eyes are welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

it appears that the article is being hijacked by the "race and intelligence" crowd. Which is driving it off topic. "Genetic deterioration" is not primarily about intelligence, IQ testing may at best be mentioned as a case study in the wider topic. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

WP:3O might have been a better place for this except for the "two editors only" rule. Basically, the issue is the locus of scholarly consensus on the dating of a famous inscription. It was dated shortly after the discovery, and this dating has been widely popularized; it shows up in many places. However, the dating has been reconsidered by a number of really heavy guns in the field. So this is a conflict between an undeniably popular view and up-to-date expert scholarship, with the latter now being pooh-poohed as WP:UNDUE because a subtext of antiquity frenzy predisposes the naysayers to that early dating. The discussion on the talk page is extensive at this point, unfortunately -- and there may be an edit-war in the offing -- so some guidance and third-party opinion on things like WP:RS and due weight could be helpful. rudra (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the difference in dating is a measly century? How does that make for "antiquity frenzy"? Anyway, the input needed at Talk:Kannada literature is that this is a question of marginal detail to be discussed at Halmidi inscription. Sheesh, it's the page on the entire literature of a major langauge, and they hold it hostage for a quibble over a single pathetic inscription. That's like spamming German literature with 200k of obsessively detailed disputes over the Pforzen buckle. dab (𒁳) 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Antiquity frenzy in that given 450 AD was an initial dating subsequently revised upward by the likes of Sircar and Gai (which is about as heavy as the artillery gets), I'll bet my bottom dollar that had the revision been downward instead, we would never have even heard about that 450 AD dating, let alone the endless filibustering in favor of it right now. Note also that a vested interest in "finding" hoary antecedents has been created recently by a movement to have Kannada officially recognized as a "classical language" alongside Sanskrit and Tamil. rudra (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "..How does that make for "antiquity frenzy"?.." - Slander 101 explains it in greater detail. and fwiw, my views are here and here. Sarvagnya 19:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • and fwiw, this is what jstor returns and this is what google scholar returns. 450, 450, 450, 450, 450 all the way! what the blazes are the likes of rudra and fowler even filibustering about? Sarvagnya 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • yeah, well, it's still irrelevant to Kannada literature, and the entire train wreck should be moved to Talk:Halmidi inscription. I understand this is about "we are classical too!", which I suppose must make sense as a label worthy of bickering about to Indian minds, even if it doesn't to anyone else. dab (𒁳) 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Where do you find me or Dinesh insisting that it is relevant to Kannada literature?! On the contrary, right from the start, we've maintained that this issue(non-issue) has been concocted to stall the FA drive of the article in question. If there is anybody out on that page wanting the "trainwreck" to move to its own page, it is us!
Also, your rhetoric and rudra's misrepresentation apart, this has nothing to do with "we are classical too!" (whatever that is supposed to mean). This issue, if anything, has solely to do with reporting scholarly consensus and moving on. If you have a problem with that, just say so instead of prating on.Sarvagnya 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely bewildered. The greatest disparity in dates could be only 130 years. Judging by the current content of Halmidi inscription there is evidently a genuine debate in academic circles here, albeit that the opinion of the majority looks to favour 450. Put in some compromise wording such as "450 CE" with a footnote saying something like "The date usually given for the inscription, though some scholars favour a later date, a few delaying the date of the inscription until as late as 550. See also Halmidi inscription#Relevant section for more info". Edit-war done and dusted. Moreschi2 (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"...commonly dated to 450 AD/5th century..." + a pipelink to the relevant section on the halmidi article + the other dates thrown in in the footnotes is precisely what dinesh and I had suggested about 50 or 100 kb ago. A certain Fowler and a rudra, however continue to filibuster and a certain dab helped things enormously by landing on the page to 'warn' dinesh. and then the same dab turns up here and tells us that the dating dispute on that article is totally irrelevant for that article - as if I or dinesh disagreed! truly bewildering stuff! at this rate, it may not be long before a Sanskrit literature gets overrun by dating debates concerning Panini and Natya Shastra and Dandin and Shankaracharya and Vedas and ... Sarvagnya 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, right. First, from WP:RS (remember Relata's advice about Ctrl-F?): Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories.. Well, nowhere in the more recent research has the initial 450 AD date been upheld with argument. For the simple reason that it is by no means easy to argue with the likes of Sircar, Gai or Venkatachala Sastry. No one is arguing that the pseudo-precise 450 AD date isn't popular or widely seen; the point is that it is an outdated estimate in relation to informed scholarship. And yet, when Abecedare proposed "mid-fifth to early sixth century" as a possible compromise formulation, who was it now that said "No!"? Boy, you have some nerve. rudra (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Outdated? Why dont you try telling that to Pollock and Bh. Kr and Sridhar and the Archeological Survey of India and the dozens of others who go with the 450 date? And since when did dates culled from 2003 and 2006 become outdated? And for crying out loud, the most recent dating by an epigrapher happens to be by K. V. Ramesh (1984) -- not Sircar (1949), not Gai (1962)! And K. V. Ramesh says "5th century" and also gives his take on the other dates - which are anything but flattering. Sircar's and Gai's dates have been out there for decades and have found next to no takers. And you come prancing here with a forty year old paper crying "stop press!"?! Some piece of work, you are. Sarvagnya 23:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Look again. Gai's latest work on the subject was in 1991/2. That and Venkatachala Sastry's 1992 study are cited by Pollock. (Not to mention that Ramesh does not uphold 450 AD: he just rejects the 6th for the 5th. Longish quote on the talk page for your perusal.) rudra (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1949 or 1992.. Gai's and Sircar's dates have less takers by orders of magnitude. It is for a reason. The reason is that epigraphers, notwithstanding your sales pitch are never the final word on matters of dating. These disagreements will remain perhaps for centuries to come. Panini and Kalidasa have perhaps been dissected a thousand times more than Halmidi by indologists and yet we have lingering debates. And yet, we have the common sense to pick the most frequently cited date(if and when we have to) for Panini and Kalidasa and Rig Veda.. and the commonsense to not overrun Sanskrit literature with these debates. I cant see why Halmidi and Kannada literature have to be exceptions. There's simply no wishing away of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE regardless of what you think of TVVS or Gai or Sircar. TVVS btw, is no epigraphist and KVR votes for "5th century". Sarvagnya 01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, count the Encyclopedia Britannica among the "takers":-) The articles on Panini and Kalidasa are very careful to avoid precise dates (so much so that the Kalidasa article even gives WP:UNDUE weight to KD Sethna's theories); you need better examples. And yes, KVR votes for the 5th as a judgment that Halmidi is earlier than the other Kadamba era inscriptions. Reading him fairly, he is saying "second half of the 5th". rudra (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The same EB on another page goes with 450 AD. huh. Anything else? Sarvagnya 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The EB article on "Historical Survey of the Dravidian Languages"? It says "the earliest inscriptions in Kannada may be dated at...", not "are dated at...". Okay, enough. It might be a better idea for you to review WP:RS policy on current research, but if you insist on having the last word, by all means do so. I've even made some space for you. rudra (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


In my opinion this discussion on the Kannada literature page started with a valid concern that saying that the Halmidi inscription dates to 450 A.D. without any qualifications or "error bars" is not a good idea. After much, and perhaps inordinate, discussion there now seems to be a general consensus on the talk page that something like what Moreschi suggested above is the way to go (i.e., 4-5 words on the usual date in maintext; add a footnote with other views and references and pipelink to the detailed dating section).
However the current sticking point is simply whether the maintext should say that the Halmidi inscriptions are usually dated to 5th c/about 5th c/mid 5th c or mid 5th to early 6th c, and I fear that the antipathy that editors have built up towards each other during the lengthy debates over this (and some other ?) article is preventing us from settling this really trivial issue and moving on. Any suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everyone just walk away for a bit. There Is No Deadline. Work on History of the Uruguayan Economy or something and return when you've cooled down. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

anyone who is at all familiar with dating issues in ancient India knows that it is practically inconceivable to give a date better than within a century's uncertainty. "mid 5th to early 6th century" is already far too precise. It is also irrelevant for the purposes of the Kannada literature article. It is sufficient to state the thing dates to ca. the 5th century and move on. As far as I can see, nobody disagrees with this estimate for the inscriptions date, so I really don't see the problem. As Abecedare points out, this seems to have more to do with animosities between editors than with any factual dispute. Can you please all take a step back, settle for "ca. 5th century" for the Kannada literature article, and take the gory details to Halmidi inscription. I honestly don't see what difference it makes to the topic of Kannada literature whether this inscription dates to 450 or to 550. If the dispute was between 450 BCE and 450 CE, I could see the problem, but "give or take a century" is simply business as usual for any topic of ancient India: there was no historiography in India at the time, and any absolute date will be no more than an educated guess. See also WP:LAME. dab (𒁳) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing and lies on Arsenicum album

[1] <- These additions are, quoite frankly, factually untrue. They claim that a study, where the authors admit that they didn't even use control groups for most of the study was a double-blind placebo-controlled study (!) based on some minor, dodgy results in the first part that were sort of placebo controlled, but... well, see Talk:Arsenicum_album#More_info_on_the_human_trial for more on that part. In short, Ullman and Arion are trying to force in their POV, quotemine a barely-notable study, and other such things. God, what do those two have to do in order to get blocked? Switch to supporting mainstream medicine, because all homeopaths are unblockable? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably. This same article's been up on this noticeboard before, too. Moreschi2 (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Announcement of Fringe-theory related Arbcom case

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

L. Brent Bozell III

Article on a typical moral guardian that's full of the implicit assumption that he is correct in his views. TV programs he campaigns agains are described as "indecent", without qualifications to say it's in his opinion. [I've done some work to fix this, but it really needs well-sourced criticism to be truly balanced.] The lead paragraph is also problematic. The article isn't awful, by any means - a fair bit of criticism is already included - but it falls into the all-too-easy trap of writing from your subject's side when describing his views. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

physiological effects of fasting

I'm having trouble with User:Ralphyde continually adding very questionable claims about the effects of fasting on the fasting article, and trumpeting his personal success with fasting all over the talk page. His only source is books published by some guy named Joel Fuhrman (who has an article here that I believe needs to be listed on AfD for lack of notability), and he doesn't have any reputable sources to back it up. For example, some of the claims posted are that fasting can treat cancer and serious heart problems, or that it's used medically for detoxifying. None of this is linked to a single peer-reviewed study. There also seem to be strangely be several people, registered accounts and IPs that always come up whenever someone tries to remove those claims or even argue against them. Could be sockpuppeting (Ralphyde and Ralph770 are pretty similar names, and the latter has no contribution history besides backing up Ralphyde in that talk page), but I don't know well enough to know for sure. Thanks for the help. FironDraak (talk)

We seem to have a minature walled garden here. I've removed Fuhrman's content from fasting per WP:REDFLAG (also NPOV), but the problem extends to Joel Fuhrman's biography and water fasting. There are claims being made that Fuhrman's work has been peer-reviewed but this is not cited, nor the assertion that there is empirical evidence to back up these rather way-out theories (hunger pangs are just detoxification?). More eyes needed. Moreschi2 (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. In the same article, there's also a book written by Herbert M. Shelton being used as a source for fasting treating cancer and allergies. I'll remove the claim and the citation as well. It's in the medical fasting section of the article. The particular book is published by the American Natural Hygiene Society Inc, but it's just an organization that he started (so it's essentially self-published). FironDraak (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it was FironDraak who arbitrarily removed a large well cited section about pure water fasting from the Fasting article. This had been discussed several months ago and the section had remained. I restored the removed section with an explanation on the talk page. Please go read it. Dr. Fuhrman's book is not self-published, and is replete with sixteen pages of references from all over the world, which can be verified online. It is highly recommended by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Dr. Fuhrman is a leading authority on nutrition and fasting, and has over 88,000 references on Google, as "Joel Fuhrman" (with quotes to limit number). And I don't know Ralph770 but appreciate his input as well. Ralphyde (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidas

Further information: Satsvarupa dasa Goswami

Wikidas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), touting an ISKCON book as "Indology".

Find sources: Readings in Vedic Literature — news, books, scholar

See here, and user's talk history (keeps blanking warnings). dab (𒁳) 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

His latest contribution doesn't bode well. rudra (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not WP:BOLD; that is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Abecedare (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The author of "Reading in Vedic Literature" is quite manifestly a crank. Some of this really is laugh-out-loud material. Moreschi2 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

this may be a good time to check the eulogy at Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, especially the "Academic presentation" section:

First book published in 1975 during Prabhupada's lifetime was Readings in Vedic Literature: the Tradition Speaks for Itself.[ ICJ Vol 3, No 1 - June 1995 The First Indologists. Satsvarupa dasa Goswami] Prabhupada was greatly appreciative of the review of the book by the academic circles. Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was supportive of the foundation of ISKCON Oxford Centre of Vaisnava and Hindu Studies and some of his works were published in ICJ [ The Inner Life of a Preacher ICJ Vol 1, No 2 December 1994.] and reviewed by the academia in ICJ academic journal. [ ICJ Authors pageof Satsvarupa dasa Goswami Review of the A Poor Man Reading the Bhagavatam, vol.1. by Dr. K. Klostermaier, ICJ 5.1] Dispite initial anti-cult controversies, the Hare Krishna movement today is accepted by the academics as "the most genuinely Hindu of all the many Indian movements in the West".[[[#CITEREFKlostermair2000|Klostermair 2000]], Intro]

As with the Hindutva crowd, their key claim to "academic recognition" is Klaus Klostermaier. --dab (𒁳) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote-mining at its best to suggest that Moriz Winternitz thought Vedic history is a couple of thousand years years older than 2nd millenium BC. Here is Winternitz being critical of exactly such antiquity frenzy (pages 25-26; I think it is the same book being quoted with a different translator). Articles edited by User:Wikidas need thorough checking for more such misrepresentations and poor sourcing. Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh. Quote that to the Kannada literature fans and who knows how many gaskets would blow? (Though I note that F&f has raised the delicate question of what ever happened to those 96000 verses...) rudra (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

so, I think at this point we can assume it is official that Wikidas knows what he is doing and is gaming the system on purpose. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Satsvarupa dasa Goswami article and discussion history, I see that are some details about "personal improprieties" by Goswami, for which he was sanctioned by ISKCON. User:Wikidas sanitized them from the article (see the "Personal difficulties" section) as well as the talk pages (see Archive 1 + many comments that were deleted from the talk page), even though they were sourced and linked from Goswami's own website ([2], [3]). I certainly won't be adding back the content to the wikipedia article since at this point it will appear retaliatory, but IMO it is another case where the user could not keep his personal beliefs and preferences off wikipedia, and wikilawyered based on WP:BLP. Abecedare (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, why is the ToC in an unusual place, tucked away like that? rudra (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I had corrected it and pointed out the MOS when I had first seen the article three weeks back. (See here) I had thought that I could help wikify and cleanup the article, but eventually gave up in face of constant resistance and since the subject was not of great interest to me. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the vedas?

I have a question — why does Vedas-related material attract cranks so commonly? --Haemo (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In an nutshell, India and the West were confused by one another in the 19th century. The West got cheesy esotericism, and India got cranky pseudoscience. dab (𒁳) 19:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Good question. My take: the "Vedas" are a maguffin-like conjuration to most Hindus, because they really haven't the first notion of what's in them. And that's because the vedas have been relentlessly obfuscated, mythologized and sanctified (while kept carefully out of sight) for the better part of the last 2000 years. So, since they are so ancient and hoary and glorious and holy and special and all that, the natural tendency is to associate anything you want to sanctify as... "vedic". For instant, knee-jerk venerability. All you have to do is to claim this; since no one else knows any better, they're all too likely (in the Indian context, anyway) to be impressed by your confident assertion... and concede... and pass it on the next guy... And so the myths multiply, and in due course practically everything starts to get labelled "vedic", including today's astrology column. And finally, they bring this mass of addlepated wishful thinking to Wikipedia. rudra (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Short answer: History+religion+nationalism make for a potent mixture and "vedic" literature is just one of the topics at the intersection. It is a pity, because neutral facts about the Vedic and Sanskrit literature are remarkable enough, and the surrounding pseudohistory/pseudoscience does nothing to enhance their merits. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Haemo, you'll note that both rudra and I put "vedic" in quotes (for reasons explained in rudra's comment). Incidentally, Wikidas' edits have nothing to do with the Vedas per se; a significant problem with them is that he'd like to stretch the definition of Vedas to cover the texts held "most" holy by ISKCON. This of course, is a well-established practice of upcoming Hindu sects for centuries and is explained in the Fifth Veda article. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
it's partly a semantic problemm, what with veda meaning "knowledge" vs. Vedic Sanskrit referring to a specific corpus. Quite similar to islam meaning "piety" vs. Islam referring to a specific religious tradition. Fwiiw, this edit by Wikidas (if a genuine Bhavishya Purana quote) may be useful in elucidating the history of the problem. dab (𒁳) 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, veda ity eva śabditaḥ "noised indeed as 'veda'". By Madhvacarya's time, that could well have been true. Peculiar quote, though. 3 16-syllable lines instead of 4. (And, I suppose, an obligatory typo.) rudra (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
rudra, I think your translation "noised" is a bit disingenious. You seem to imply that later religious scripture is somehow inferior to earlier religious scripture. That's a fallacy. The only thing we need to do is distinguish between one and the other, not prefer one over the other. dab (𒁳) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I wasn't implying that. But it's true that the tendency of tradition, even when newly invented, has always been to obliterate the distinction. The fundamental problem there is that it has created a long standing fallacy that a consistent continuity has prevailed, that latter day religion is "no different" than the Vedic one. And so, the facts of Vedic times must be suppressed, distorted or misrepresented in order to maintain that fallacy (or else, horrors, the tradition will be "falsified"!) Case in point: the bizarre flap over whether the Vedic folks ate beef. Basically, it is practically a cultural given to deny the distinction you and I know exists. rudra (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
(off-topic) But yes, "noised" was less than kind. I get bothered more than I should by poor versification, such as when words like eva are used as metrical filler and not for meaningful emphasis. IMHO, the inherent clumsiness if not also silliness of eva śabditaḥ deserves ribbing (something like veda iti pracakṣataḥ would have worked just as well and met the requirement of a heavy antepenultimate syllable.) rudra (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
<deindent>
Wilfred Cantwell Smith has some interesting thoughts on the various uses of the term veda in What is scripture? (page 133 onwards). I agree with need to be clear about the intended meaning, rather than judge the comparative worths of the Vedas v/s vedas. And, of course, there are intentional attempts to blur the distinction as in SDG's book. Abecedare (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Madhvacharya quote

Thanks for your comments guys, just to make sure to our presentation is based on Madhva comments on the Vedanta sutra (2.1.6), where quotes the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa as follows:

ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmārtharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditaḥ purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ

"The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata (which includes the Bhagavad-gītā), Pañcarātra, and the original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered Vedic literature.... The Vaiṣṇava supplements, the Purāṇas, are also Vedic literature." We may also include corollary literatures like the Saṁhitās, as well as the commentaries of the great teachers who have guided the course of Vedic thought for centuries.

Incidentally it was quoted in Goswami, S.D. (1976), Readings in Vedic Literature: The Tradition Speaks for Itself, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, pp. 240 pages, ISBN 0912776889 </ref> As reviewed by Dr. T. J. Hopkins of Department of Religious Studies, Franklin and Marshall College

Having indicated my own academic reservations, I must add that I am nonetheless impressed by Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswami's presentation. His initial chapter is one of the best statements available on the importance of the guru in transmitting spiritual knowledge, his chapters on "Essential Elements of Vedic Thought," "Vedic Literature-Siddhānta and History," "The Teachings of the Ācāryas," and "Impersonalism Versus Theism" are excellent summaries of devotional theology as found within the Indian religious tradition, and his chapter on "The Vedic Social Philosophy" gives a compelling vision of "the God-centered society."

– T J Hopkins

I do not expect you guys to fully relate to this material, but you have to realize that you should arrive at NPOV here. This is specific and devotional perspective and is based and about Vedic tradition. BTW Bhaktivedanta Book Trust is the biggest publishing house of Vedic literature (of course, if you accept devotional tradition as part of Vedic perspective). There are different views on it, I represent one view and you have a different views, I do not see the problem in it, you seems to have.--Wikidās ॐ 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The foreword of the book itself starts with the following caveat:

It is only just, in a karmic sense, that an academic scholar be asked to write the foreword for a book that rejects the views of most academic scholars on the historical development of the Vedas. To protect my own academic status (and perhaps incur further bad karma), I should say at the outset that I do not as a scholar accept Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's views on the origin of the Vedas, and I question his use of evidence from the epics and Puranas, which I consider non-Vedic, to prove that these same sources have Vedic authority.

– T. J. Hopkins

and the whole foreword can be read here. Beside that blistering foreword, the book has received no non-ISKCON scholarly review or notice whatsover. I think that should settle the issue on the non-reliability and fringeyness of the source. Abecedare (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

so, you quote SDG quoting Madhva, quoting the Vedanta sutra quoting the Bhavishya Purana? Why the hell don't you just quote the Bhavishya Purana, at Bhavishya Purana where the quote will be on topic? The confusion is with the term "Vedic". You use "Vedic" not in the sense of the Four Vedas, but in another sense. There is nothing wrong with that, you just need to keep it on an article where it is on topic (WP:DAB). So, you may be interested in editing Bhavishya Purana, and you'll be welcome to do that. "devotional tradition" is a respectable topic, and it has its own article, at Bhakti movement. We are just asking you to not mix up Iron Age religion with late medieval religion, but you are of course perfectly welcome to discuss religion in late medieval India at the proper place. dab (𒁳) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having doubts about the whole thing. Madhvacarya quoting something as unauthoritative as the Bhavishya Purana while commenting on the VedantaSutra? At 2.1.6 (dṛśyate tu) which doesn't seem to have any connection with a "definition" of the vedas? And one and a half shlokas quoted? And never mind that Madhvacarya himself is "predicted" in the Pratisargaparvan? This is just too weird. I think we need to locate the passage in Bhavishya Purana before anything else. rudra (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here is an article by Rahul Peter Das on the ISKCON journal site. It has a separate page for the footnotes. See footnotes 49 and 51. Looks like SDG got his shlokas garbled. Apparently the (correct) passages exist in Madhvacharya's commentary, but we can't be sure of which Purana he quoted (in footnote 51). I think all we have here is Madhvacharya's own doctrine of what constitute the "vedas" and nothing more. He actually calls them shastras instead, too. rudra (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I perfectly know your views, and Im happy to generate some discussion on it. You seem to follow one system of definition on what is 'Vedic' (an irong age theory...), and I follow another (a more wholistic as far as tradition is concerned). I really appreciate rudra bringing it up (not the tone but the principle of being bold here) - this is a critical issue, for the common usage of word Vedic is different to what rudra has, even its an accepted view by western academics, (for example ->[4]). Historically it were western or christian scholars who introduced the concept of 'post-Vedic Purana period' - of course I can be wrong, but give me a quote with 'post-Vedic Purana period' from the period before British occupation? Wikidās ॐ 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
hah, so rudra does your job for you by looking up a garbled quote of yours, and you decide to go on about "his views" rather than addressing the point. Your definition of "Vedic" is irrelevant to the point that SDG garbled his Purana quotes. That's shoddy work even before we discuss disambiguation of the term "Vedic". And, no, critical philology was invented by Indians far before Europeans (Panini's chandasi) , they just forgot all about it in the course of the Middle Ages. The Bhakti movement originated in the Middle Ages, come on, even Indian tradition is aware of that, try to avoid using "[w]holistic" as a synonym for "uninformed" or "muddle-headed". Giving us an "astrojyoti.com" link as an "example" of the views of "western academics" is just pathetic, come on, that's below you. By "Vedic" you seem to mean Shruti. Get your terminology straight and you'll be fine. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, this page on the ISKCON site comes pretty close to the mark on the Shruti/Smriti distinction. (The VedantaSutra is promoted to Shruti only by Vedantins, technically it's only one of the six orthodox philosophies. And 108 Upanishads is definitely overkill: at best the mukhya would qualify, and that too only after Sankaracharya's time). rudra (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
the page correctly refers to "the Vedas and their corollaries sometimes called collectively 'the Vedic scriptures.'" The question is what qualifies as a "corollary to the Vedas". Possibly all of shruti. The statement that "the ISKCON considers 'Vedic scriptures' to include the Bhagavad Gita etc." would still be objective. Just a question of WP:DUE whether and where on the Vedas page this should be noted. A brief note under 'other Vedas' may be arguable. --dab (𒁳) 12:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

More

From the back cover:

“Readers, be of good cheer. To those of you who have surveyed in confusion the trackless path of Indian philosophy, this volume offers hope and respite. You are holding in your hands a reasonable and highly readable account of the particulars of Vedic thought.…Read and find enlightenment.”

– Professor Jerry Clack, Department of Classics, Duquesne University

Please understand, Im not pushing for a veiw that is not-acceptable, I just question the basis of your views, as most of them are not as well sourced as you imagine, even if you look at the articles. Wikidās ॐ 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You cited Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, in some of your edits. Now would be a good time to read that book. rudra (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
yes, Wikidas. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Read the literature. If you have "initiate" knowledge imparted to you by "guru-shishya tradition", understand that this "knowledge" is your personal spiritual property and has no place on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a florilegium of spiritual wisdom. dab (𒁳) 10:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Man, this wikidas iskcon guy is all mixed up! He doesnt even know what he is talking or debating about! His unfounded and perposterous group ideas are just shocking! Alot of ISKCON people believe what he is saying. Govinda Ramanuja dasa (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to the term "vedic" and ISKCON; if you really study their beliefs and principles, you will find out that they do not follow the four Veda (calling them "karma Kanda"), the original main upanishads (calling them "mayavada" philosophy). They are actually an anti-Shruti group. I have even heard scholars say they are actually also an anti-vedantic group.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, instead of telling me what Wikipedia is not, why don't you read it for yourself. WP:NOT

Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting.

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.

Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

I do not have a problem in arriving at consensus and accepting what you are claiming to be one of the versions of academic presentation, as long as you do not turn it into place to hold grudges and import personal conflicts. If at any stage I was in that position, I apologize. Vast majority of Vedic pages completely unreferenced, why don't you make it a little more referenced instead of making a 500 year old tradition into a wikifringe? Wikidās ॐ 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

--Wikidās ॐ 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:Wikidas continues to misrepresent sources to push his POV. In the latest instance User:Ism_schism helpfully dug up the following quote from Gavin Flood on [5]:

Early Vaishnava worship focuses on three deities who become fused together, namely Vasudeva-Krishna, Krishna-Gopala and Narayana, who in turn all become identified with Vishnu. Put simply, Vasudeva-Krishna and Krishna-Gopala were worshiped by groups generally refered to as Bhagavatas, while Narayana was worshipped by the Pancaratra sect.

Instead of actually reading the text (to which Ism schism even provided a link), Wikidas simply used the quote to cite two tangential claims in Swayam bhagavan and Bhagavata. We have seen similar conduct before with him misciting Radhakrishna and Moore (he now says that he does not accept their views) and Winternitz. Any suggestions on how to stop such disruptive behavior ? Abecedare (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys want to do? I'll go alot with ANY thing you guys suggest. I think we should have done some thing about this a month ago. We need to do some thing very soon. And, we have to be on guard for situations like this in the future, with people like this.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This book of Gavin D. Flood is perposterous! I have never heard of these claims before in my life. I am going ask some real Hindu pandit and every Hindu that I know what they think of this. And, this wikidas fellow is hypotized by this book. He is using it because it backs his non-sense ideas. I think that Gavin D. flood holds some the same group ideas as wikidas.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the two above posts are clearly WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, I can understand why - he attacks constantly: ([6], [7], [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Everyone, if he thinks they are ISKCON... and [14] when he finds out they know nothing about our philosophy - he is apologizing... Wikidās ॐ 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
GRd, The Flood book is a perfectly good , and often used, source for Hinduism related articles - it is just being used to support some claims it does not make. Also please do not generalize the problem with one user to criticism of ISKCON - the problem is not Wikidas' views or beliefs, but his editing. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly try to improve my editing. Im learning for the last few months and appreciate constructive critical views. But its spoiled by personal and sectarian attacks. Wikidās ॐ 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Please take this criticism on board. The most important thing to remember is that when adding material to Wikipedia (a) make sure you are familiar with exact;y what you are citing - in other words, have the passage before you and paraphrase it as correctly as possible, not in the light of what you believe to be true and (b) remember that your own opinions are one among many. Misrepresentation of sources, in particular, is problematic. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is most valuable comment from the whole discussion which was for the most of it counterproductive. Wikidās ॐ 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Take the politer interventions above, those that focus on content and quoting, as indications of what the "mainstream" views are, and remember that WP should, and inevitably will, reflect those. You may still have valuable information to add if you keep that in mind at all times, as most of us do when editing material in which we do not share the majority view. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pervasive

I did a random survey of secondary sources added by User:Wikidas on the Svayam bhagavan (which is almost his solo-creation) and the results are detailed here (also see this and this discussion). To summarize:

  • The problem of either misrepresenting sources, or adding irrelevant sources seems pervasive.
  • It may effect multiple articles including Bhagavata, Vishnu, Krishna, Bhakti, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Vaishnavism, since the editor has oftencut-and-pasted same content/references to multiple articles.

Note: I am not even commenting on grammar, tone, POV, UNDUE and OR issues since these are relatively easy to correct. Any ideas on how to undo the damage (do we need to remove all references added by user until verified independently), and prevent further disruption in the future ? Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my reply on the above. Does it have ANYTHING to do with this board? Wikidās ॐ 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to the above was subsequently deleted by user Abecedare. [15]-Wikidās ॐ 08:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

to be fair, this did turn out to be a case more suited to the WP:RSN. These noticeboards often overlap in scope, and I wonder whether they could be merged beneficially. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Bond (rocket developer)

An apparently bona fide engineer who has now begun "deciphering" cuneiform texts to find out the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

context: [16] "this is totally nuts." But there is a University of Bristol press release, which will make this difficult to keep off WP. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's already in the Sodom and Gomorrah article put there by another editor, but I've placed the claim in context a couple of weeks ago, it's something I'd be following anyway - it is nonsense, as you know. Their book, interestingly enough, seems to be self-published. But thanks for bringing it up as the Alan Bond article needs some attention now as someone has added it there.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dean Radin

Dean Radin. To read this article, you'd think this guy was the smartest guy ever to live. Not a hint of the basic issues he has had. Please help. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, perhaps Brian David Josephson could do with a sentence or two of criticism? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It gets worse. See Stargate Project. This may be useful.[17]. I'm away with intermittent access for a while now, but I may look at these again when I get back.Doug Weller (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone is objecting to criticism of Dean Radin (well, to anything from a skeptical publication). I'd like to find some other references as well, but have had no luck yet.Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Uighurs

Just in case anyone is interested, FACT NEEDED (talk · contribs) is a recent incarnation of the "zealous patriot contributing in broken English" type of account, in this case of an Uighur flavour. Nothing urgent. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Will monitor with a loose eye. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination

I am concerned that this article has become bloated with original research, unverified information and outright conspiracy theories. Do we have any volunteers who would like to review this article and help improve it? Jehochman Talk 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it during my lunch break at work tomorrow Fritzpoll (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has now been substantially updated, but needs more eyes in it to examine if the extent of my correction is sufficient, or was too severe. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Laz

Kolkhianboy (talk · contribs), previously a bunch of quite disruptive IPs until I semiprotected all of his favourite articles, is a displaying some worrying tendencies towards ethnic chauvinism of a Laz variety. Laz language has also been affected, possibly others. Nothing massively urgent but something that needs monitoring. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Atlas Orthogonal Chiropractic Technique

Written from an in-universe (in chiropractic) perspective.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Another NPOV-free zone. I've cut all the fluff down to a one-sentence stub. Someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest (as I suspect recent authors of having) might like to rebuild. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Neat solution, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, assuming this technique is actually notable in the first place? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I tagged it for merger with Chiropractic. I also noted that the first version of the article has copyvio written all over it.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal redux

I'd like to once again request some additional input at AIDS reappraisal and perhaps some additional eyes on zidovudine as well. A number of recurrent issues have flared up, including whether AIDS denialism is opposed by "the scientific community", or simply "a majority of the scientific community". To avoid this becoming a two-person back-and-forth, I'd like to invite outside input. There are multiple active threads at Talk:AIDS reappraisal started in the past few days. MastCell Talk 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I think "scientific community" is fine. This is surely even more obvious than homeopathy. It's Number 46, part 1. Speaking as Mr Joe Public, I couldn't name one AIDS denialist, but then why should I memorise the names of cranks? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"$ETHNIC warfare"

I've found a new popular outlet for testosterone-imbued ethnic nationalism.... articles on ancient warfare!

We have Celtic warfare (and Gaelic warfare), Illyrian warfare, Assyrian warfare, Military history of Iran, Ancient Macedonian army/Hellenistic armies. Not all these articles are terrible. But they need supervision. It is also clear at a glance that the same nationalisms that give us grief elsewhere result in poorer "Ancient warfare" articles. Unsurprisingly, of course. I can only state my puzzlement over the fact that Ararat arev hasn't given us a glowing account of Armenian warfare yet :) dab (𒁳) 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"In massed fighting however, the Gauls' rudimentary organization and tactics fared poorly against the well oiled machinery that was the Legion."
So, where do I enlist? :) Aryaman (☼) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr A. Arev has slipped up there, evidently :)
Illyrian warfare doesn't look so bad (surprisingly), but Military history of Iran is complete dross. We don't get many Iranian-history articles of high quality, it would seem. Pity. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic Warfare I noticed a while ago that German Wikipedia's section on Celtic Warfare had suffered from someone taking sections of the Europa Barbarorum mod for the game Rome Total War as gospel and faithfully copying them into Wikipedia(!) It appears from references to bronze scale armour that this could also have happened in the English version's Gaelic Warfare section. This isn't 'testosterone-imbued ethnic nationalism' however, just extreme naivety. See also Cassi for similar. Paul S (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Armenian update

Ararat arev doesn't give up. What a loser. The time he invested into wasting ours could have gone into building an extensive website of his own by now. Armenian "antiquity frenzy" tidbits keep turning up all over the place. Recent finds include

And on the Ararat arev front, some evidence our extensive semi-protections are working! Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

btw, why is there a category Category:Greek mythological Amazons and why is it in Category:Eurasian nomads? Creating new categories is far too easy, and we have tons of useless or worse categories nobody ever noticed. We need an efficient approach to deleting and merging such. dab (𒁳) 08:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Relata and I have just been dragged through a particularly pointless dispute on 1066 Granada massacre where some editors were trying add the article to the [[Category:Islam and antisemitism]] as a form of POV-pushing. People feel free to act in this way because there is no requirement for a good source to justify the addition of an article to a category. What sort of efficient approach did you have in mind? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the "debate" there was about the removal of that category, which had been added long before. It got confused by three factors: a meta-debate on whether the category itself was sensible (or needed redefinition); how in fact the existing criteria were being applied; and the participation of known long-term disruptive editors. rudra (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
the problem is, how to get rid of a category once it has been created? It is tedious to speedily delete a category: All articles in it need to be recategorized. I am not sure if it is considered good practice to just redirect a category. This is for pointless categories. Undue categorization of articles within bona fide categories is another matter. I am not sure if we need a Category:Islam and antisemitism, but if we do, inclusion criteria need to be strict. Category:LGBT people has a similar history of disputed inclusions. Generally speaking, inclusion of an article in a category that isn't backed up by explicit justification in the article body should be reverted. dab (𒁳) 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We also have a Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. What joys!
As regards speedy deletions of categories, I think User:Cydebot is supposed to remove deleted categories from articles, but that works off CFD and may not cover categories that have been zipped without a CSD. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is really Category:Islamophobia. I found this out on the talk page, and got agreement on a somewhat better wording for the category page to clarify that they are one and the same (here on WP, that is). rudra (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

re "Greek mythological Amazons", I seem to have traced the idea that there were any non-"Greek mythological" Amazons (which would necessitate the distinction) to Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) -- no doubt an excellent editor who in 2007 worked on the topic [18], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megullia Dotata. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia will never be free until the last Categoriser is strangled with the entrails of the last Infoboxer". --Folantin (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we rename Category:Greek mythological Amazons to Category:Amazons and then articles on characters appearing in Boccacio's works (which could well be notable given B's cultural significance) could go in it alongside the Greek mythical ones and any other Amazons who crop up from time to time. The category will need a lot of policing since we don't want to include the likes of Hillary Clinton simply because some journalist reached for the cliche. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to Folantin's imagery, yuck. And we do have characters like Wonder Woman who could probably be called "Amazons" to be added. I remember there's also some speculation somewhere that Amazons may have been based on an African tribe which I read in I think Flash for Freedom!, but I don't remember the details right now. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Folantin, I will report you for violation of WP:CIVIL! How dare you! dab (𒁳) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
oh, I had understood "Greek mythological Amazons" to contrast with "historical (Scythian) Amazons", not with "metaphorical or pop-culture Amazons". For the latter, we have Category:Fictional women soldiers and warriors.
(sob), I just saw list of fictional Amazons. This is so sad. Btw, would the correct plural be "women soldiers" or just "woman soldiers"? My appositions senses are tingling. dab (𒁳) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
John's Flashman reference is to the so-called Dahomey Amazons, the actual, historical all-female bodyguard of the kings of Dahomey. --Folantin (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

More Amazons

ok, there appear to be a large number of {{inuniverse}} references to Amazons from Roman historiography. For two years(!) we claimed that Eurypyle "was the leader of an all female expedition against Babylonia. She captured the Amorite capital in 1760 B.C.E."[19], which was linked from Timeline of women in ancient warfare since its inception in Nov 2006[20]. This is appalling! The "source" we seem to be indebted to for this is Salmonson, Jessica Amanda (1991). The Encyclopedia of Amazons. Paragon House. ISBN 1-55778-420-5. . This work is cited in dozens of other articles[21]. This Amazon stuff has passed under the radar for too long and needs serious investigation. dab (𒁳) 08:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The origins of the Hyksos - more Ararat arev

I've just realised as I started to create a new section that this looks like another problem with Ararat arev. Using several IP addresses he's added something to The origins of the Hyksos -- which looks like nonsense to me. Look at the edit history (where he is warring with someone else) and my comments on the talk page. He's non-responsive to my edit summaries but now I understand why. Can the page be semi-protected in some way? I'm not sure what to do with a disruptive editor like this. Thanks.

Sigh...semiprotected. I don't understand this loony, I really don't. We nail him time and time over and he still doesn't give up. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that was fast. The hardest people to deal with are those who are clueless about the subject. We've got a guy on megaliths who thinks Barry Fell was a geologist who used linguistic experts to decipher languages and that some sort of experts should study megaliths for 'imprints' which will reveal all about their ritual uses before excavations. He clearly has no clue at all, doesn't do any research, and you just can't have a discussion with people like that.Doug Weller (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ach. There are currently Armenian-antiquity-related edit wars breaking out on Urartu and Hayasa-Azzi, due in no small part to Ararat arev's prior contributions, which our other non-banned Armenian users have picked up on. This needs some attention. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the "History of Armenia" infoboxes will have to go. rudra (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Now also edit-warring on Nairi. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Good grief, 37 edits amounting to this, followed by this. That entire section of "Prehistoric Armenia" (an oxymoron) needs to be excised from that infobox. rudra (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudra, look at the History of Iran template! (here -> Template:History_of_Iran) It is from around 4000 BC in their template! Hah!. They have a long list of the cultures, tribes in ancient Iran there, before they arrived, starting from Proto-Elamite civilization in 3200 BC, yes in their template!. Are you saying Persians claim they are that much older? Persian kingdom (Persians) started from 600 BC too, they are putting their ancient history in their template, yes in their template, and you are removing ours. We have our long list of tribes and cultures in Armenia as well, starting from Neolithic, if you read in the History of Armenia section, and than Kuro-Araxes_culture, etc etc...

This is what it says-> "The history of Armenia begins with Neolithic cultures of the South Caucasus, such as the Shulaveri-Shomu culture, followed by the Bronze Age Kura-Araxes and Trialeti cultures." Where is this in our History of Armenia template? Why should History of Iran template have theirs and not us to have ours?? 75.51.172.124 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old WP:OTHERCRAP argument. Nice try. No dice. rudra (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The Armenian topics navbox isn't any better, as "Hayasa", "Nairi" and "Urartu" are listed under "Armenian History". Nicklausse (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
What on earth is going on? Someone now claims that the long extinct c.3400 to c.2000 BC Kura-Araxes culture was Armenian by placing the "History of Armenia tag" on it. So, Armenians are 4000 to 5400 years old? Is this what Ararat Arev's POV ideas are all about? (I reverted the edit but wonder how long this will last!) As Dbachman rightly states in this article's discussion pages: "Combining the "Armenians" and the "Kura-Araxes culture" entries in the EIEC into a hodge-podge falls under WP:SYN." It's OK to say that Kura-Araxes plays a role in the Armenian hypothesis of their origin but not right, in my view, to then place a deeply intrusive "History of Armenia" tag on this article since an Armenian link to the long gone Kura-Araxes culture CAN'T be proven. What will Ararat Arev's backers claim next? That Adam and Eve were Armenian? This is getting a tad ridiculous! The problem lies partly with the broad and highly intrusive "History of Armenia" tag which places Hayasa-Azzi, Nairi and Urartu within it when their respective link to Armenia is either unclear (for Urartu) or non-existent for Hayasa-Azzi. I prefer Dbachman's approach--that they play a role in the Armenian hypothesis instead of just pushing the "History of Armenia" tag on these 3 articles. Its more intellectually honest. Artene50 (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

calm down. This is Ararat arev, and the recommended course of action is WP:DENY: revert and move on. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Input requested at Dysgenics

There is an RfC currently open at Dysgenics, asking whether the article in question devotes too much space to a WP:FRINGE subject. A wider input would be appreciated at the RfC. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the whole Race and intelligence shebang, starring Jagz (talk · contribs) and Zero g (talk · contribs) in the main roles. I think I mostly get what's going on here, but would someone mind explaining for me in very simple English what the whole debate's about, just to make sure I fully understand the whole picture? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can explain, they are positing that dysgenics has to do with the anti-eugenic effect of a higher comparative fertility rate of low-IQ people (in the USA, typically non-Whites) vs high-IQ people, therefore eventually bringing about a dumbing-down of humanity over the long term, and even the demise of civilisation. This fails to take into account that:
  1. IQ scores as a rule have been increasing since we started measuring them 50-100 years ago (instead of decreasing)
  2. dysgenics is a real medical term used for the study of mutations which deleteriously affect the survival of the organism.
  3. This hypothesis is forwarded by a very small group of researchers, basically a subgroup of the staunchest hereditarian researchers mentioned in the Race and Intelligence article, foremost among them being JP Rushton himself.

Hope it helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to suffer badly from US-centrism. Is there any chance we can move this to genetic deterioration and focus on non-human populations, mentioning humans as a marginal special case, and relegate the whole Race and Intelligence stuff to where it belongs? If I want to read up on genetic deterioration, I am not interested in petty squabbling over "race and intelligence" debates in the US culture wars. dab (𒁳) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Particular attribution at parapsychology

What do you think? Is it only a few people who think that parapsychology is a pseudoscience? Certain people at Talk:Parapsychology are convinced of this and are not backing down. They reminded me of a proposal I made a while back to add a section to WP:FRINGE about particular attribution. So I was bold and tried out some wording. More eyes are needed both there and at WT:FRINGE#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that if scientists applied scientific method to seeing whether purported paranormal effects were real, then that was called "parapsychology". Therefore it wouldn't be appropriate to label it pseudoscience. I'll have a look at the articles, but tell me if I'm wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The difference between science and pseudoscience is that the latter simply masquerades as the former. This makes it difficult to distinguish among the two at first glance - so indeed, you would have to spend some time reading up on the subject before you could decide whether you thought it was pseudoscience or not. That having been said, our opinions of the field itself are not particularly relevant. The question here is how the attribution of the "pseudoscience" label should be made. Antelantalk 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur with that. No one involved in the discussion disagrees that it's been called pseudoscience, nor that the label belongs in the article as a notable view. It's the how of it that's being discussed. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

http://phoenicia.org as a source

This website is used in quite a few articles. It's a personal website although with articles by other authors, arguing for Phoenicians in Brazil, Australia, etc (and of course they come from Atlantis). It also calls itself the "Virtual Center for Phoenician Studies" and "Encyclopedia Phoeniciana". I'm trying to do some cleanup. It seems used quite a bit in Carthage for instance. --Doug Weller (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the "Who we are" page, it is definitely a personal site... and unless it the owner is reguarded as an expert in the field (which I doubt) it should not be considered RS. It might be OK as a convenience link to articles by noted scholars (if any of the authors who's works are copied fall into that category). Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside the fact that a lot of the stuff there takes myths, the Bible, etc as history (and Atlantis), see [22] which at the bottom says "(Published in Kolo Suryoyo: April-May-June issue 2002. Number 136. Page 85 -- Reproduced without permission)". --Doug Weller (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
So its out even as a convenience link. Yuck. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and alternative science

I have asked ArbCom to endorse discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience_and_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist.. Vassyana (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

UN Security Council Resolutions: Are they binding or not?

I was wondering if I could get your take on whether UNSC resolutions should be described as binding or non-binding if the aren't taken under Chapter 7 of the UN charter? They are currently described as somewhat non-binding however this contradicts what the UN itself would tell you if you went on a tour of the UN. This originally came to my attention when I saw some changes made to United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 initially the changes described the resolution non-binding because it was not done under chapter 7 of the UN charter. I had reverted this change in that it was unsourced and this was in turn unreverted and an additional section was added as to who believes it to be binding versus who believes it to be non-binding. The way the article stands right now is that it merely states that the resolution wasn't done under binding Chapter 7 of the UN charter. You'll notice on the talk page that I expressed concerns about suggesting that UNSC resolutions are non-binding when the International Court of Justice says that they are binding however the response I received was that the ICJ opinion itself was non binding. Also if you look at UN_Security_Council#Resolutions it says all the above that was added to the UNSC 497 article. Another concern is that the article might be cherry picking scholars or politicians who claim that UNSC resolutions not done under Chapter 7 are non-binding. I posted a concern about using the opinion of Erika De Wet when there is no article about her in Wikipedia so she might not even be notable however I was told here that she is notable. I post the above as much for my own understanding as well as getting accuracy in these articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Also, see an excellent comment by an anon on the UNSC 497 talk page. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Here's what some reliable sources say on the matter:

Hope that's helpful. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What exactly is the fringe theory here? That UN resolutions not under Chapter 7 are (or can be) binding? rudra (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If UNSC resolutions not under chapter 7 should be called non-binding resolutions in wikipedia articles even when the resolution itself makes no mention as to whether its binding or not. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This makes no sense. How many UN resolutions schoolmasterishly declare "this is (not) binding" about themselves? The fact of the matter is that in the practically certain absence of any such explicit statement this is simply a matter of definition. Chapter 7? Binding. Other? Not binding. Period. I'm getting the impression that the real argument here is something on the lines of "pointing out that a Chapter [not 7] resolution is not binding is WP:SYNTH", and that too in support of a POV that would be only too happy to have uninformed readers fall into the trap of assuming, on the basis of the prestige of the UN, that a resolution is binding when it isn't. rudra (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(RE: SYNTH) Yes, that is what I meant. Also, if you take a tour of the UN, the tourguide will tell you that GA resolutions are non-binding and SC resolutions are binding. Furthermore, usually when you read about the passing of a UN resolution in the press, if it was a GA resolution the press will tell you that it was non-binding but if it's an SC (say not chapter 7) resolution they generally won't make a statement as to whether it was binding or not. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, last I heard, tour guides don't trump the UN Charter. As far as I can see, "Only Chapter 7 resolutions are binding" is not WP:SYNTH, it's a statement of fact. The same goes for "Chapter N resolutions are not binding", for all admissible values of N except 7. rudra (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I read remember reading through the entire charter on wikisource and I didn't see anything about non-Chapter 7 resolutions being non-binding. Are we using the wikipedia definition of Non-binding resolution? Also, am I to take it that whenever we see a non-chapter 7 resolution in an article in wikipedia we should mention that the resolution was not done under chapter 7 so it's non-binding? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point here, as nowhere in the Charter is it said that Chapter 7 resolutions are binding. The issue is one of international law, and it has been decided by the experts: only Chapter 7 resolutions have binding force. So on the must/should/may scale, the correct advice would seem to be "may" rather than "should". rudra (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me if I'm not picking this up quickly enough but I can't understand why it's clearly decided by experts to be non binding when the International Court of Justice says that UNSC resolutions are binding. The ICJ should trump the experts above, no? Or at least indicate that there's no consensus on the issue? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
What the ICJ says doesn't change the way the UN works. I'd suggest going by what the experts say about the Namibia Advisory (because the ICJ doesn't have powers of judicial review, and as a matter of fact has said so. The ICJ was asked for and gave an opinion on specific resolutions). rudra (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Rudra, can you explain your position a little more fully – if Pocopocopocopoco is correct that most press sources don't describe the resolutions in question as non-binding, and if other sources (the ICJ, the UN itself) consider them to be binding while still other sources (those Jayjg cites) consider them to be nonbinding, then why would Wikipedia step in and resolve the question? Wouldn't NPOV require that it not do this?--G-Dett (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Are tour guides or the press experts on international law? As for the ICJ, it advanced a theory that Art.25 could be applied: it was a theory to support their non-binding opinion on a specific resolution, not a definitive statement of how the UN actually works. See the version linked by Pocopocopocopoco above, esp footnote 3, the quote of Frowein ending with: In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here. I'm not sure NPOV requires a "balancing" of popular myths (e.g. "astrology works!") with the weight of expert opinion. rudra (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hold on, Rudra. Frowein's was the dissenting opinion. Whatever may be said of this analogy of yours – whereby the majority finding of the International Court of Justice is likened to a "popular opinion" (such as the proposition that "astrology works"), whereas the dissenting position is presented as "expert opinion" – it does not constitute a plausible approach to NPOV. Now, Jayjg is correct that Erika De Wet is an excellent source on this question, and he is correct that she comes down on the side that only Chapter VII resolutions are binding. But here's what Jay leaves out and you overlook: De Wet presents this as a vexed question about which there is significant dispute from excellent sources. She cites the work of several such expert sources, including Rosalyn Higgins, Wilhelm Kewenig, and Olivier Lissitzyn, discusses the complexities at length, and carefully lays out the groundwork for her own position. She is a very good scholar, but to argue that Wikipedia should simply adopt her position as settled fact is preposterous; she doesn't even present it that way.
I hope that part of the NPOV problem is clearer now. But there's another major NPOV problem, that of poisoning the well. Here's the passage of the Wikipedia article that's aroused dispute:

This Security Council Resolution was not taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Resolutions made under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.[1] The International Court of Justice (ICJ), however, has asserted that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding,[2] in its 1971 Namibia non-binding advisory opinion. This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others....In practice, the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.[3]

Footnote 1 consists of a whole mess of cherry-picked sources, only some of which address Namibia. The NPOV and NOR violations are obvious. The bolded sentence which follows is rank POV-pushing, too cute by half and too sarky by 3/4 for encyclopedic prose. The subsequent sentence reads, "This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others" – yes, and it's been supported by still other scholars, whom De Wet is good enough to acknowledge as serious even as you guys dismiss them as astrologists. The claim in the final sentence, presented here as fact, is cited to the dissenting opinion. That's right, the majority opinion of the ICJ is presented as an "assertion," with extra well-poisoning by way of "non-binding," while the dissenting opinion is presented as settled fact. Way to write a serious and neutral encyclopedia, guys.--G-Dett (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, what a surprise to find you have followed me here. Your statement is interesting, but incorrect in a number of important ways. To begin with, 26 sources isn't "cherry-picking", it's the majority view. In addition, it's not Frowein who was the dissenting opinion, it was Fitzmaurice. More importantly, whether or not there is a debate about amongst legal scholars about whether Chapter VI resolutions should be binding, as a matter of customary international law Chapter VI resolutions are treated as non-binding. That is why so many legal scholars state this as a matter of fact, not an article of debate. Yes, the ICJ did, in 1971, attempt to extend the binding nature of Chapter VII resolutions to Chapter VI resolutions - but that attempt failed, and, as De Wet points out, even Namibia was, in practice, adopted in terms of Chapter VII. NPOV is quite fully satisfied as regards customary international law; if the legal scholars who would like to make Chapter VI resolutions binding ever do get their way, then your arguments would carry more weight. If and until that happens, Chapter VI resolutions are still not binding. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Jay, you're blowing smoke and begging the question; the point (De Wet's point and mine) is not that legal scholars "would like to make Chapter VI resolutions binding," it's that they claim they are binding. That issue is disputed; De Wet acknowledges the dispute, and the ambiguities giving rise to it, even if you don't. Now, explain exactly (a) how you've arrived at your understanding that the position you support is the "majority view"; and (b) why we should present the "majority view" as if it were settled fact when it's actually disputed by many scholars. Then, explain (c) your opposition to an application of this "majority view" standard to the settlements' illegality under international law.--G-Dett (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I wonder if all of this stems from different definitions of what constitutes a Non-binding resolution. If you look at the wikiarticle for non-binding resolution it defines it as a resolution that cannot pass into law. However, if you look at some discussion that I had with Rudra on his talk page, His understanding is that '"Binding" generally means "UN members are obliged to enforce"'. I wonder if non-chapter 7 resolutions might actually fall under international law but the members are not obliged to enforce them. So in the example above, Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights is illegal under international law due to UNSC 497 however since UNSC 497 was not under chapter 7, the members of the UNSC are not obliged to enforce UNSC 497. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

26 sources isn't "cherry-picking", it's the majority view. Depends. If the cherry-picking happened within the sources, that cannot be said for certain. Also, in the absence of a denominator.... we have had this conversation before, I believe. In a widely studied field, for a contentious point, you need to bring a source that states that someone with expertise - not a random WP editor - believes that something is the overwhelming majority view, such as is needed to state the contentious point in WP's voice. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mondo MOND madness

Modified Newtonian dynamics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). The current version could be a poster child for the presentation of fringe topics as mainstream alternatives. The eyes and opinions of some physics-savvy people would be appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that MOND is a mainstream alternative, in the sense of being a serious, falsifiable theory, albeit one with few adherents and serious flaws. Am I wrong? <eleland/talkedits> 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The argument right now is how falsified MOND is with most astrophysicists "in the know" declaring it to be falsified by a number of different observations. The current state of the idea is marginalized but tolerated. More interesting are modified gravity theories to explain dark energy (like DGP models). ScienceApologist (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It is my understanding that MOND is fringe in the sense that it lies on the fringes of acceptable science and that it is only held by a very small minority of professionals. Am I incorrect in my knowledge? Vassyana (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The biggest problem with MOND is that the authors of the idea seem impervious to others' falsifications of the idea. This is a rather old story, as it were. Remember polywater and N-rays not to mention steady state universe and caloric theory? Whenever a theory gets falsified, there are often supporters waiting in the wings who will bend over backwards and attach bells-and-whistles to try to explain away fundamental contradictions to the point where the final modified theory is either so esoteric as to be almost absurd or is essentially identical to standard theory. At this point, the "tensor" modifications to MOND are so grandiose that any "simplicity" the theory originally could claim is lost in its awkward new packaging. And things like the bullet cluster and large-scale structure of the universe studies don't seem to cooperate with the simplest MOND models one comes up with. Nevertheless, two different "MOND" groups continue to churn out archive papers on a weekly basis attempting to stop all the holes in the dike. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, MOND gets a decent amount of Physics press, I think it's best considered minority science for now, with a bit of questionable, but not much more (to an outsider) than all the other alternatives (e.g. String theory, supersymmetry, etc). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
MOND has problems beyond string theory and supersymmetry of having observational evidence that many have stated explicitly falsifies it. Outside of New Scientist, I don't think there's much notice of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And PPARC. The article probably gives it a lot of undue weight but it is marginal science, not pseudoscience. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. It is fringe science in the sense of being on the boundaries of science, not in the sense of being pseudoscience. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable for an article on MOND to describe MOND. One way of telling if a theory is "respectable": is it worth publishing evidence against it? In the case of MOND the answer is definitely yes, as demonstrated by searches on arXiv (especially if you throw in the related TeVeS). And evidence against is cited in the article. PaddyLeahy (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Barry Fell

User Cadwallader thinks the Barry Fell article is not NPOV. He has heavily edited it, putting in a large section from a self-published web page with claims I have checked in any case and seem to have no weight or evidence behind them. Based on that self-published site, he writes "scientific inquiry proved him correct on the one point where academia had published a critique and defamation of him as a "fraud"." See the talk page where I discuss this. He has also added "The West Virginia Archaeologist, which claims to be a peer reviewed journal, published a few other articles critical of Fell, including one by Edo Nyland, a physics professor, who agreed the inscription was Ogam but translated it in the Basque language as a story about a failed buffalo hunt. Though Oppenheimer and Wirtz were Washington D.C. attorneys with no formal expertise in petroglyphs or ancient scripts, their "expert" rebuttal is still being used to discredit Fell today[5]." Maybe the magazine claims to be peer reviewed, I don't know. What I do know is that Edo Nyland is only quoted in the magazine, he is not the author of an article, and the sentence beginning with 'though' is editorial. Note that Barry Fell himself has no formal expertise in anything but marine biology. I see Til Eulenspiegel has also joined in. I'm not sure where to go from here, but the Pyle stuff should be removed I believe as failing WP:RELIABLE but obviously Til Eulenspiegel and Cadwallader don't see it that way.

Have made some edits to the article but it continues to be sadly lacking in sources. It would be useful if someone could verify that the West Virginia Archaeologist is a peer-reviewed academic journal. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found some more articles to use as sources but I'm not sure about West Virginia Archaeologist. But I doubt that articles are sent to archaeologists outside West Virginia to review before publication.Doug Weller (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Do authors have to send their articles to a certain geographic location to be reviewed by their own peers? What if we decide that all articles will have to be sent to Moscow and approved there, in order to be considered "peer reviewed"? This is the problem with using terms like "peer reviewed" to game the NPOV policy about mentioning all significant views, whenever you have an argument like "Our books that say ABC are okay, but your books that say XYZ are not, and may not even be mentioned, or treated neutrally." (Note there are many such situations where "our" books say this and "your" books say the opposite, but usually we do not try to play judge between them, and instead we usually end up simply stating what both, or all, published schools of thought say. Since ones "peers" are generally authors within one's own school of thought, of course they can all usually claim to be "peer reviewed", so this term can be more ambiguous than useful for NPOV.) 70.105.31.77 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
An academic journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly periodical, usually published by one of the large major academic publishing houses. Research articles are sent before publication to independent reviewers who have a good background in the subject and are nearly always academics in universities other than the one where the authors work. They may also publish non peer-reviewed material: editorials, book reviews, articles by non-academics such as professional practitioners, notices of research in progress. Sounds we cannot establish that WVA comes into this category. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Writing from West Virginia, I can say that West Virginia Archaeologist is a serious local archaeological journal sponsored by a society of professional archaeologists, the Council for West Virginia Archaeology, whose members are "persons who have a postgraduate (M.A. or Ph.D.) degree with a research specialization in archaeology or allied fields such as geology, history, botany, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology or cultural resources management." I do not know their journal's peer-review policies.
On the other hand, the magazine in which the claims by Pyle, Fell, and Gallagher first appeared, Wonderful West Virginia, is published by the WV Division of Natural Resources and one of it's major functions is tourism development.
Another source may be an editorial in Antiquity which I came across a long time ago, dated about the time of the early articles on the West Virginia site, which commented on it as an example of Fringe archaeology. Sorry I don't have a good reference but anyone with access to Antiquity might want to try to hunt it down. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Searched by West Virginia and Barry Fell, no luck. Maybe they don't index editorials.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Racism_in_association_football#Poland

User insist on insertion of off-topic (my opinion) material about leftist symbols [23] into this article about Racism in football because, his argument - "it is sourced". Sourced on "Gazeta Polska" a weakly which is called "far right" [24]? and "should not be considered mainstream". [25] . WP:FRINGE? Discussion here [26]. M0RD00R (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden

Controversy surrounding cult-like sub-group of Tibetan Buddhism that claims great antiquity. Spreading over onto Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso and other high-profile pages. Those familiar with the field might be interested in keeping an eye on it. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:ANI#Dorje Shugden. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reddi (talk · contribs)

I did not remember this user, and did not note the warning above -- hence a heads up that this user is currently wreaking havoc in the ancient history topics. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. He's created {{Ancient history by continent}} and a whole bunch of very strange articles, and is reverting the addition of split and merge tags. None of the articles seem to me to have much more merit than would an Ancient history of Antarctica, but since he doesn't look to be in the mood to discuss things, it's hard to know what the justification is. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
He seems to think an article on Ancient European History should include the Hittites and Egypt, and is somehow different from Classical antiquity. He's actually left the tag on this one and has opposed a merge (I'm for a simple redirect). Doug Weller (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And Ancient American history -- the penny dropped when I saw it. He's included non-literate cultures like the Adena and Mississippian culture and Poverty Point. I couldn't figure that out, but they are all linked to fringe claims of inscriptions, etc. Bat Creek stone, Grave Creek stone, etc. Ancient Australian history - there is no aboriginal writing, but he seems to want to prove there is (the book he references there is about 19th and 20th century writing by aborigines, I'm not sure what he thinks it proves.) Then there is Ancient African history, most of which is about non-literate cultures. I'm not sure where he plans to take this. My other problem is that he doesn't reference very much or very well (I'm going to have to look up 'A-group peoples' in the Sudan, a reference would have been nice. On one article, he uses an 1870 book and a non-academic web page to tell us when academics date the end of 'ancient history' (ok, that can be fixed, but...).--Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with calling prehistoric Africa "Ancient Africa", or prehistoric Australia "Ancient Australia", but the point is WP:CFORK. Since we already have Prehistoric Australia, Ancient Australia should just be a redirect there. Obviously, talking about "Early Middle Ages" in the context of Australia is about as clueless as it gets. I am not holding my breath to see anything useful from Reddi at this point. dab (𒁳) 07:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And take a look at what he's included in Ancient history -- I've made some comments at the bottom of the talk page. 19th century references to Egyptians studying lightning, electric eels, etc. Egyptians knowing about aerodynamic forces. He deleted a lot of good stuff and has restructured the article.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
sigh -- Reddi has a long history of such nonsense. It may be time to let him know Wikipedia doesn't put up with his approach to things. Let him keep a blog or something, but it will not do to have him keep wasting everybody's time. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

This article is the site of a conflict between a single indefatigable editor who takes the position that centrifugal force is a real, true, and undeniable phenomenon that exists independently of coordinate frames, and every other editor of the page, who report the standard interpretation of centrifugal force supported by all known reliable sources, in which it is regarded as a pseudo-force that can be described in terms of coordinate transformations of the standard Newtonian equations of motion in an inertial frame.

No matter how many other editors explain this to them, they are steadfast in their determination that the WP:TRUTH must prevail. They are impervious to requests that they provide references to support their view. They are impervious to citations to reliable sources, to polite arguments, to mathematical demonstrations of the effects of coordinate transforms, to animated diagrams showing how the motion of objects appears under these transforms, to polite appeals to abide by policies such as Neutral Point of View, verifiability from reliable sources, and avoiding original research.

Instead, they insist that other editors are unintelligent, incapable of properly understanding physics, and are conspiring against them to suppress the WP:TRUTH; indeed, this essay could almost have been written to describe their editing style.

They appear to be intelligent and sincere, but simply unwilling -- in the interests of THE TRUTH -- to engage in the normal Wikipedia processes. Instead, their strategy appears to be to "win" by simply outlasting other participants in the editing process, something in which they have made considerable progress to date. (I have also considered the possibility that they are a knowledgeable person who is simply trolling for kicks, similar to the behavior of one editor in the 0.999... saga, but I prefer to assume good faith.)

Repeated attempts to forge a compromise, using WP:NPOV, have failed to resolve this conflict, largely because they are unwilling to provide supporting cites which might be used to demonstrate that there is a real controversy over this issue in the citable literature.

As a result, the article has become a mish-mash as it is edited to and fro. I am at a loss to see how this process can be resolved. -- The Anome (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

can we not just revert editors who clearly have neither a grasp on their chosen subject nor on WP:RS? This should be a non-issue. dab (𒁳) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Talk:Centrifugal force. They are very careful to ignore all discussions involving Wikipedia policy, and have an engaging style that exploits the good faith of other editors. I entered this as an outside party, trying to broker a compromise using NPOV. I realize now that I should probably have simply threatened them with blocking unless they followed WP:V, rather than getting sucked into the discussion, or just kicked this to arbitration, but by now I'm too embroiled in the argument to act as an enforcer of policy without the appearance of conflict of interest. -- The Anome (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

wow, looking at User talk:David Tombe, this does seem to be a case of somebody simply Not Getting It, and admin action may be appropriate at this point. The arbcom will just make a bureaucratic mess of this. We have many many competent editors on physics topics, and they're positive angels to clueless blunderers as a rule, and when somebody just keeps going in spite of everyone, they should just run into blocks of escalating lengths. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's been admin action before, when this user had no user account and edited from many IP accounts [27]. He's repeating similar behavior now but being very careful to avoid 3RR by not reverting, instead just deleting and reinserting material to fit his POV. Be prepared for a multiple-page useless debate if you try to discuss it with him in good faith. I'm at a loss myself on how best to deal with him. I think it would be best if a disinterested 3rd party brought this up for WP:ANI (i.e., someone who hasn't edited those articles recently). Plvekamp (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems he's taking a break for awhile. Let's see how long it lasts, the situation may have resolved itself. Plvekamp (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

<scratches head> I usually just block disruptive SPAs indefinitely. Don't know about wikibreak, either, he's been busy editing today. Seeing as he's been going for so long under the IPs, he's not a newbie and appears to have been adequately warned. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If this requires administrator intervention, you can also just ask me for help. I haven't done anything with centrifugal force in a very long time. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid he's at it again: see this diff, where the whole package of ideas is shoved back in again after having been removed for lack of references, complete with an edit comment that says "this has got nothing to do with references." Please also see my most recent comment on the talk page of the editor in question. -- The Anome (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have warned him in regard to that edit. Please keep me informed of any further developments. -- SCZenz (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the edits in question are coatracking in order to support the theory in this paper [28] in a non-peer reviewed internet journal. The paper claims that inertia is due to centrifugal force in the aether, and much of it is based on the misconceptions contained in the edits this user keeps inserting into the article. Plvekamp (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I ought to be allowed a say here too. The sole purpose of my intervetion on the centrifugal force pages was to tidy it up. There is one centrifugal force. It acts radially and it gets induced by tangential motion.
The existing article had split the topic into two and misrepresented both aspects. The main topic concentrates on the issue of rotating frames of references but ignores the fact that any actual centrifugal effects only occur on objects that are co-rotating with the rotating frame.
Most of my edits have been instantly removed by persons who clearly know very little about centrifugal force.
No fringe theory is being pushed. I am merely drawing attention to the age old Bucket argument which points out that no actual effects occur on a stationary object which is viewed from a rotating frame of reference, whereas an actual centrifugal pressure can be induced by actual rotation. David Tombe (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet more warnings, followed by a 3 hour block by SCZenz, seem not to have had any effect, and David is still inserting the contentious content without providing supporting references. After a thorough review of the entire affair, and in spite of my precious reservations, this now seems to me to be a clearly defined case where blocking is appropriate. Accordingly, I've now blocked David for 31 hours; see this message on his talk page for my rationale. -- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New Chronology (Fomenko)‎

This already had a lot of detail about Fomenko's arguments, now someone has added a huge wodge more which may be OR, certainly seems WP:Undue -- he didn't like my reverting it.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always been suspicious of this page, as the proponents seem to be related to the publisher of the book, and therefore also involves WP:COI. Since documenting this would involve some use of off-Wiki material, I've been reluctant to go down that route. A Russian colleague, however, has expressed the opinion that Fomenko's work has moved from scholarship to pseudo-science to a purely commercial activity. I'll revert your material again and see what happens. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's back, and I've put on the Talk page that it's not clear what is actually Fomenko et al and what is the editor's perspective on them.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sangreal Sodality

Earlier today I tagged this article for proposed deletion. Since it is pretty fringe, I thought I might as well mention that here. (I considered tagging it for rapid deletion, because a substantial part of the article seems blatant advertising to promote their group, but was not sure if it really qualified.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed by an administrator because you didn't give a reason (you did in the edit summary but it needs to be given--Doug Weller (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
this is just a matter of WP:NOTE (specifically, WP:ORG). There are no "fringe" claim as such. As long as no third party sources establish the notability of this thing, it should just be redirected to William G. Gray. --dab (𒁳) 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked DDG, who removed the tag, what I did wrong [29]. It seems that article has been speedy deleted a number of times, and always restored. I might try an AfD. Merging would be a logical move, but that would not necessarily remove the blatant advertising. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
you should just redirect it and see what happens. I do agree that no notability is established as the article stands. Redirects are cheap. --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated both articles for deletion since the only "notability" given for Gray is as the originator of this. Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this distortion of a source (reddi again)?

The article Dendera light says "As far back as 1894, J. N. Lockyer mentioned in passing the possibilities of lamps.[4" and the footnote is "J. Norman Lockyer, "Dawn of Astronomy". Kessinger Publishing, 1992. 448 pages. ISBN 1564591123 (c.f., "[...] possibility that the electric light was known to the Ancient Egyptians.)" I looked this up. What I found on page 180 of P. 180 [30] Dawn of Astronomy By J. Norman Lockyer was Lockyer suggesting that mirrors were used to illuminate areas where no direct light reached, writing that "in all freshly opened tombs there are no traces whatever of any kind of combusion having taken place, even in the innermost recesses. So strikingly evident is this that my friend M Bouriant, laughingly suggested the possibility that the electric light was known to the ancient Egyptians." Has this been interpreted reasonably in the article and footnote? I suspect the editor obtained the Kolbe quote, which I can't check, from here: [31]. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article for notability. In the absence of any serious discussion... Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rokus redivivus

user:Rokus01 is back, keen to promote all things Aryan as usual, adding alleged Chinese Indo-European origins wherever he can [32] and performing other marvels. Paul B (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

oh dear. Hadn't he been banned? His motto of questioning "appeals to authority" may be honourable in a researcher, but is of course crippling to an encyclopedia editor (an encyclopedia being nothing else but a giant appeal to all sorts of authorities). --dab (𒁳) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Time for an official community ban proposal? The big problem with his contributions is that they are on such esoteric topics that it's difficult for those not familiar with the topics in question to point out exactly what's wrong. (I was able to tell immediately that his additions to Criticism of Islam, for example, were rubbish, but am completely lost on the racial migration stuff). He's good at picking very obscure texts which make his additions appear to be well-sourced on the surface, but what he's actually doing is intermixing his personal opinions with stuff very few editors have access to (and which in many cases are in a foreign language). - Merzbow (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:SYN might have been written for him. He's good at what he's doing, I'll grant him. Unfortunately what he's doing is conflicting with what everyone else is trying to do here. dab (𒁳) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hermetism template

I do not know if it has been discussed here, but I noticed the other day that there seems to be a new Hermetism template, which can be seen (for instance) on the Hermetism article, and on the Hermetic Qabalah article. Of course there is nothing (as far as I know) hermetic about Hermetic Qabalah, which owes more to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and to Aleister Crowley, than to any classical source. Also, looking at the Hermeticism article, I see it unites a source in ancient Egypt with the 20th century lunatic Aleister Crowley -- which is complete nonsense. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the template as created by User:King Vegita, to date the one and only member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hermetism, which I think he created at about the same time, along with the project banner and portal. He created the project on April 9, the banner, template, and portal later, generated a bit of concern regarding his activities, and disappeared on April 17. I wish I could say what to do in this case, but I honestly don't know. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
These articles used to use the Hermeticism template (I am not sure what the difference is, except that King Vegita insists on it). Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Child Sexual Abuse

User:PetraSchelm has reverted (without prior discussion or consensus) a long-standing, sourced section on "Controversial Research", citing WP:COATRACK:

[33]

I'd like to invite discussion from other editors. My own view is that CSA has seen more than its fair share of "controversial" research, in addition to the non-controversial research carried out in the spirit of Kinsey, before the CSA paradigm became powerful as it is today. There is also lots of critical literature outside of the medical field that isn't even mentioned.

In this sense, coatrack does not justify the removal of whole sections, and the way that this was done was less than civil. Lambton T/C 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


(edit conflict) An extreme fringe of researchers--including a pedophilia advocate who "analyzed" a hand-selected sample of 25 people 30 years ago--allege that child sexual abuse is harmless, and/or "the negative effects are not pervasive or long lasting, therefore some adults retain positive feelings about their childhood experience of sexual abuse." Two editors at this article believe that this fringe research constitutes a "controversy," that should be described in a lengthy paragraph in the article. I think this is undue weight, and a coatrack. Also, that dubious, discredited 10 and 30 + year old research doesn't belong in the article at all, and certainly doesn't rise to the level of a controversy meriting a paragraph. More input is welcome.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this version of the article, I agree some coatracking is going on and that the "Controversial research" section is too lengthy. Some mention of the most notable research is fine, with due discussion and rebuttals: three whole hefty paragraphs is probably not. Make it short and sweet. Certainly, this research is very fringy stuff, and should be dealt with as such. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur; a short summary of the conflict in context with rebuttals is appropriate, but the section as it was, was excessive. Care is needed to avoid undue weight for the fringe theories that have been derailing this and related articles for quite a while. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Articles relating to child sex abuse are a bit of a problem generally. We either get one extreme or the other: "abuse is everywhere" (the fights over Satanic ritual abuse) or "abuse is no problem" (not here, but the fights over Adult-child sex would be one example). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that any research seen as controversial is almost excluded from the rest of the article, the removal of this section was improper. It leaves the article reflecting only one end of the spectrum in CSA research. It polarises the issue towards a misrepresentative, religiously medicalistic, clinical and illness-biased position on the subject. Lambton T/C 23:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That's because everyone thinks it's so fucked up. See WP:UNDUE. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The controversial subject matter must at the very least be abridged. While several of the studies in question are frequently trumpeted as running contrary to the idea of CSA, they in fact do not prove anything quite so sweeping. Rather, they merely pick a small technicalities of the commonly held model.Legitimus (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The controversy section is being given far too much weight in the article. The controversy itself is a tiny minority view at best. IMO, Rind should be given a sentence or two, but more condemning of Rind, since more papers and the media both condemned the study. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The left-wing media (like Reason) largely accepted the study; most of the condemnation came from anti-intellectual wingnut rags like WorldNetDaily. This neutral article in the New York Times highlights the conservative nature of the attacks on Rind. Similarly, most of the papers published on Rind et al. (1998) analyze the hysteria and defend Rind and his team against the flawed claims of their critics (most of whom came from the "repressed memory" fringe). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the fringe is those that believe that repressed memory doesn't exist. A large majority of the studies on this topic show that it is a solid and valid scientific theory. Here's a few examples :
Widom, Cathy Spatz; Shepard, Robin L. (December 1996). "Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood victimization : Part 1. Childhood physical abuse". Psychological Assessment 8 (4): 412-21. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. ISSN 1040-3590. EJ542113. 
Widom, Cathy Spatz; Morris, Suzanne (March 1997). "Accuracy of Adult Recollections of Childhood Victimization: Part 2. Childhood Sexual Abuse.". Psychological Assessment 9 (1): 34-46. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. ISSN 1040-3590. EJ545434. 
Sheflin, Alan W; Brown, Daniel (1996). "Repressed Memory or Dissociative Amnesia: What the Science Says.". Journal of Psychiatry & Law 24 (Summer): 143-88. ISSN 0093-1853. 
Herman, Judith Lewis (1997). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books, p119-122. ISBN 0465087302. 
Albach, Francine; Peter Paul Moormann, Bob Bermond (Dec-1996). "Memory recovery of childhood sexual abuse". Dissociation Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 261-273. ISSN 0896-2863. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


You're leaving out 1) the Rind study was condemned by Congress 2) three other meta-analyses came out at the same time and didn't concur with Rind 3) Rind et al published in a pro-pedophilia journal called Paidika 4) the conclusions of the study were that the effects of child sexual abuse are not "pervasive or long lasting," which isn't much of a big controversy anyway, because up to date research--already reflected in the article--notes that the prognosis for recovery is excellent 5) what was controversial about Rind wasn't so much his conclusions but his opinion that child sexual abuse should be called "adult-child sex" sometimes, if it happens between adults and teenaged boys who say they weren't harmed. 6) The Rind study has a whole article already, and is 7) described in detail in the pro-pedophile activism article. It's not really relevant to child sexual abuse in general, because it didn't shift or even affect the weight of scientific opinion, not even minutely; and because the controversy was cultural, not scientific. The ten year old Rind et al pro-pedophile push to legitimize sexual contacts between adults and adolescent boys has a place where it is relevant, and that's in the pro-pedophile activism article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Congressional condemnation means nothing in this context; imagine what our evolution / intelligent design articles would look like if it did. Rind et al was in Psychological Bulletin, not Paidika. The section that was removed was prima facie NPOV and well-sourced; perhaps it needed to be augmented with equally NPOV and well-sourced criticism of those specific assertions, or to better contextualize them as controversial minority views. I do not see any grounds to remove it entirely. <eleland/talkedits> 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say they published it in Paidika, I said they published in Paidika; the authors have a pro-pedophile bias. Fringe theories need not be mentioned at all, except perhaps in articles devoted to them, and in this case there's a whole article devoted to Rind elsewhere, in adddition to detailed coverage at the pro-pedophile activism article. The significance of "condemned by Congress" is in response to AnotherSolipsist's contention that "most of the condemnation came from... WorldNetDaily." (And mainstream science rejected it also.) The solution to a coatrack isn't to further expand it by adding rebuttals; it's to crop it. (We have two isssues here now: 1) the coatrack itself, for which there is consensus to crop significantly to include only Rind 2) whether Rind should even be included or not....)-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any "coatracking" here so much as the attempt to over-emphasize the weight of a minority view. So some study interviewed minors on how they feel about being in a "relationship" with adults. The study was heavily criticized as pedophile activism masquerading as science. This is all perfectly on topic in the "child sexual abuse" article, we just need to take care not to allow the article to implicitly jump to conclusions (WP:SYN), along the lines of "the Stockholm syndrome says some people feel good about being held hostage. Hence, we conclude it is really ok to take hostages or kidnap people." Plus, there is a main article, Rind et al. controversy; details on that should go there. pro-pedophile activism should perhaps be considered a valid sub-article of Child sexual abuse, and the "controversial research" could be accommodated in that context. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The criticism of Sandfort's study mostly focuses on the implications of his findings. The actual data he collected can hardly be considered pseudoscientific: A few critics have pointed out that his sample was non-representative, but Sandfort didn't claim otherwise (in fact he subtitled the study An Empirical Investigation Among a Nonrepresentative Group of Boys.) I don't think there's any serious doubt among the CSA-erudite that a subset of sexual abuse victims regard their experience positively (whether as a coping mechanism or whatever), which is all our article says. The minority view that CSA should be legalized was, if I'm not mistaken, represented nowhere in the section deleted. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a 30+ year old study with a sample size of 25 that consisted entirely of subjects recruited from the Dutch National Pedophile Workshop--it's ludicrously irrelevant to anything except the pro-pedophile activism article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Petra -- if you take away the controversy surrounding the "implications", what is left is staggeringly unremarkable. This will either be about the "activism" controversy or nothing at all. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandfort is notable for a number of reasons. 1. The sample. The convenience sample uses men who have no particular mental health record, and actually believe that they are doing the boys good. There is no clinical or legal element. The sample is unique and valuable, representing a liberal climate that may not exist in any other developed country for decades to come. 2. The intimacy between interviewer and interviewee. Again, unique and naturalistic. Boys, it appears were encouraged to be themselves during the interviews. The interviews were carried out in familiar territory (the men's homes), in neutral terms and the men were not present. The level of detail that the interviews went into more than offsets the small sample size - a method probably more suited to your "soft science" conception of psychology. 3. The conclusions. Is it not fascinating that the conclusions were so wildly unlike those of other studies? Could this have something to do with the methodology? This should be up for discussion in an article that goes beyond the "one true" narrative of CSA, and actually represents the diversity of opinion in this subject with some fairness. Lambton T/C 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandfort alone may not be particularly significant, but studies using representative samples have shown that a large portion of abuse survivors hold or held their abuse in a positive light. In Rind et al., 42% of the 118 men included in the sample and 16% of the 514 women maintained overall positive feelings for their abuse. That's a lot of people to make unpersons. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And yet no one else before or since has ever replicated these findings, which why Rind triggers WP:REDFLAG, and the confirmation bias inherent in a pro-pedophilia advocate conducting a study is relevant. Again, Rind has its own article, and is recounted in detail in the pro-pedophile activism article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Pet: You have a very poor understanding of the subject, and indeed the profile of Bruce Rind and his works. Rind et al was a meta analysis conducted for the APA. That means that it was a high profile report that depended on many studies that produced similar findings *before* it was published. There have also been critical surveys and case studies of CSA victims that were not included in Rind, but are referred to by other authors and critics. Your accusations of Pro-Pedophile activism are very similar to those made by the Far-Right homophobe, Reisman, in nonsensical rants about the gay agenda and recruitment of children. Even Dallam - an incredibly biased and value-laden counter to Rind did not go as far as you have. Lambton T/C 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributors. (Although it's interesting, I suppose, that you would align someone who chose their username from the far left and edits critical theory articles with the far right...). Again, three other meta-analyses came out at the same time and did not concur with Rind, and no meta-analysis published since has concurred with Rind either. His overall conclusion was that there is harm (not controversial); what was controversial was his opinion that the term "adult child sex" should be used in cases where an adolescent boy and an adult man have sex and the boy doesn't believe he was harmed. The use of this "value neutral term" is a noted goal of pro-pedophile advocates, per Mary de Young's analysis of pro-pedophile activism, which is described in detail in the pro-pedophile activism article. The signifigance of the decade-old Rind et al study is to the history of pro-pedophile activism.-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
His opinion that some adult-child sex should not be termed child sexual abuse isn't what was in the article. If the rest was uncontroversial, why do you object to its inclusion as "fringe?"
The other meta-analyses didn't concur with Rind et al. (1998) on the issue of self-reported reactions because they didn't study or comment on that. Another red herring... --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be included on a scientific basis because it doesn't add anything to the article; the conclusions are already represented via the most up to date research. Why do you want to include it? We haven't included the other three meta-analyses either. We're trying to represent the WP:WEIGHT so that the article is up to date, informative, and readable. Self-reported reactions are of low evidentiary value; that's why no one studies or comments on them in a meta-analysis (unless they're trying to confirm a confirmation bias, which is what Dallam and Congress pointed out Rind was doing...) Rind's opinion re "adult-child sex' caused a cultural controversy ten years ago, and there's an article exlaining the controversy, and it's included as well, in detail, in the pro-pedophile activism article. Like Sandfort, it's a very important study--to pro-pedophile advocates. To everyone else, it's an irrelevant fringe theory. (And the fringe basis is cultural, not scientific. Sandfort and Rind have zero relevance to the weight of scientific opinion; they're cultural curiosities.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

←PetraSchelm is correct, and dab also stated it very well at 14:55 and 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC). The study was widely debunked and criticized by science and widely quoted by pedophile activists. In the CSA article, a short paragraph about pedophile activisim and the use of Rind et al and maybe Sandfort by activists would be appropriate, with links to the relevant articles. It needs to be done carefully without SYN. There is no controversy about this in scientific research today to report, and to include information in the article that implies there is, would be undue weight for a fringe theory, from the smallest of fringes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Support for Rind was not fringe. If you can provide some academic articles against Rind, I will provide some for (or neutral). We will discover that the debate was wide open. Lambton T/C 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The significance of Rind is to the fringe of the fringe; no one else really cares. The cultural controversy, which is a decade old, has its own article. It's like the Dutch pedophile party that only had three members. It had shock value, so the press commented on it/it was a big news story for fifteen minutes. Then it faded to total obscurity except for on pro-pedophile websites, where it is enshrined as gospel and blown out of proportion eight ways to Sunday in the style of fringe websites everywhere. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to give an erroneous impression of notability. Rind is notable to the history of pro-pedophile activism, not to the study of child sexual abuse.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Parts of Rind et al. (1998) are fairly unique, actually, and it continues to be cited in the literature. Google Scholar turns up 364 papers citing it. That's almost half the number of hits that the most notable study on CSA (Kendall-Tackett et al.) has, despite the 5-year advantage of Kendall-Tackett. Some citations of Rind in peer-reviewed journals (and one Ph.D dissertation) from 2008:
  • A Ph.D dissertation: "A 1998 meta-analytic study examined the relationship between CSA and ED and found a statistically significant, but small, relationship (r = .06) among the sample of college students without a clinical diagnosis of eating disorders (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998)."[34]
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry: "In addition, meta-analytic data indicate that the association between childhood sexual abuse and psychopathological symptoms tends to be larger for more severe forms of abuse."[35]
  • Psychiatry Research: "For example, 17% of college students report childhood sexual abuse in the form of sexual intercourse (Rind et al., 1998)."[36]
  • Sexual and Relationship Therapy: "They found, in a meta-analysis of 59 studies of over 15,000 college students, that the relation between self-reported CSA and psychopathology was weak and even weaker when CSA was considered to be consensual, particularly for males. They also reported that 11% of women and 37% of men indicated that their short-term reaction to the CSA was positive. Rind and Tromovitch (1997) similarly reported that only a small proportion of individuals with CSA experiences are permanently harmed in their meta-analytic review of seven national samples of psychological correlates of CSA. They concluded that while psychological adjustment measures suggest that CSA is related to poorer adjustment in the general population, confounding variables prevent attributing causal effects of CSA. [goes on]"[37]
  • American Journal of Public Health: "Very little is actually known about the long-term risks and benefits of abstinence intentions, virginity pledges, or early or late initiation in the context of consensual sexual experiences; however, numerous studies have documented long-term adverse outcomes of sexual abuse, including sexual risk behaviors. [Rind cited among others]"[38]
  • Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy: "Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998) found in a meta analysis of 59 studies comprising 15,000 college students that relations between a self-reported history of CSA and psychopathology was low, and it was lower in magnitude when the respondent deemed CSA to be consensual, but only in men. Some 11% of female and 37% of male respondents reported their short-term reaction to the abuse as being positive."[39]
  • Psychological Medicine: "[Cites Rind several times, then...] Rind et al. (1998) examined the relationship between CSA and psychological adjustment outcomes (e.g. alcohol problems, interpersonal sensitivity) in samples recruited from college and university student populations. Effect sizes were computed for the association between CSA and psychological outcomes, and for the magnitude of the relationship between several moderating variables (e.g. gender, level of contact) and psychological outcomes. Significant interactions were found between gender and two moderating aspects of the CSA experience, namely level of contact (i.e. psychological outcomes were significantly stronger for males than females when CSA was unwanted) and timing of reaction (i.e. negative reactions to CSA were significantly greater for females than males across each category of reaction timing that was measured: immediate, current, and lasting)."[40]
So there. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You're just proving my point that the part of Rind that is not controversial is already reflected in the article; the most up to date research. It's already common knowledge that more severe forms of abuse=more severe harm, etc., and it's not necessary to cite Rind (or any individual paper) to state that in the article. No one asserts that anyone is "permanently harmed" (except for the brain damage research from Harvard, which we haven't included in the article...). Using Rind to state the obvious Trojan Horses in his controversial claim of "adult child sex" on the basis of dubious self-reports of dubious short term positive reaction for a dubious percentage of males only, that no one else replicates or agrees with; that is the glory of all the PPA fringe websites.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Information on positive reactions to CSA is not reflected in the article. Two of 2008 papers I quoted above describe Rind's findings on this. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Uh, then what is this: "In 1998, Bruce Rind, PhD argued in his study known as Rind et al. that not all cases of "adult-child sex" should be termed child sexual abuse. This study was condemned by the United States Congress, an event which marked the first time in U.S. history that Congress officially condemned a study published in a major scientific journal.[14] Rind's study was a meta-analysis of 15 studies using college students that found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases, while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases.[15] The methodology and conclusions drawn by this study has been criticized by many researchers[16], including Dallam et al., who stated "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings." (2002).[17] The study has also received some support for its scientific validity, though not necessarily its conclusions.[18]"-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


As I've already said, the weight of scientific commentary on Rind et al. (1998) is positive. The American Psychologist special issue on Rind (vol. 57, issue 3) illustrates this.That which isn't positive was largely produced by the Leadership Council, a group of "repressed memory" apologists. (Interestingly, User:Jack-A-Roe and User:ResearchEditor have both been heavily involved in promoting their unusual brand of neutrality at Satanic ritual abuse and the repressed memory articles.) --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Leadership Council is a "nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, and public policy analysts." Their advisory board includes approximately 50 respected scientists who have written approximately 80 books. The attempts made by certain editors at the SRA and repressed memory articles have been to provide as many reliable sources as possible, presented in a NPOV fashion. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, yeah. Like this edit by Jack, for example, where he quotes Ken Lanning stating that "satanic ritual abuse victims report things that are physically impossible": [41]. I won't mention the presence here of the editor who voted very oddly in the adult child sex AfD. It would be nice to hear more outside views, though, instead of more of the same from the two fringe editors at child sexual abuse, and any adult-child sex AfD voters they can scare up. I think we've made the pro/con case from the involved editors' perspectives, and it's time to wait for actual new/wider input (on a problem that has dragged on for years at this article).-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In that edit, Jack paraphrases a pre-existing quote that said "some of what victims allege in these cases is physically impossible" to say "he considers some of what the victims alleged to be either untrue or physically impossible." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=rind+et+al&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Google, and just about every other SE disagrees, with you, Petra. Lambton T/C 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact, by returning one result (on volcanoes), and excluding all results containing the words "child" and "sex" "Yahoo Kids" provides no consensus. Maybe you should back down a little and argue from Yahoo Kids. Lambton T/C 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a pattern, though. A hard-core of editors who dedicate themselves to presenting any topic involving children and sexuality in the most bizarrely condemnatory light. It can best be described an abandonment of neutrality and adoption of a public-consensus POV that leads to a cherry-picking of the most fearsome, medical-only literature on these topics. These conclusions are then treated as fact, in articles that come accross as thoroughly harsh on these topics, far harsher than most established psychological, sociological and critical articles on the subject. Lambton T/C 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
...and that's because everyone thinks it's so fucked up. WP:UNDUE is not an abandonment of neutrality. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"Everyone" is not the consensus of academics and specialists who actually know something about the subject. Noting the public consensus is all fine and well, but it requires no more than a few lines, and should play no part in weighting and determining assumed facts in the rest of the article, which deals with professional, qualified opinions. Lambton T/C 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The scientific consensus is also that it's fucked up.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not science, Petra. There is a reasonable consensus of near-universal harm, and even of unethical or risky practise (E.g. Finkelhor, who concedes that some instances are seen as positive). I know of no "scientific" consensus that equates to "fucked up" - an almost irrelevant opinion that one is likely to find amongst the "great unwashed" and in their holy books (which come in instalments of 365 a year). Lambton T/C 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Even Rind concedes it is fucked up (he merely wants to call a small percentage of adolescent males who self-report--only in the short term --that their experience was "positive" people who have experienced "adult-child sex." Since short term self reports are considered highly dubious, his proposed exception has not been adopted by the scientific community. In fact, it was overwhelmingly shot down. Also, his opinion on terminology is an opinion of terminology, not a scientific observation...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This may be a silly question — I'm not sure — but how much research really looks into the causal relationships between child sexual abuse and future life problems? I know the correlation is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've just heard, admittedly in nonscholarly sources, the suggestion that the reaction to CSA and the social stigma is at least as damaging as the CSA itself. Is there any solid research on this question? <eleland/talkedits> 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are eleland's comments from the adult-child sex AfD:
  • "Hold your nose and Keep because, face it, logically Child sexual
  • abuse would be the POV fork here. "Adult-child sex" is a neutral
  • title; it's not like the article is called Man-boy love. Not all
  • notable POV's (maybe not even a majority?) agree that sex between
  • minors and adults is inherently sexual abuse in all circumstances.
  • Merging this information to Child sexual abuse would be inherently
  • POV. <eleland/talkedits> 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)"
  • Seriously, thanks for sharing, but we'd really like to get some neutral outside input.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments which I stand by, and which are both reasonable and entirely irrelevant. Attempting to paint all those who distance themselves from your moral crusade as paedophile apologists hardly engenders confidence in your position. Now, are you capable of answering my question, or would you rather amuse yourself with ad hominems and well-poisoning? <eleland/talkedits> 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, whose sock puppet are you? A month and a half on WP and you're quoting contributions I made last fall? Please. <eleland/talkedits> 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice. You did notice, right, that this is the fringe theories noticeboard? If your opinion is that "maybe not even a majority of povs" agree that sexual abuse of children is harmful, you're unclear on the concept that the overwhelming majority opinion is that it is harmful, and what we're discussing here is how much weight to give the extreme fringe view that there are exceptions to that, according to two pedophile advocates (Rind and Sandfort). It would really be great to get some more neutral outside input (say, not from the minority of ediotrs who voted keep on the now deleted adult-child sex article)--that's the point of posting on a noticeboard.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If my opinion was that "maybe not even a majority of povs agree that sexual abuse of children is harmful," I would have said so, rather than saying "maybe not even a majority of povs agree that sex between minors and adults is inherently sexual abuse in all circumstances," which is what I actually said. You're exaggerating everything I say into a strawman in order to avoid responding to my substantial questions and comments. Casually asserting that Bruce Rind is a "pedophile advocate" is more in this same vein. I don't appreciate off-wiki activist agendas being imported here, whether pro- or anti-, and again, I'd really like to know whose sock puppet you are, as would others. <eleland/talkedits> 04:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a sockpuppet disrupting here today, and it was blocked. Meanwhile, are you suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Would you like me to repeat it for you? Here: You did notice, right, that this is the fringe theories noticeboard?...and what we're discussing here is how much weight to give the extreme fringe view that there are exceptions to that, according to two pedophile advocates (Rind and Sandfort). It would really be great to get some more neutral outside input (say, not from the minority of editors who voted keep on the now deleted adult-child sex article)--that's the point of posting on a noticeboard. Thanks for understanding,-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is quite pathetic, and I'm not sure I have the stomach for it. You're defining those who disagree with you as non-neutral, and you're defining published peer-reviewed scientific research which you don't like as pedophile advocacy. Petra, I've been active on the FTN for longer than you've had an account, and my main interests here are pseudoscience and nationalist historiography. I don't really care whether your veiled implications are a cynical tactic or you really believe that I'm an apologist for child-fucking; either way you haven't made a single substantive on-point contribution to this sub-thread, and you've left my original question 100% unanswered. <eleland/talkedits> 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and let me throw in a WP:INSULTING_PITHY_AND_IRRELEVANT_POLICY_LINK, because this seems to be the way we discuss things on WP now. How about WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!, that's always a good'un. <eleland/talkedits> 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
How constructive. And I'm so glad you're helping the "solicit wider opinions and input by posting on a noticeboard" process--I think it will really improve the article if people are terrified to comment here because they think they'll be dragged back into the adult-child sex AfD nightmare.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
ok, maybe we should try to cool down the tone and pace of this a little bit. People always get very worked up over topics of sexual abuse. Let's focus on the immediate editing decisions: how to present these studies. I think it is undisputed that some mention needs to be made of them, but that any detail belongs on {{main}} articles such as pro-pedophile activism or Rind et al. controversy. After all, just a matter of micro-managing tight phrasing and not a very big deal either way. dab (𒁳) 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this is going to an RFC and then probably Arbcom because the minority of editors who want the coatrack have just reinserted it--all three paragraphs--without discussion. (This problem has been going on for years at this article, and has involved multiple editors blocked for pro-pedophile activism).-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
And here is an excellent essay from the "Skeptical Inquirer" about the Rind study, for all you skeptics of fringe who might like to participate in the RFC: [42]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons that you are having difficulty attracting opinions from "outside" editors is that the barriers to entry are set so high that few of us are likely to want to get involved. First, you have to be prepared to take endless abuse and personal attacks, and this regardless of your views. (And please don't do a "Who, me?" or ask for diffs, or we will all be here forever.) Both sides do it and most, if not all, individuals. Second, the views of any outsider who is not prepared to claim a high degree of professional background in psychology is going to be dismissed, so who would bother taking the time to think about the issues? And those who do claim a professional background are also dismissed by the other side with a level of vitriol that reminds me of domestic-abuse fights.

In order likely only to prove my points, I will make one stab at the issues. The article is about sexual abuse perpetrated against children. Leaving aside that "child" may be defined differently across the world's varied cultures, there are very few jurisdictions where sex with a child is not declared, by definition under the law, to be abuse. I think, from what I am reading here and on the pages of the various articles, that these points are agreed as to stating what is the case. (And we are not here, or in the article, dealing with what should be the case.)

The heavy preponderance of formal studies, broadly accepted in the scientific community, conclude that adults having sex with a child do harm to the child. This would be what I will call here, the "primary conclusion". (No scientific study of which I am aware, and certainly no psychological one, has 100% certainty. The degree of deviance from 100% establishes the amount of weight that should be given to dissenting opinions when discussing the primary conclusions.)

Rind, and others who seem to agree with him, no matter how many of them write and publish, still represent a very small area of dissent from the primary conclusion. (It is not the number of papers that determine the weight of professional opinion, but the weight of the evidence within any study that, gathered with others, determines the validity of the primary conclusion.) Thus, in an article on Rind or his compatriots, or on pro-pedophile views, you can give his studies the significant weight because you are there only discussing the opinions that dissent from the primary conclusion. Child sex abuse is about the primary conclusion, which is that, flatly stated, sex with adults harms children. I would suggest, given the worldwide weight, that Rind and those who agree with Rind, get a single, short, declaratory sentence about the dissent, and a reference that identifies the study. In Related Links, include the Rind article and the pro-pedophile activism one. There is one outside opinion. Enjoy! ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oera Linda and associated stubs

I'm having problems with the editor who created Oera Linda, and related stubs Irtha. Wr-alda. Frya, Fasta (Frisian) and maybe more. The stubs in my opinion have no justification and should be in the main article, maybe left as redirects, and include his personal opinion as shown in edit summaries such as (for Wr-alda "Look up the Sami god and you'll see it's patently obvious." He's also twice removed my mention of a new article on Oera Linda, I've put it back again, we shall see how long that lasts. I don't want to get into a personal edit war with him.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Pungent vegetables give you anxiety.

From Su vegetarianism:

Su vegetarianism, which some airlines call Asian vegetarian, comes from the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. No animal products whatsoever are eaten; su vegetarians also do not eat the fetid vegetables: onion, garlic, scallions, leeks, or shallots.

This diet not only benefits physical health, but also helps to settle the mind as well. Buddhist experience in meditation shows that those who eat the fetid vegetables are prone to restless minds, and have great difficulty making progress in meditation.

Su vegetarianism seems to be a combination of vegetarianism, rooted in Mahayana Buddhism, but the stuff about avoiding "fetid vegetables," is ancient Indian or Chinese folk medicine, not having anything to do with Hinduism or Buddhism. The claims about physical and mental health are also pretty suspect. It might just be a good idea to re-direct it to Buddhist vegetarianism.

Also, since this is English Wikipedia, shouldn't references be in English? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the redirect (or a merge if it is not fully covered already). As for the language of the sourcing... if there are equally good sources in English, Yes, we would prefer them. But if the best sources are in some other language, those are alowed. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well onions and garlic make me anxious, but only about my breath. <eleland/talkedits> 05:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead line of feminism

Could somebody give this a quick look. I'm having to argue that the mainstream scholarly position and dictionary definition of feminism should be used without attribution and without giving weight to minor/fringe/dissenting ideas in the lead line. As is the norm for the lead lines of articles.

I'm being asked to attribute (that is name drop who says) the clause that "feminism is movement for equal rights for women". This is not something that I think needs to be done in the lead. I'm not necessarily averse to citation in this case but attribution of a view held by the majority of mainstream sources and dictionaries seems unnecessary to me - especially in a lede line, and when the view is cited below in the article's text.

The unattributed use of the mainstream definition is being disputed, by User:Blackworm, because he contends that becuase authors (see these 2 links [43][44] )have contrary views to the mainstream definition (that is basically the dictionary definition) of feminism this mainstream view cannot be presented without attribution in the lede. I think this objection comes under WP:FRINGE. The mainstream definitions and dictionary definitions all say very similar things to the effect of feminism being a movement for equality. These articles don't show why that common mainstream and dictionary definition needs qualification to the degree asked for.

Now, AFAIK we don't attribute the mainstream and dictionary definition of subjects if that definition is common among the vast majority of reliable scholarly sources and if it is cited in the article. Nor do we need to say this subject "usually is defined" in the lede when the overwhelming majority of definitions present the history of the 'feminism as a movement for equality between mean and women'. Yes there are dissenting opinions about that but we mention them in the article and we don't give it undue weight by putting fringe ideas in the lede.

Below is a collapsed box detailing a very small sample of sources and dictionary defs stating this mainstream view:

More, many many more, sources could be added to the collapsed list. (Please check this against google scholar and google books). Hence my position that attribution (name dropping a scholar) of what is the commonly held mainstream definition (as represented in multiple dictionary definitions as well) is unnecessary in the lead sentence - referencing it is of course okay but that's not even usually necessary in the first line of an article as per WP:LEAD and as can be seen by looking at the lead sentences in any article at Wikipedia:Featured_articles.

If you want to see the discussion click here (but it's very long--Cailil talk 00:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got time to look at the whole discussion right now, but you are right that a mainstream definition should be given in the lede, avoiding references. There is space in later sections for all the notable controversies. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Itsmejudith, I think we have resolved this issue at this point--Cailil talk 00:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a classic POV ploy; compromise the entire article because of a fringe viewpoint. If facts are disputed by a fringe minority, then it is argued that the article cannot discuss them as facts, and then state disagreements with them — instead, it must not present them as facts. Naturally, this is a huge violation of undue weight and you're completely right here. --Haemo (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Debate at WT:V

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_is_.22mainstream.3F.22 could use some views of people on the front lines. When people are cheerfully saying that all the articles need is a few people to go in and sort things out, then, clearly, they have never attempted to sort out any alternative medicine article. At the moment, the article on Radionics - a form of witchdoctory where a bit of hair or blood is put into a machine to allow distant practitioners to send healthy vibes at you - is full of nothing but glowing praise, for instance, and this is true of 90% of alternative and complementary medicines. Homeopathy required many years of work to get to the state it's in - and is now at Arbcom. 05:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)