Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:23, 9 January 2015

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

G. Edward Griffin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For those who are interested, there is discussion about the intersection of BLP and FRINGE going on in the Talk page, and editing, of the article above. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

More concrete question now. Griffin advocates the use of laetrile to treat cancer and has engaged in HIV/AIDS denialism. My understanding of the intersection of BLP and PSCI is that WP should simply and directly provide the scientific consensus on these issues. Two users, Atsme and Srich32977 disagree, for reasons explained by them here. The current content is:

Cancer and AIDS denial In 1974, Griffin wrote and published the book World Without Cancer and released it as a documentary video; its second edition appeared in 1997. In the book and the video, Griffin asserts that cancer is a metabolic disease facilitated by the insufficient dietary consumption of laetrile. He contends that "eliminating cancer through a nondrug therapy has not been accepted because of the hidden economic and power agendas of those who dominate the medical establishment" and he wrote, "at the very top of the world's economic and political pyramid of power there is a grouping of financial, political, and industrial interests that, by the very nature of their goals, are the natural enemies of the nutritional approaches to health". Since the 1970s, the use of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has never been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer. Emanuel Landau, then a Project Director for the APHA, wrote a book review for the American Journal of Public Health, which noted that Griffin "accepts the 'conspiracy' theory ... that policy-makers in the medical, pharmaceutical, research and fund-raising organizations deliberately or unconsciously strive not to prevent or cure cancer in order to perpetuate their functions". Landau concludes that although World Without Cancer "is an emotional plea for the unrestricted use of the Laetrile as an anti-tumor agent, the scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it".

Griffin's websites refer visitors to doctors, clinics, and hospitals with alternative cancer treatments, including sellers of laetrile. He does not sell laetrile himself.

Griffin founded The Cancer Cure Foundation "in December of 1976 as a non-profit organization dedicated to research and education in alternative cancer therapies". The foundation expanded its mission in March, 2002 to include disseminating information about other medical conditions, and it changed its name to The Cure Research Foundation. In 2010, Griffin engaged in HIV/AIDS denialism, claiming that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) "doesn't exist" and that antiretroviral medications (rather than the HIV virus) cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

references

1. ^ Lagnado, Lucette (2000-03-22). "Laetrile Makes a Comeback Selling to Patients Online". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
2. "Controversial Cancer Drug Laetrile Enters Political Realms". Middlesboro Daily News. 1977-08-10.
3. "New Library Books". Books (Grand Forks Herald). 2003-07-13. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
4. Nightingale SL (1984). "Laetrile: the regulatory challenge of an unproven remedy". Public Health Rep 99 (4): 333–8. PMC 1424606. PMID 6431478.
5. Landau, Emanuel, Ph.D. (July 1976). "World without Cancer; the Story of Vitamin B17" (PDF). American Journal of Public Health 66 (7): 696. doi:10.2105/AJPH.66.7.696-a. ISSN 0090-0036. Retrieved 2008-03-05.
6. Jones, Marianna (1976-10-11). "Cure or fraud?". Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
7. Easter, Sean (March 26, 2011). "Who is G. Edward Griffin, Beck's Expert on The Federal Reserve"? Media Matters for America. (Noting that Griffin is an AIDS denier who believes the government shot down Flight 93 on 9/11.)

Thoughts?

• The crux of the argument I've seen lurking at the page seems to be that the two users do not think PSCI applies (correct me if I'm wrong) at least in the context of laetrile because it is a BLP article and not the article on laetrile. NPOV in terms of fringe topics does require that if a claim is presented in an article and it is a fringe idea, we need to document not only that is is a fringe idea, but also be sure to not bury that detail. It doesn't matter where that occurs. Otherwise we risk violating NPOV and BLP by failing to accurately describe the person and what they are known for. NPOV and BLP do not allow us to exclude what may appear to be negative content simply because it may be negative. We definitely want appropriate sources to describe the ideas or claims of the person (WP:PARITY). However, when we're describing the claims and not the person themselves, we are distancing ourselves from worrying about BLP and just simply sticking to stating a specific claim and stating what the actual scientific consensus is on that idea followed by whether the idea has any merit at all. If someone really was just hyper-vigilant about BLP issues, then all that needs to be done is to qualify the claims as conspiracy theories, fringe, etc. rather than the person to avoid even the thought of BLP issues (which I don't see currently). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I guess this is my area of particular interest, as a skeptic looking at cancer quackery in particular, so I will check it our. Please give me 48 hours or so to get up to speed. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a classic case of synthesis. We have one source that mentions Griffin supported laetrile as a treatment, but says nothing about the scientific acceptance of the treatment. Then we have another source that says its use is unaccepted by medicine but does not mention Griffin and we put the two together to say that Griffin supported fringe medicine and use it as a coatrack to provide information about why it is fringe. TFD (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Far from it. If it were as you described we'd need to be scrapping a few policies. It would be a coat rack if the article was used to obstensibily discuss laetrile. Instead, it simply mentions that the treatment is not accepted by the scientific community exactly as outlined by policy. That deals with the fringe aspect. In terms of BLP, it doesn't matter who made the claim, but simply that the claim itself is a fringe claim. When it comes to assessing scientific consensus, the consensus doesn't need to address every single person who makes a claim. That would be completely silly. Scientists don't go around listing person A is wrong, B is right, C is wrong, etc. in deterring consensus, but the actual claim regardless of who makes it. Thats why the above scenario can't be called synthesis, and it is even recommended for attributing weight in content for fringe claims regardless of the article they show up in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Obviously the article shouldn't offer an in-depth description of laetrile, but if laetrile is mentioned in relation to cancer treatment then our neutrality policies require us to mention it's an ineffective/discredited treatment. This can be done deftly without dwelling on the topic. Alexbrn 06:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The text says, "Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment, a view considered quackery by the medical community." In Barack Obama#Barack Obama we write "Obama is a Christian," We do not add, "a belief system that is considered irrational by the scientific community." We would only add it if sources on the subject considered it important enough to mention because we are supposed to represent what secondary sources consider important, not what we find important. TFD (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We are required to be neutral; neutrality is a non-negotiable pillar of WP and policy is explicit:

"Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. ... This also applies to other fringe subjects ..." (my bolds)

We do not write articles according to the content in Barack Obama, and Christianity is neither a pseudoscience nor a fringe topic, so you are correct that we would not label it as such. Alexbrn 08:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, and to some degree with Alexbrn regarding WP:UNDUE as it relates to laetrile. I also see classic WP:SYNTH which was an issue brought up on the TP by Srich32977. The dispute is not over the inclusion of certain facts and opinions, rather it is over how they are stated in the BLP. There is a simple solution - rewrite the offensive prose that states matter-of-factly that Griffin IS a conspiracy theorist (contentious labeling, pejorative). Replace it with referred to as a conspiracy theorist. The CT label has since spread to the infobox where it is listed as his occupation. It also reflects on the laetrile argument. We are here now because Griffin wrote a book about laetrile (amygdalin) in World Without Cancer. It is one small facet of his BLP, yet it has taken center stage, WP:UNDUE. The book is based on scientific research (Memorial Sloan-Keterring, Dean Burk, etc.) that has been disputed by orthodox medicine, denied approval by FDA, and criticized by NCI, but that isn't what's at issue in this BLP. No one is proposing the removal of facts and opinions as long as the two are differentiated and reliably sourced. The problem is that we are being denied (reverted) the opportunity to expand and improve the article by including information relative to what Griffin wrote in his book - WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. Also see WP:FRINGEBLP, and WP:FRINGE - Evaluating Claims wherein the following key statements apply (my bold): Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. The article is clearly a critical assessment of Griffin, therefore a coatrack, and at the very least, WP:NOTADVOCATE, in what appears to be a mission to root out quackery and condemn it to the fires of hell. Many of the sources cited are cherrypicked, and contain only trivial mention of quackery, none of which are directly related to Griffin, or his book. Others are simply unreliable, like Popular Paranoia: A Steamshovel Press Anthology. A few are partisan (Media Matters for America), or include information that is 35 years old, some of which has since been questioned by current research and/or contradicted by actual clinical results. And that is the crux of the argument. Atsme☯ 15:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, saying that someone "promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment" is not "an inclusion of pseudoscientific views", any more than saying Obama is a Christian is an inclusion of Christian views. "The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability." If your interpretation of how neutrality applies to fringe, then it is correct for the Obama article. Griffin holds a fringe view on cancer treatment. Let's go to a source that does not mention him and explain what the scientific community thinks. Obama believes that a man once lived who was actually God, who raised the dead and cast out devils, lets add what scientists think about that. TFD (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to take that seriously. Religion is religion -- no need to get scientists involved, except when a religion makes a claim about science. When Griffin makes a claim about a bogus treatment for a disease, that's exactly when we should inform our readers what the scientific community thinks about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The policy leaves no room for doubt here. Christianity is neither pseudoscience nor fringe. Perhaps The Four Deuces would like to try placing the Pseudoscience category on our Christianity articles and arguing that fringe applies there (good luck with that!). OTOH the view that laetrile is a cancer cure suppressed by Big Pharma is about as whacky-woo fringey as it gets. Alexbrn 17:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So the view that people who have died can cure people (and are therefore elevated to sainthood) is mainstream science. Maybe you should remove the fringe tags from creationism articles. TFD (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's no more "science" than the statement that Harry Potter's scar was caused by Voldemort's spell. If either were asserted to be a literal & factual truth however, that would be fringe. This does not bear on the basic application of NPOV policy to Griffin's article, which leaves us no doubt on the course we are obliged to take: laetrile, if mentioned in relation to cancer, must be called out as bogus. Alexbrn 18:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

TFD you made your point clear. So far you are the only one here finding a problem with the Griffin article in light of FRINGEBLP. Neither I nor Kingofaces nor Alexbrn nor Guy finds a problem. You guys are of course free to chase your tails around the religion/science tree but I don't see that as productive here. I posted looking for more voices and some have come in, which is great. Others? Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the problem extends far beyond FRINGEBLP. Griffin does not belong on this noticeboard because amygdalin (laetrile or B17) is not pseudoscience as defined by WP:Fringe. Furthermore, the purpose of Griffin's book is "to marshall the evidence that cancer is a nutritional-deficiency disease." It also focuses on "areas of need for further research with vitamin B17." Griffin advocates a patient's freedom to choose treatment. Now then, read the following which establishes that laetrile (amygdalin, B17) is not pseudoscience according to guidelines:

• The conclusion at MSKCC is that amygdalin needs further research. With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms (12) (13) (14) (15) (16), there is renewed interest in developing this agent as an anticancer treatment. - updated October 28, 2014.
• According to WP:Fringe - Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective.
• Research for amygdalin as a cancer treatment is still ongoing in the scientific community. The most recent research occurred in 2013 and 2014. Atsme☯ 02:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to look like WP:IDHT behavior, and isn't really something this board is for dealing with. A fringe claim was made regardless of what moniker it is given. It looks like consensus was reached on the article talk page already, but Atsme hasn't been able to move on. I don't think there's much more this board can do considering all the talk page conversation that's just getting rehashed again (and seeming very forumshoppy). Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and Atsme neglected to include the next sentence of the MSKCC piece: "Amygdalin has severe adverse effects. It should not be used as a cancer treatment in the current form." Griffin is not engaging in research to develop new agents based on amydgalin, but advocating its use and that its curative properties have been covered up by Big Pharma. That's fringe alright. Alexbrn 04:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Atsme. MSKCC makes it very clear that amygdalin has anticancer properties. -A1candidate (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Those "properties" have never been in doubt but there was always the downside (cyanide poising in this case). What's fringe about Griffin is his claim that amygdalin is an effective treatment and that's been covered up by dark forces. Alexbrn 13:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've read the book, (2 different editions), and watched the videos. Have you? Statements should not be taken out of context, and even if a RS states an opinion criticizing Griffin, it must be stated as such. Stop making it statement of fact. There is still ongoing research and recent discoveries in science that disprove all the antiquated claims. . You are cherrypicking and using what has been exposed as falsified information (see my RS, Science Magazine). MSKCC is furthering their research based on 5 different studies (that I've already cited) which indicate something entirely different from what MSKCC previous research led everyone to believe because they purposely omitted results. Come on folks, get up to speed here. Based on what I've read and seen, Griffin has always contended that further research on B17 (laetrile, amygdalin) is needed - I provided the quote directly from his book. He supports surgery and other conventional treatments, depending on the cancer. READ THE BOOK. WP:VERIFIABILITY You cannot cherrypick statements based on the opinions of his critics and make them statements of fact to discredit a BLP. Opinions are written as "referred to", or "claims that", etc., and you don't give it WP:UNDUE like what was done in Griffin. Update your information, please. WP is not the place to advocate a cause, WP:NOTADVOCATE. Laetrile is NOT pseudoscience or fringe as I explained above. Stop trying to make it so. Refer to the guidelines on Fringe, please, because what has happened, and is still happening has made Griffin a WP:COATRACK. Atsme☯ 14:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"Laetrile is NOT pseudoscience" ← Huh? obviously a substance can't be a pseudoscience. A conspiracy theory and unevidenced medical claims are however under the aegis of WP:FRINGE, and on this I have quoted policy above. Alexbrn 14:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:FRINGE - I actually quoted the relevant statement above for your convenience. It appears there may be some confusion regarding "formulas" and the natural compound commonly referred to as laetrile (amygdalin or B17), which you mentioned above to further prove my point, specifically, "Amygdalin has severe adverse effects. It should not be used as a cancer treatment in the current form." Have you ever read the side effects of aspirin? Warning: Children and teenagers shouldn't be given aspirin because it can cause Reye's syndrome. Do you consider aspirin to be pseudoscience? The various treatments that are in practice today using laetrile (amygdalin, B17), as well as the ongoing research at MSKCC and other science labs prove it is not pseudoscience or fringe as per WP:Fringe. The lack of FDA approval does not make it pseudoscience or fringe. Warnings of its side effects do not make it pseudoscience or fringe. WP is world-wide, and it is a fact that other countries such as Italy and Mexico have made claims of successful treatment using B17. Sorry if you disagree, but it's not our job to discredit or debunk laetrile. Our job is to correct and expand Griffin's BLP to make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, and that doesn't mean turning it into a WP:COATRACK to debunk laetrile. The pseudoscience claims, the mention of "quackery" as a result of WP:SYNTH, the lack of RS, and the contentious labeling have all created a situation of WP:NOTADVOCATE, as well as WP:UNDUE, not to mention the WP:BLP violations all have created as a result of straying from strict adherence to BLP policy. Please try to stay focused on the BLP, not laetrile, and get the article right. The attempts to make Griffin about pseudoscience is WP:UNDUE, and violates NPOV per BLP policy. Atsme☯ 15:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No amount of your amateur original research will overturn the authoritative sources we are using which give us the accepted mainstream view of amygdalin. True, it is used in dubious establishments like the Oasis of Hope Hospital in Mexico, and it is promoted by Griffin ... this is the fringe for you. Misplaced Pages follows reliable sources and we are bound to follow policy. On a point of detail, it's not strictly "pseudoscience" in which the fringeiness lies, it's more accurately conspiracism and pseudo-medicine. If you don't like the sources, get better ones (I doubt you'll find any); if you don't like policy, try and change it. But with the sources as they are and policy as it is, we are bound to label laetrile promotion as a fringe phenomenon. Alexbrn 16:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• FACT: laetrile, B17, amygdalin are not pseudoscience or fringe as defined by WP:FRINGE. Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective.
• FACT: according to the NCI, Laetrile is a compound that has been used as a treatment for people with cancer worldwide. It is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a treatment for cancer or any other medical condition.
• FACT: NCI again - No controlled clinical trials (trials that compare groups of patients who receive the new treatment to groups who do not) of laetrile have been reported. Read the reported cases and the clinical trials on the same page. Nowhere will you see its use referred to as pseudoscience or fringe. Such a conclusion by an editor requires WP:SYNTH which is not acceptable in any article, particularly in a BLP.
• FACT: NCI again - Cyanide is thought to be the main anticancer ingredient in laetrile. Two other breakdown products of amygdalin, prunasin (which is similar in structure to Laetrile) and benzaldehyde, may also be cancer cell blockers. I draw your attention to may also be cancer cell blockers. The NCI report indicates that cyanide, prunasin and benzaldehyde - similar in structure to Laetrile - may be cancer cell blockers. In addition to what scientific research has proven, there are clinical results by independent cancer treatment centers outside the U.S. that are claiming success. It would be dereliction of duty if we as GF editors fail to include at least the highlights of such information put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective per WP's stated guidelines.
• FACT: There is still ongoing research and recent discoveries in science that are disproving many of the antiquated claims. .
• FACT: WP:BLP policy clearly states that such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)

That is not what we are seeing at Griffin. The BLP violations must be cleaned up per BLP policy. Maintaining Griffin as a WP:Coatrack is an embarrassment to the project. Perhaps it is time to take this dispute to the next level in order to get a fresh new set of neutral eyes looking at it. Atsme☯ 19:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Shrug. More amateur original research. Let's look instead at a gold-standard WP:MEDRS, a systematic review from Cochrane (PMID 22071824) which concludes:

"The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative"

Griffin's view that amygdalin is a worthwhile treatment flies in the face of this accepted medical knowledge as reflected in our best RS, and no amount of amateur argumentation here will erase that. Griffin's contrary view that amygdalin works (and that this has been suppressed by "Big Pharma") is fringe. We report it as thus. Simple. The WP:IDHT level here from Atsme is concerning. Alexbrn 20:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms (12) (13) (14) (15) (16), there is renewed interest in developing this agent as an anticancer treatment." - Memorial Sloan Keterring Cancer Center

The problem with Griffin's BLP began when information that belongs in the article was reverted in what appears to be behavior representative of WP:OWN and WP:NOTADVOCATE. The "quackery" claims in the article are the result of SYNTH and POV. The latter combined with the exclusion of material I attempted to include not only creates a COATRACK, it takes on the appearance of being supported by those who oppose CAM, which may account for the pejorative claims of quackery and pseudoscience. Other problems include WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE which is part of the reason Griffin is being discussed here where it clearly doesn't belong. Some of the RS may very well be reliable but because of the way they are being used (synth) it doesn't matter. Some are simply not reliable at all which I've pointed out numerous times. What I find rather disconcerting is the level at which you WP:DONTGETIT, especially considering these issues are plaguing a BLP. Far too much weight has been placed on pseudoscience, especially considering Griffin authored one book about a natural compound (B17, or laetrile, or amygdalin), and you are now trying to make it an argument about orthodox medicine vs CAM. We have seriously strayed off-topic. With all due respect, I really don't care if the world-wide attention Griffin's books have garnered fly in the face of traditional medicine which, based on the death toll, doesn't appear to be the magic cure for cancer, either. The ongoing scientific research on amygdalin is REAL, and if it poses a threat to your advocacy, sorry - it's not my problem. My concerns are focused on whether or not the article is NPOV and compliant with WP policy. It is with much regret that I have to report it is not. Atsme☯ 00:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Time to close this discussion

Despite this whole debate having a very low level of importance in the BLP, it appears to be of high importance to a few editors who insist on making Griffin a topic of pseudoscience despite the contradictory description in WP:FRINGE. I consult you to please read the following research collection because it further substantiates my interpretation of WP policy and contradicts the outdated RS used at Griffin:

Definition of complementary medicine adopted by Cochrane Collaboration - “Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a broad domain of healing resources that encompasses all health systems, modalities, and practices and their accompanying theories and beliefs, other than those intrinsic to the politically dominant health system of a particular society or culture in a given historical period. CAM includes all such practices and ideas self-defined by their users as preventing or treating illness or promoting health and well-being. Boundaries within CAM and between the CAM domain and that of the dominant system are not always sharp or fixed.”.

Full article is here: Hardly what I consider quackery or pseudoscience. The antiquated claims in combination with outdated and/or poor sourcing on Griffin need to be updated so the article will be in compliance with BLP policy. I wish all of you a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Enjoy time with your family, and may we all enjoy a happy and prosperous 2015!!! Atsme☯ 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The position that laetrile is a safe and effective treatment for cancer is pseudoscience. Plain and simple. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Do tell, Jytdog...what is a safe and effective treatment for...let's say, pancreatic cancer? Atsme☯ 21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

that is a non sequitur. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If avoiding the question spares you the embarrassment of answering, it's ok with me. It appears you may have misunderstood WP's definition of pseudoscience - darn pesky definitions - so I'll include it here for your convenience: Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. To make it even more convenient for you, here is the def for scientific standards and methods: The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. Do you suppose MSKCC has lost their minds for even considering their previously suppressed research, or worse yet, the scientific methods over the past few years that have proven the compound has cancer fighting agents? Gee Wilikers!! Remove your biotech hat and start wearing your WP editor's hat because Griffin is a BLP, not pseudoscience. Atsme☯ 22:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

what point is there to responding to a non sequitur? real question. and I have never said "griffin is pseudoscience". I don't even know what that means. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but *LOL* Atsme☯ 22:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, your psuedoscience comments are now very blatant WP:IDHT. You've already been told many times that fringe and psuedoscience are two very related areas that are treated under the same policy you have been referred to many times. That you continue to bring up "it's not psuedoscience" type comments when we are still dealing with fringe ideas appears as a very weak attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERING and is very tendentious at this point. You seemed to have keyed in on the word pseudoscience and are entirely missing the meat of what fringe content is in the policies and guidelines you've been pointed to. I've spotted some fringe related content that can be worked on with some of your suggestions, but you're not going to get any traction for them if you also engage in nonsense like you are above at the same time. Right now, you are not helping yourself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Very strange post indeed. Either way, it doesn't seem specific content issues are really being discussed here anymore, so I'll close the conversation. If other issues come up related to this board, probably best to start a new conversation to keep it pointed on a specific problem. This board isn't meant to address behavior issues that are also mired within a content dispute, so I'd suggest editors bring it to the drama boards (unfortunately) if they continue to be a persistent disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Universal Medicine

Universal Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an Australian alt-med cult that has diligently scrubbed Google of unflattering content. And there's a LOT of unflattering content. The shills are now watching the article, so more eyes would be helpful. I think I may be the only non-SPA watching it! Guy (Help!) 22:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I added it to my watch list and dropped a note on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (and BullRangifer) for looking over it. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we have a low intensity edit war going on between two opposing groups of SPAs in this article. I think both sides have agenda issues and I have been urging them to keep it NPOV, but I am not sanguine. One side seems to be intent on turning the article into something close to an indictment of the group (serious pseudoscience and quackery to be sure), while the other, mostly one SPA, is trying to play defense. I don't want to get BITEY with new editors, but I am worried that there is little chance for consensus and there is a lot of suspicion and ill-will starting to show up on the talk page. As of a few minutes ago I posted on the talk page basically asking for a 24hr cease fire while they go and read some of the applicable guidelines. Some additional oversight and possible intervention by other experienced editors would be appreciated. Thanks.

CC: GUY, Dougweller‎ and Cullen328 -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Gee whiz, and thank you very much, Ad Orientem. I will add it to my watch list, which I might hypothetically and theoretically call "kook watch", except that would violate BLP, and I would never say anything like that. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328 your watch list has my hypothetical sympathy, and you have my sincere appreciation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting, a list of some sites evidently Google banned in Australia. I've added it to my watchlist but my new role is even busier and multi-faceted than I had originally expected. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Shivkar Bapuji Talpade and his Vedic ion jet propelled plane

Considerably changed recently. I've removed one source was which on Beall's list of predatory journals, but take a look at this source. Evidently Talpade used mercury engines. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that a forthcoming Bollywood movie is already attracting various IPs and editors. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This would be a good name for a rock group. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol. As an aside, there was a better version several years ago. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Found an article about the film - Hawaizaada. The first powered flight, which was not actually very impressive, was made by John Stringfellow. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Flight" is such a flexible term. Chinese rockets predate Stringfellow, Insects predate birds, coronal mass ejections predate all of them... LeadSongDog come howl! 18:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Dissent from Darwin and discrimination - RS source on testimony or not?

• Foth-Regner, Kitty (2010-05-10). "Guest Review from Kitty Foth-Regner: "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Jerry Bergman". The Discerning Reader. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
• Bergman, Jerry (2011-04-11). Slaughter of the Dissidents. Washington: Leafcutter Press. ISBN 9780981873404.

Creation-evolution controversy#Public policy issues

Creation-evolution controversy#Freedom of speech

'Creationists claim there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution'

These two sources appear representative and reliable witnesses to the views of the community they represent, one corroborating the other. This has been contested. Talk:Creation–evolution controversy#RfC: Claims of discrimination against Darwin sceptics

Have been advised to ask here from Reliable_sources notice board, the links seem to comply with external links guide.Cpsoper (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea why people keep representing this as a reliable sources issue - it isn't, the sources can only ever be presented as attributed opinion, and there are very few sources which aren't reliable for the opinions of the author. The real issue is whether these opinions are significant or not, and I think that policy is clear on this - if such opinions have been given significant coverage beyond creationist sources, they may merit inclusion - along with the mainstream response. If there hasn't been a mainstream response, one would have to conclude that the arguments aren't significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @AndyTheGrump, I fully agree weight is the primary issue, but the RS issue has been raised repeatedly as you know. It does seem to me that detailed assertions, in over 300 pages of text with 68 pages references, of alleged unjustified sackings in candidates, with otherwise exemplary academic credentials, work sabotage and death threats are pretty weighty, whether they have yet been acknowledged by outsiders or not. Cpsoper (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If it hasn't "been acknowledged by outsiders", it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Rather than discuss this in two places simultaneously, I shall continue at Talk:Creation–evolution_controversy#RfC:_Claims_of_discrimination_against_Darwin_sceptics Cpsoper (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I'm done discussing this with you, since you seem incapable of acknowledging Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As promised, my reply awaits.Cpsoper (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the other talk page, the specific edit in this case is "Creationists claim there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution." To be accurate, the statement would have to be "Dr Jerry Bergman, in his book Slaughter of the Dissidents, claims that there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution.". The source is a reliable source just not for the edit in question. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not quite sure I follow this carefully poised reasoning. Bergman is RS, but not for this edit because... He has been cited by hundreds of other sites, many with thousands if not scores of thousands of visitors, the majority of which I accept are creationist, some ID, one in the local press, one a book by a Christian, a co-editor of which Dinesh D'Souza is not creationist, a Muslim, and of course some fairly disparaging reviews by what S J Gould (of Panda's thumb fame) would probably also call Darwin fundamentalists. The persistent denial of this edit appears quite inconsistent with wiki policy. Cpsoper (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe I was quite clear, my statement was the edit requested was not representative of the source, THIS would be a more correct edit "Dr Jerry Bergman, in his book Slaughter of the Dissidents, claims that there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution.". not "Creationists claim" but "Dr Jerry Bergman claims that creationists claim". CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to use another wikipedia article to illustrate. Please consult ] in this paragraph, are examples like "The film contends...", "Stein further accuses academia...", not with vague statements like "Creationists claim..." CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bergman is RS for his opinions. Everyone is RS for his/her own opinions. Nobody has provided the slightest evidence that anyone other than fellow creationists/IDers consider his views anything more than tinfoil-hattery. Your refusal to provide such evidence while blathering on about policies you clearly don't understand is verging on the tendentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you CLU, so what about an edit that cited a body like AiG or CMI, both largish creationist groups, both of whom seem to have cited and encouraged the reading of Bergman's work, as references for 'what creationists say/claim'? Why single out Bergman as a single spokesman, when it's clear his views are representative of and advocated by the community he stands for? As to other sources, I've sought to list some of them on the talk page in question. Cpsoper (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's the case that "his views are representative of and advocated by the community he stands for," it follows that it must be possible to source the views in question to that larger community rather than a single author. CMI and AiG would make a good start. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Creationists do indeed believe that they are victims of discrimination as a result of their dogmatic rejection of the scientific fact of evolution. We scarcely need more data points for this, especially if they risk giving the impression that this persecution complex is valid. We can probably find some flat earth believers who feel they are discriminated against in the field of geology, too. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Bergman

In related news Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture

"A 2012 analysis of data on individual participants in acupuncture studies looked at migraine and tension headaches. The analysis showed that actual acupuncture was more effective than either no acupuncture or simulated acupuncture in reducing headache frequency or severity." See Acupuncture#Headaches and migraines. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.

"A 2014 Australian clinical study involving 282 men and women showed that needle and laser acupuncture were modestly better at relieving knee pain from osteoarthritis than no treatment, but not better than simulated (sham) laser acupuncture." See Acupuncture#Extremity conditions. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.

"According to NCCAM, results of a systematic review that combined data from 11 clinical trials with more than 1,200 participants suggested that acupuncture (and acupuncture point stimulation) may help with certain symptoms associated with cancer treatments." See Acupuncture#Cancer-related conditions. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.

See Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."

I think the key word is reputable, according to the wording of WP:MEDRS. For example, the reputations of NIMH and NCI are significantly different than that of NCCAM. Since it is not clear that NCCAM (see National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health#Criticism) is a reputable organisation I think we should leave the text out of the Acupuncture#Effectiveness section. If the question is WP:WEIGHT, the effectiveness section is bloated with a number of better sources.

See Talk:Acupuncture#Weight violation for the current discussion. While the discussion was still ongoing the tags were removed. Please comment on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This was also discussed at project medicine - Is NCCAM MEDRS? and it seems the general consensus was that NCCAM is MEDRS compliant, particularly the specific sources under question here.

It appears there is a lack of consensus for including it according to the talk page discussion and the previous discussion at project medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, and also concur that NCCAM releases like this are not peer reviewed and count as self-published sources which cannot be used to support material on third parties. NCCAM is a political organization, not a medical one. WP:REDFLAG applies as well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and this ain't even close. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bilocation & Saints and levitation

Bilocation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a stub and is fairly neutral, but it seems to avoid the obvious point that this kind of apparition violates several physical laws. How is it best to characterize this kind of magical claim without getting into the rather silly and pedantic rejoinder sentences such as "bilocation is impossible"?

jps (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Saints and levitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the same vein as the above, this article is straightforward and rather neutral, but doesn't point out some of the obvious issues with these claims. I note, in a related bit, that our previously fraught yogic flying article has been scrubbed from Misplaced Pages with a redirect to TM.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Just remember one of the main rules of Misplaced Pages: No original Research. In this case, it means You need to find a published source discussing bilocation or levitation which specifically states something along the lines of "biolocation violates laws of physics." You must then cite that as the source of the sentence you want to add. For my part, I think it would be a rather pointless to add. As you indicated, everyone knows these it's a violation of the laws of physics, which is precisely why claims of bi-location and levitation are considered miracles--events which defy the laws of physics. Trying to turn an article about claims of miraculous events into an opportunity to teach a bit of physics or to remind people that such claims are not accepted by this group of scientists or that group of skeptics is more annoying than educational. But if you think otherwise, just make sure you have an article from a reliable source that specifically states that bilocation and levitation violate the laws of physics (or summarize whatever the source does precisely asserts) then your edit will be immune to complaints that it represents "original" material.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of easy-to-find references which illustrate how contrary to reality these claims are: , . You do raise a good point about the coverage of miracles in general on Misplaced Pages. It is difficult to decide whether audiences are interested in the factual claims associated with miracles or whether they just want to be informed about the mythology of them. In fact, identifying miracles as mythology up-front may be good enough. jps (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate response, since their can clearly be no reliable source asserting levitation and similar miracles as fact, is to instead report them for what they are - beliefs and claims, properly attributed to whoever makes them. This of course presupposes that such claims have such coverage as to merit discussion in the first place, per WP:WEIGHT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that is appropriate for individual claims, but the problem here is that these articles are clearinghouses and can run into WP:SYNTH territory rather easily. The Catholic Encyclopedia includes entries for both of these topics, but Misplaced Pages seems to have an even broader reach than that work. What constitutes a "bilocation" claim or a "saintly levitation" claim? (Note that the Flying Nun is a See Also link rather tongue-and-cheek-ily). We need better sources that discuss these topics as broader ideas rather than hagiographic anecdotes. Are there any mythologists or folklorists who have studied these themes? I'm not having a lot of luck locating sources that properly and broadly cover the topics. jps (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, OR and synth are my main concerns about this article. It reads like a personal essay built by scraping anything that sounds like "bilocation" on fringe and primary sources, based on the authors own taste rather than on substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. I would not hesitate to !vote to delete this at AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to belabor the point that people neither bilocate nor fly without mechanical and/or divine assistance, and it seems to be that the articles as they appear attest to these as legendaria rather than as anything approaching established fact. Miraculous acts, after all, are supposed by those who promulgate them to be extraordinary phenomena in exception to established physics, folk or otherwise; we do not need to say this in every article. It is hardly neutral to assert that miracles do not happen. Mangoe (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Without evidence that a particular miracle actually happened it must be described as purported. All articles should make clear if the subject is factual, imagined, legendary, mythical etc. The factual nature of the subject should be clearly reflected in the article. Note WP:REDFLAG extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. WP:PARITY subjects not covered by serious academic debate should have mainstream scientific position represented by available sources. It is not neutral to describe a miracle(s) without presenting the mainstream academic/scientific consensus on if a miracle(s) actually occured or if the subject is of historical, mythological, anthropological, sociological etc. significance. As an encyclopedia the basis for articles is high quality published sources reflecting serious academic analysis. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I re-scanned the articles of interest in light of the above comments. I see ample use of the appropriate modifiers, i.e. "Bilocation is an alleged psychic or miraculous ability.." "Several Christian saints, monks and Muslim sufis are said to have exhibited bilocation." I don't see any assertions that the editors of the articles are asserting that any of these claimed miracles are undisputable facts. If, in a careful reading, any editor believes there is a passage which need to be better nuanced or more carefully written to identify who is alleging the miracle, that editor should fix it up. But for readers wondering: "What the hell is 'bilocation?', the article on bilocation provides at least a decent starting point answer to what people or sources talking about this alleged phenomena are referring. Ditto with "miraculous" levitation. My advice regarding the addition of sources identifying these claims as contrary to physics remains the same: Go ahead and add them if they specifically address the alleged phenomena of bilocation or levitation. I don't think this is a necessary improvement in light of the embedded qualifications already in the article, but it may be a helpful improvement.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Providing a useful definition is not in-and-of-itself a rationale for a Misplaced Pages article. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. The problem I'm having is finding any sources which discuss "bilocation" or "saintly levitation" as encyclopedic topics. Levitation is a reasonable article by comparison. jps (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine-tuned Universe again

More problems with removal of sourced content etc. Evidently at least one contributor doesn't agree with sourced scientific material refuting the fringe creationist/theological arguments presented there, and is under the impression that only one side of the argument belongs in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a few uses of "alleged" or "allegedly" in Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. that might require additional opinions. - Location (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a huge problem in this article in its handling of the Loyd Jowers conspiracy case. I've more or less failed to find a sober consideration of this episode but its handling at present strikes me as being a bit on the OR side, particularly in its use of primary sources. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Martin Luther King, Jr., James Earl Ray, Dexter Scott King, and Loyd Jowers all have substantial material, much of it overlapping, related to conspiracy beliefs. I suggest the creation of Martin Luther King, Jr. conspiracy theories. The article on Jowers could make up a significant part of that article. - Location (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific opinions in favor of the ET hypothesis for UFOs.

Extraterrestrial hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did (perhaps somewhat controversially) this. The entire passage, I thought, suffered from violation of WP:WEIGHT considerations. The entire article, however, may be unduly weighted since the idea is so far-fetched as to be only relevant as a conspiracy-theory jaunt. Help in recasting the article from a more serious and neutral outlook would be appreciated.

jps (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything improper with the deletion. Material likely to be challenged needs to be cited. Pointing to a website and saying "here" is insufficient. - Location (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Portage County UFO Chase

Portage County UFO chase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not too fond of what was done by Dr Fil (talk · contribs) here:

My recommendation is a wholesale revert, but I'd appreciate some input from other editors before throwing my weight around further.

In fact, we should probably go through and look carefully at all this user's contributions to Misplaced Pages. He is a passionate UFO true believer.

jps (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the lot. It was all hooey, and is the rest of the article, as there is absolutely no evidence that this "chase" ever received substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. A candidate for AfD, in my opinion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The usual violation of WP:ONEWAY, but there might be just enough for UFO sightings in the United States. The Close Encounters bit is an interesting tidbit for which it would be nice to have a reliable source. - Location (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then:

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Portage County UFO chase.

jps (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Schirmer Abudction

Also see Schirmer Abduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). - LuckyLouie }}

Even worse hooey than the last- totally unsourced. Another candidate for deletion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Schirmer Abduction. jps (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pascagoula Abduction

In investigating the previous article, I ran across this extensive piece. Pascagoula Abduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Help!

jps (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY. Most GNews hits point to the 1973 report, but the first on is from 1974. I think this is sufficient for a mention in and redirect to UFO sightings in the United States. - Location (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The references are insufficient, but blanking and redirecting to UFO sightings in the United States would be too harsh, because the incident looks quite notable. I believe there are plenty of good sources out there for the seeker (such as this, this, this, this, this and this). This CSICOP piece also can provide some quality citations. It seems there is also a documentary. This must be one of the most notable cases, otherwise it wouldn't have been discussed extensively in some channelled texts. Logos (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Kazakh panspermist

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Maxim Makukov.

Comments welcome.

jps (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Islam

See Talk:Islam#For some sects.... There is a very small sect of Muslims known as Quranists that only take into account the words of the Quran. Other muslims (the vast majority) also believe in hadith, the reported sayings of and stories about Muhammad. The Quranists do not. Just as the lead to Christianity says "most" Christians believe Jesus is the son of God and the lead to Muhammad says that Muslims "almost universally" regard him as the last prophet , I think the lead of Islam should say something like the "vast majority" of Muslims believe in the hadith. Other editors want to say effectively all Muslims believe in hadith, citing WP:FRINGE. I believe that is a misunderstanding of FRINGE which, in an article about a religion, should concern fringe sources/theories about a religion rather than fringe sects of that religion. Grateful for other inputs. DeCausa (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Know any scholar who has challenged this thing? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm unaware that any scholar has denied that Quranists exist. DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed changes then. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does not apply to questions of religious dogma. Only to questions of academic fact. jps (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

GodBlessYou2

GodBlessYou2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just had to dramatically change or revert a number of this user's edits.

I'm afraid there is little regard for WP:FRINGE or other policies dealing with the promotion of pseudoscience and creationism. We may need to ask for arbitration enforcement if this behavior doesn't stop.

jps (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

JPS, I realize you have a POV that you want to see reflected in the above articles, but these articles are precisely about issues around which there is controversy and lack of consensus. Your opinion that they are "fringe" does not mean that they are not notable issues and that the sources cited are not reliable. The threat of "arbitration enforcement" is also out of place.

Regarding the Fermi paradox, Bernard Haisch is a clearly a notable author and astrophysicist. While I point to a particular article that he has self published See WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm sure that others hold the same opinion and it is likely that a secondary source could be found, but that's not necessary and I don't have the time to pursue it. Instead of reducing material in the article, your efforts would be better spent adding a source in place of the Haisch post if you feel it is a better source. Actually, it's my understanding that he does not believe in UFO's but is, in this article, simply playing devil's advocate regarding why the claims of UFO sightings cannot be completely ruled out by the Fermi Paradox.

Regarding the Fine-tuned_Universe edit, I think it very rude of you to accuse me of "Creationist POV-pushing" simply because I add a cite to Haisch's "The Purpose-Guided Universe: Believing in Einstein, Darwin, and God," a book by a highly qualified astrophysist who, very pertinently, wrote his book to address the fine-tuned universe issue in a way that denies creationism yet argues for the existence of God. FYI, perhaps you disagree, but I consider the accusation of "creationism" to imply a belief in a literal interpretation of the Genesis and six day creation myth. I also think it's rude to call someone a creationist unless they describe themselves that way.

Regarding the God of the gaps edit you reverted, I did not even introduce new sources. I simply fixed two incomplete citations then corrected the sentences citing these sources to make them actually reflect what the sources were saying. If you believe I did not correctly summarize these sources, fix my summary, but do not revert to the badly summarized content. Don't you have something constructive to contribute? Why are you following me around to undue my contributions? Please assume good faith and try to work with other editors to build up articles rather than trim them down to some POV which best suits you. You are not the editor-in-chief or final arbiter of reliable sources. -GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Haisch source is fringey as fringe gets. SPS only applies if he were discussing his scientific work that had previously been published in a reliable third-party publication. Here he's giving an opinion on something that has nothing to do with his prior published scientific work, or scientific work at all for that matter. And the book you cite pretty much only shows up on creationist or fringe websites. I'm also not sure what you added it in to cite. Also, I have to note, we don't "build up" articles for the sake of doing it. They'd get prohibitively long and be filled with all types of undue cruft. Indeed, the opposite is true. Misplaced Pages has a POV and that's the POV expressed by mainstream reliable sources. Capeo (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The "controversy" and "lack of consensus" you are claiming exist are themselves WP:FRINGE claims that are promulgated, mostly, by religious believers, ufologists, and pseudoscientists. Your edits seek to promote these fringe viewpoints as being equally footed (e.g. your appeal to Haisch as a "highly qualified astrophysist". Be aware that we are intimately familiar with Haisch and his claims at this website: Talk:Bernard Haisch#Some background: Three sections from Paul_August's talk page). Trying to claim some level of mainstream acceptance for these ideas is exactly the problem with your edits. jps (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted a contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy&diff=639953971&oldid=639951952 by this editor that should be taken into account if discretionary sanctions are on the menu. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

They used Expelled as a factual source? Yeah, not good. Capeo (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The bigger problem was that he consumed a great deal of editor time at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, had a major case of WP:IDHT, and appears to be incapable or unwilling to understand, never mind abide by our policies because of their zealous ideological stance. If he/she is continuing his disruptive behavior on other articles, then it's clear that WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR apply. Maybe a discretionary indef would save both us and him/her a world of anguish. I just don't see a ray of hope here based on their interactions with other editors at the talk page on Creation-evolution controversy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't aware there was prior history involved. I only came to notice their recent edits from checking out the FTN yesterday. Maybe a creationism/evolution TB might do the trick? Capeo (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be a good start. It's worth considering. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The references recently added to Stephen Barr look rather dodgy and coatracky. Certainly, if a scientist has notable fringe views, these should be discussed, sourced to independent sources with weight as appropriate. But also the subject's scientific work should remain the focus of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I don't even see how Barr meets any notability claims. He hasn't published a significant scientific paper since the 80s and his work amounted to nothing. Today searches bring up nothing but religious and fringe websites at best where he gives an interview. His books are limited print with no notable reviews. And I know Google hits aren't a good argument for inclusion but that's when we're debating tens of thousands of hits. Barr doesn't even seem to have a single page to himself before random Stephen Barrs start popping up completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Is this person notable? Capeo (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Barr's work on grand unified models is extremely well-known. He passes WP:PROF#C1, with 30 scientific papers cited more than one hundred times on Google scholar, and WP:PROF#C3 as a fellow of the American Physical Society. So he is notable as an academic. I don't know what the appropriate weight is to assign his personal views on religion, but I suspect it is not much. In particular, I object most strongly to the recently-added "references" at the article. They portray the subject in a false light, as a crackpot, and arguably violate WP:BLP and other guidelines. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If the criteria is that lax than I guess it is what it is. But given that criteria there should tens of thousands of articles on just about anyone who has published. #3 is particularly lax. Here's the list of fellows added to the APS just in 2014: http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/fellowships/archive-all.cfm

Pick anyone on that list and plug them into google scholar. Out five I tried four of them were cited more than Barr though they, rightfully I'd say, don't have articles here. I'm having a hard time finding a paper of his that has been cited in the last 20 years and most cites are much, much older than that. As for his personal views on religion? Today at least, that's by far what he's best know for. He's written a book on the subject, given interviews and even has a substantial section about it on the front page of his personal website. I'd think those views should get at least some weight in his article. Capeo (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability isn't temporary. I'm sure you'd have a tough time finding articles authored by Albert Einstein in the last 20 years too :-) But there is no serious debate that he passes the guideline for scientists. He has written an impressive number of papers cited in the hundreds. Presumably, that is a high citation area, but even so he clearly passes C1. However, unless he is specifically notable for his views on religion, the article's very existence relies on WP:PROF, so it seems to me that it would be more in keeping with that guideline to emphasize his role as a scientist rather than a Christian apologist. But I don't really know what the relevant guideline is for such things. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And now, forum shopping. Ugh. jps (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Rex 84

Rex 84 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only sources I can find for this are in fringe sources concerned that the government out to control us. Are there any reliable sources that discuss it? Thoughts? Thanks! - Location (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC notification

Current text in the lede is: TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." Some editors think it is inappropriate to suggest that Traditional Chinese medicine is pseudoscience. There was a previous DR. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92#Traditional_Chinese_medicine.

Hello everyone, there is an RFC that editors from this noticeboard may be interested in commenting on: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?. I added a quote instead of the previous text and I proposed on the talk page if the quote is still not satisfactory it can be rewritten. Thank you for your feedback. QuackGuru (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution