Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:11, 10 August 2013

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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons

Possible topic ban in this fringe-medical-related topic. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A comment about this post by 84.* has been made here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#fringe_theories_notice_board_vs_forum_shop_.26_canvasing. More input welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Moderated discussion on the Tea Party movement

Is this a fringe theory or reliably sourced fact? Independent, high quality scholarship on this issue have concluded that the United States political movement known as the Tea Party consists of both grassroots and astroturf components. Several Misplaced Pages editors, however, have called this conclusion a "fringe theory", stating that the movement "is 100% grass-roots" and It's a grass-roots political movement. Period. These Misplaced Pages editors further claim that any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists.

The contesting Misplaced Pages editors have not, to date, produced any reliably sourced refutation of the scholarly consensus that the movement is made up of both grassroots and astroturf elements. They have, however, cited several sources (mostly news media reports) that only mention the "grassroots" components without mentioning the "astroturf" components, as proof that the movement must therefore be 100% grassroots. We'd like some uninvolved input on this matter. Are the above sources promoting a fringe theory? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As I expected, this was presented with a lot of high-velocity spin and some key facts which undercut Xenophrenic's argument were left out. Only three of these sources actually claim that any part of the Tea Party movement is Astroturfed. I will refer to them by the names of their principal authors: Zellner, Formisano and Dryzek. Dryzek is written by climate change experts and briefly mentions in passing some political phenomena in America. It's sort of a drive-by shooting from an academic standpoint. They're not writing about subject matter with which they have any expertise. They point their rhetorical guns at it, briefly spray some rhetorical bullets in its general direction, and move on as quickly as possible.

Zellner was a law student, not a professor. Almost all the other academic sources we use in the article are written by professors of law or political science, and many are chairs of their departments, teaching at Ivy League universities or other highly respected institutions, appearing multiple times on TV news networks as experts on the law and politics, etc. Zellner just isn't in the same league, and proves it by sourcing his Astroturfing claims with sources that Misplaced Pages would not consider reliable for anything but their own opinions: AlterNet and an opinion column by Paul Krugman, a highly partisan opponent of the Tea Party.

Formisano is a professor of history, not law, not political science, at the University of Kentucky. He has published at least two op-ed columns which demonstrate that he likes Barack Obama and the Democrats (political oopponents of the Tea Party) very, very much. Some of us suspect that an anti-Tea Party bias crept into Formisano's work, particularly since he has based his Astroturfing accusation on a claim that absolutely no one else has made: that the "Institute for Liberty," a genuine Astroturfing group which purports to speak on behalf of the Tea Party when it isn't Astroturfing for Indonesian corporate clients, is in fact a part of the Tea Party.

The remainder of the sources cited by Xenophrenic do not explicitly claim that any part of the Tea Party is Astroturfed, and to claim that they do is an example of WP:SYNTH. Some of them refer to "top-down" organizing, which is not necessarily Astroturfing; and when you take a closer look at the actual organizing activities they describe, it's the sort of thing that Formisano, Zellner and Dryzek would cheerfully call "community organizing" if it was done by Barack Obama instead of Dick Armey, with the same amount of money provided by billionaire George Soros instead of the billionaire Koch brothers.

This takes us to the next problem. Formisano, Zellner and Dryzek are trying to redefine the word "Astroturf" to include community organizing activity, but the word "Astroturfing" has been a stable and well-recognized political science term for roughly 30 years. It refers to a deceptive effort by paid corporate and political operatives to pretend that a grass-roots movement exists where there is no such thing. All these sources acknowledge that there is a very strong grass-roots or "bottom-up" element existing in the Tea Party. The rest of these elements merely amplify an actual existing grass-roots element, rather than manufacturing one where one does not actually exist.

Xenophrenic is left with three sources. Each is shaky in its own way. They're countered by literally dozens of reliable sources, including the peer-reviewed academic writings of Elizabeth Price Foley, a law professor who has repeatedly appeared as an expert on law and politics on CNN and other news networks. There are also sources from such eminently reliable, fact-checked news organizations as The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, CNN, and National Public Radio. Generally these sources say, "The Tea Party movement is a grass-roots movement." Period. Full stop. Or they refer to members as "grass-roots activists." Implicit in these statements is a refutation of the claim that the Tea Party is partially Astroturfed.

Xenophrenic presented only half of the truth. Now that the other half of the truth has been presented, let's hear from previously uninvolved editors and admins, to determine whether "The Tea Party is part Astroturf" is (A) the majority viewpoint that belongs in the article lede per WP:WEIGHT, (B) a minority viewpoint that belongs farther down in the article per WP:WEIGHT, or (C) a fringe opinion that doesn't belong in the article at all per WP:FRINGE. Xenophrenic supports (A). I support (B), along with four other editors. Arthur Rubin supports (C). What do you think? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC) (I've indicated no such support. -Xenophrenic)

"he likes Barack Obama and the Democrats" is not a valid reason to describe someone's opinions as 'fringe'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, and it's also not a valid reason to describe a fact as 'fringe', as several editors have attempted to do. Also, after having looked at the 2 links to Formisano pieces provided by P&W, the allegation of 'bias' is unsupported - not that it would matter anyway when determining the reliability of sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

All that is required to support a statement of fact is one reliable source. A book about the Tea Party written by a professor of history (Formisano) and published by Johns Hopkins University Press meets that standard. The publisher has determined that he is competent to write about the subject, and his personal opinions are irrelevant to whether the facts in his book are accurate. John Dryzek is an established expert on both democratic theory and evironmental politics. While Zellner was a law student, his article appeared in the Connecticut Law Review, which meets rs.

AFAIK there is nothing fringe in saying that the Tea Party movement consists of both groups set up by wealthy individuals and groups set up by concerned citizens, i.e., "astro-turf" and "grass-roots" organizations. Of course even reliable sources may be wrong. It could be for example that the Tea Party Express is not part of the Tea Party movement, or that it was not created by a Republican consulting firm, but was set up by tens of thousands of citizens acting together. If that is true, then the way to challenge what the sources say is to find sources that say something different.

TFD (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the above reliable sources say that the TP movement is astroturfed, not just three. Five of them specifically use the "astroturf" word, while the remaining sources explain the astroturfing in detail as "top down" organizing, inauthentic/fake grassroots advocacy, and "front group" manipulation -- all decades-old definitions of astroturfing in the context in which they are used. Your claim that several scholars published by Oxford, Princeton, Johns Hopkins and peer-reviewed journals have redefined "Astroturfing" doesn't help your argument; if true, it discredits your argument. Your claim that all of the above reliable sources are "countered by literally dozens of reliable sources" is false, and it is time to call your bluff. Please produce some here, with the exact verbatim text you are citing from those sources, that "counter" the fact that this grassroots movement is also astroturfed. All I've seen so far are sources that just mention the grassroots part, and there is no "implicit" or "explicit" refutation of the astroturfed part there. To quote a reliable source above: "Often the line between real grassroots and astroturf lobbying is blurred, however. A movement may be partly spontaneous but partly orchestrated." Your claim that being one "implicitly" disallows the other is a fiction. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Jumping is, as a completely uninvolved editor:

• I don't think this is a "fringe" issue; this is more about public relations and American politics isn't it?
• Astroturf has wide currency as a term meaning a fake/deceptive/paid-for effort to ape popular ("grass-roots") support; other uses of this word are peculiar
• The terms "grass-roots" and "astro-turf" are PR terms (POV-labelling) and we can expect them to be used by partial and hostile commentators respectively. I would usually avoid either of them in the lede of an article, except my impression (from across the Atlantic) was that the TP movement was formed largely from within the Republican party by disaffected members who formed a kind of mass pressure group. The proposed wording along the lines of "grass-roots with astro-turf components" is the kind of writing that makes WP look bad. Alexbrn 05:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right that this isn't a "fringe" issue, but at least 3 editors called it that. Looking at the argument above by P&W, it appears that WP:RSN and RS:NPOVN would be better suited to address his concerns. You are absolutely correct that "astroturf" and "grassroots" are PR terms, and the PR industry is partly responsible for the "peculiar" synonyms and definitions (Example: They redefine "astroturf" as "front group"). Proposed wording for the lede about the movement's dual nature (grassroots and astroturfed) would definitely benefit from a more thorough explanation of the nuanced make up of the movement. That might be better relegated to the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be forumshopping at its most intriguing. Not only is it not related to the stated topic of this noticeboard, is not phrased in a neutral manner etc. it also manages to take absurdist potshots at other editors without notifying them of this discussion, yet another venue for what the OP has posted in far too many places already. , the TPm moderated discussion page (multiple posts), self-deletion of his own RfC/U, BLP/N, AN and AN/I posts inter alia all pretty much insisting that he only wants the WP:TRUTH <g> Collect (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And that is yet another example of pure, unadulterated Collect, misstating the facts as usual. I did indeed announce this posting to the editors; I've taken this Talk page matter to only one noticeboard/forum, this one; I've never "self-deleted" an RfC/U, BLP/N, AN, or AN/I post. TRUTH-challenged as usual I see, but I'm sure you are just trying to be a "good faith participant " with your comment here. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is not fringe and TFD's summary appears to be correct. I'd suggest you guys go to DRN or similar, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not fringe. The arguments against "astroturfing" as an essential part of the founding story of the Tea Party Movement are squarely in the "I don't like it" category. Formisano is quite clear. Rosenthal and Trost are quite clear. Skocpol and Williamson are quite clear, etc. Binksternet (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• A theory can't be fringe unless there is some dominant mainstream academic point of view in its field, and I don't think we have that with the Tea Party movement. So this is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Also, much of it is a political argument. The disagreements over what sources are reliable could be discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, if they haven't been already..Cardamon (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Collect says: "It also manages to take absurdist potshots at other editorswithout notifying them of this discussion."

Xenophrenic responds: "I did indeed announce this posting to the editors."

Well, I can certainly attest to having no knowledge of this and was clearly the recipient of an inaccurate portrayal by Xenophrenic. To his defense, though, I would probably also avoid inviting fellow wikipedians to a thread I've used to make up bullshit positions for them and which cannot be verified because I'm talking out of my ass.

But I digress. †TE†Talk 01:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Obviously, inasmuch as academic sources describe the TPm as partially astroturfed, there should be no question to the inclusion of a statement referring thereto.

How many times to we have to rehash basic policy-based arguments against the POV pushing pro-TPm affinity group editors? --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed a great deal of POV-pushing by "pro-TPm affinity group editors." That's something easily-identifiable to the other side. But hate is stronger than sympathy, so I guess it was a foregone conclusion. If you looked at my contributions to the now properly-linked section of talk, you'd see my position was the Tea Party isn't wholly grassroots. It would be asinine to believe it can be. My main concern was using astroturf to describe conclusions of scholars when that specific term is absent in their text. OR/SYN. Perhaps Xenophrenic's theories of the new astroturf will become reality in the future, but it's not our place speculate. And definitely not our duty to promote the redefining of it. †TE†Talk 12:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction: The "Astroturf" term is not absent from the scholarly sources (see above). Xenophrenic doesn't have any theories about astroturf, new or otherwise. Were you referring to the definitions provided by sources cited above? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to the discussion relevant to ThinkEnemies, and ThinkEnemies only. Xenophrenic spun a tall-tale which cannot be substantiated without a time-machine and an experienced hacker to take control of TE's account. This is easily-verifiable by clicking on the section title.

Xenophrenic is welcome to explain how:

• ThinkEnemies concluded the Tea Party movement is "100% grass-roots" by agreeing with him "the TP movement cannot be described as wholly 'grassroots'."

• Thinkenemies believes "any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists" when TE has inferred no such thing, let alone believes or has said as much. That is, unless Xenophrenic is referring to Nancy Pelosi or Paul Krugman during the spring of 2009. I don't see their quotes above.
• Thinkenemies has "not refuted" the sources Xenophrenic provided when ThinkEnemies has never rejected or even criticized any of them. Not a one. ThinkEnemies actually provided text from Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson to be used as a scholarly repudiation of the hackish comments by Pelosi and Paul Krugman from 2009 -- Which are actually presented at TPM while better, academic perspective is readily available. Xenophrenic can prove this one at his own peril.
• And... I'm bored with this. Xenophrenic should know that I did read http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/opinion/grass-roots-mobilization-by-corporate-america.html?_r=0 per his request and may be sympathetic with parts of his new definition for Astroturf. I will not, however, bend the rules of OR/SYN to help advance his interpretation of RS content. †TE†Talk 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

On the first three bullet-points: I didn't attribute any of those quotes explicitely to you.

Bullet-point 4: It's great that you are sympathetic with his definition of Astroturf, but it's not his ... and it's not new. It actually goes back a couple decades, but he is one of the present day academics speaking on the matter, and he abhors the use of the word "astroturf" anyway. And OR/SYNTH do not apply to him - those are Misplaced Pages policies that apply to Misplaced Pages editors only. We actually depend on our reliable sources to do the original research and synthesis for us. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: "I didn't attribute any of those quotes explicitely to you."

Alright, please go below and exclude me. †TE†Talk 02:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Box below posted by ThinkEnemies for Xenophrenic to remove him from false positions.†TE†Talk 02:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this a fringe theory or reliably sourced fact? Independent, high quality scholarship on this issue have concluded that the United States political movement known as the Tea Party consists of both grassroots and astroturf components. Several Misplaced Pages editors, however, have called this conclusion a "fringe theory", stating that the movement "is 100% grass-roots" andIt's a grass-roots political movement. Period. These Misplaced Pages editors further claim that any mention of astroturf elements when describing this movement is merely non-factual opinion espoused by a conspiracy of political opponents posing as academics and journalists. The contesting Misplaced Pages editors have not, to date, produced any reliably sourced refutation of the scholarly consensus that the movement is made up of both grassroots and astroturf elements. They have, however, cited several sources (mostly news media reports) that only mention the "grassroots" components without mentioning the "astroturf" components, as proof that the movement must therefore be 100% grassroots.

Transgenerational epigenetic observations?

This seems like rather an exceptional claim (that circumstantial information is transmitted to subsequent generations genetically), also evident in the links from here. The Överkalix study seems to have had some press coverage and is also treated as "reviving" the evolutionary debate in this piece. Any geneticists in the house?

The specific result is a bit odd (the opposing gender-specificity of the descent), but the concept that there can be trans-generational effects mediated via epigenetics doesn't surprise me in the least. As big as genomics are, epigenetic inheritance is the hot topic in genetics these days. Maybe, though, I am missing your point. Is there something specific that raises issues for you? Agricolae (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite probably just my ignorance - but it seemed maybe some there was some suggestion of Lamarckian inheritance in play. Is it really mainstream science now that environmental influence is transmitted by some kind of genetics? Well, I live and learn! Alexbrn 07:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, environmental influences can induce systemic changes in DNA methylation and this can alter gene expression, and some DNA methylation differences are passed to subsequent generations. Neither of those are debated. Is that Lamarkian? Depends on your criteria for Lamarkianism, I guess. Bear in mind that the environmentally-induced epigenetic changes are not necessarily adaptive, so in one sense it is no different than exposure to a mutagen, which makes changes that are then passed down. With this particular study, I would have to read it to see whether they controlled appropriately - it may just be classic Darwinism. If the famine killed off one end of the gene pool, then the progeny of the survivors would have different allele frequency than the non-famine population, whether those allelic differences are methylation-based or simply nucleotide sequence-based. Still, the general concept is accepted, at least in theory. Agricolae (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is probably adaptive. I think the word "reviving" is hyperbole though. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I am reassured the article has wise eyes on it :-) Alexbrn 11:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew

Re the Gospel of Matthew, most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Google Books However there is a dispute as to whether this is fringe?

The views of Papias were preserved by the early Christian historian, "Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy." Blackwell (2010) p 301 Papias meant that it is "genuinely true that the apostle Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus" in a Hebrew dialect, (Casey 2010. pp 87-88) and the testimony of Papias explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage “directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves.” (Ehrman 2012 pp 98-101) & (Edwards 2009 pp 2-3) The historical data is both "striking and incontestable". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)

See most up to date sources:

• David E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303
• William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602
• Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101
• Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88
• James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

See also older sources

Issue

Does the aforementioned scholarship on the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew fall under the category of WP:Fringe theories?

Importance

Although most scholars no longer believe that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, many do believe the Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead or source of the Canonical Gospel of Matthew (hence the name). (See composite authorship)

- Ret.Prof (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What are the grounds given by those suggesting that this is fringe? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm My honest answer is there are not any. A NPOV discussion of the topic should have both those who support the Papias tradition and those who oppose. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If nobody has suggested that this is fringe, why are you asking here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The above material was deleted from the Gospel of Matthew and on the talk page it was said to be fringe. Best you look at it directly for I would hate to be accused of misrepresenting their position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So, in a nutshell, the question is: is the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis fringe, or not? Alexbrn 14:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be off topic. The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead! Most most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section in their article devoted to the Papias tradition in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, please do not edit your posts after people have responded to them. It makes understanding the flow of discussion difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry I forgot the link and to sign - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Gospel of Matthew talk page it appears that grounds have been given for the suggestion that this is fringe. As to whether this is correct or not, I am in no position to respond, and I suspect that few other WP:FTN regulars are likely to be able to either - Biblical scholarship is rather outside the scope of the sort of issues usually raised here. Evaluating sources regarding a specialist subject such as this may well be beyond most of us, and I suspect that you might do better to take this to dispute resolution, rather than expecting any sort of 'yes' or 'no' answer here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. They seem to agree the matter is clear, has been resolved and is a dog that won't hunt! I remember Casey, Ehrman etc being debated "as fringe" in Oral Gospel traditions, the heated discussion on the talk page as well as the fringe notice board discussion (consensus Ehrman not fringe) and I even remember some discussion with User:Smeat75, User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:IRWolfie-, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz, BUT I have no recollection of a "Fringe debate" on Ehrman, Casey, Blackwell etc re the Gospel of Matthew?? Nor was it ever brought to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard ?? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

After a somewhat confused start due to my typing skills, we must look at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories and see if they apply here. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in here and offer an independent perspective. There needs to be a call by neutral third party observers on whether the topic Ret.Prof describes, i.e. the content, is fringe. Taking this to dispute resolution implies there is a conduct problem. That is beside the point here. I believe an RfC was tried previously, but it was dominated by the very same people arguing strenuously for removal of the material. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said and thanks for getting us back on track! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN deals with issues where there is no conduct problem. Someone should probably notify wikiproject Christianity, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a complex textual problem with a long history. It may well be beyond the scope of FTN. I agree that DRN would be a good next step to deal with the content part of this dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I will notify wikiproject Christianity now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

On the Google Scholar search Ehrman states in Jesus Interrupted that Papias was rendering fourth-hand information and that there are multiple credibility issues with this information. The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#20th century article states the 20th century consensus: there was no Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. So, Ehrman isn't fringe, but he does not pretend that there were a Hebrew original for the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but what needs to be accounted for, speculative conjectures of modern scholars aside, is why Church Fathers from the earliest times right up to scholars at the end of the 19th century all thought there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. There is an abundance of primary literature attesting to that fact and many reliable secondary sources analyzing and summarizing that primary literature. Therefore, this should be discussed as a problem of WEIGHT rather than FRINGE. Ignocrates (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the term for that is historiography, and it is not only encyclopedic, but the stuff encyclopedias are made of: outlining the history of what people have thought, not only what some people say today. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. There is a difference between the claim that "there was a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" and the "canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew". No one has presented any relevant scholar who believes that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew; probably because no relevant scholar actually believes that. The problem is that the material that is sought to be added is so misleading as to leave that impression. Even the different claim that the gospel to which Papias was referring existed and was written in Hebrew is a minority opinion (Casey's). Ask yourself: What is the Casey- and Edwards-sourced material even doing there? Is it illuminating the topic of the article (the canonical Hebrew of Gospel)? Or is it talking about the separate topic of the Hebrew gospel, and just muddying the waters?

The view of McGrew and McGrew that all the early external evidence agrees that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew is completely fringe. Luckily, their view is not one of relevant scholars. They are not established critics of the New Testament. These remarks are merely incidental to their building of an Argument from Miracles (the subject of the paper). Neither are the editors of the volume (Craig and Moreland) established critics of the New Testament. And neither is the volume meant to be a source for New Testament criticism. The endeavour is metaphysical/theological in focus, not historical; and it is even one-sided at that (see Patrick Arnold's and Glenn M. Harden's reviews).

What was said above that "The above scholars are talking about the origins of the Gospel of Matthew, that it was of composite scholarship of which Matthew was the fountainhead!" is just plain wrong. Only McGrew and McGrew are. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. For something to be a fringe theory, it must be A) FRINGE and B) a THEORY

A) FRINGE

Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not fringe as its existence is supported, not only by the above contested sources but also by older sources from Lessing to Ehrman.

Davidson, (1848) p xii,

• Ebrard 1863 p 530,

• Baring-gould, 1874 p. 122

• Nicholson 1879 p 26

• Morison, 1902 p xxxvi

• Schoemaker 1902 p 199

• Barnes, 1905 p 361

• Cassels, 1905 p 420

• Paralipomena by Pick 1908

• Schonfield, 1937 p 246

• Andrews, 1962 p 46

• Harrison, 1971 p 152

• Pritz 1988 p 83

• Bütz 2009 p 176

Just a quick comment: Of all these books, only 3 date from the last half-century, which indicates that they're not quite the current state of play. The most recent is Jeffrey Butz, whose most recent book, The Secret Legacy of Jesus, "offers the thesis that the Judaistic teachings of Jesus were passed in underground fashion from groups such as the Nazarenes and Ebionites to the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, via the Cathars and Freemasons" (that's from his Misplaced Pages entry). I have doubts that Professor Butz is quite within the academic mainstream. PiCo (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

How can you claim that a formerly standard theory is now fringe? I'd understand if it were geocentrism but this is literary theory, not hard science. It is at least a "former standard theory". Shii (tock) 06:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A theory is fringe if it has no significant backing by reliable sources. Many theories which were previously standard (or even still are in the sense that many people subscribe to them) now have no backing in reliable sources for New Testament scholarship. For example, it was a standard view that Matthew the disciple of Jesus wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Now no reliable source supports that theory; so how could it not be fringe? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

B) Theory

Matthew's Hebrew gospel is not a theory but a "statement of fact". Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was first written in a Hebrew dialect. The widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is truly remarkable and "cannot be brushed aside, particularly since the discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another." (Blackwell Companion 2009. p 602) In total there are more than 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that this Hebrew Gospel was in wide circulation. Twelve of the Early Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenged these facts. (Edwards 2009 p 259, p 102 & p 117)

This "statement of fact" may be contested. Scholars can debate whether or nor the "Gospel of Matthew" was a translation of the "Hebrew Gospel". They may argue that the Hebrew Gospel is the Fountainhead but they cannot say Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is theoretical.

Therefore WP Fringe Theory cannot apply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, not quite. The "fact" is not that the Hebrew Gospel existed; rather, it is that the Church believed it existed for 1700 years. Simply put, if the "mainstream" conjecture of modern scholarship is right, then 1700 years of Church history is wrong. Our job as an encyclopedia is not to elucidate the TRUTH of these two positions; it is to document the ongoing debate. Ignocrates (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You should also make some sort of visible effort to not attempt to engage in somewhat pointless editing, which, honestly, I believe that this rather inherently prejudicial thread is. There is a significant difference between WP:FRINGE, which you seem to have unilaterally and I believe falsely asserted is the reason for the contesting of this content, and WP:WEIGHT, which is in fact an entirely separate guideline. Please make a more visible effort to show willingness to engage in constructive dialogue with others, rather than starting threads such as this which could perhaps not unreasonably be seen as attempts at straw man arguments and also be seen as perhaps raising very serious questions regarding conduct. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a broad consensus that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. So whether Matthew's Hebrew Gospel actually existed (as in minority view), or not (as in majority view) is irrelevant in an article about what is now called the Gospel of Matthew, since if it ever existed it has nothing to do with what is called the Gospel of Matthew. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is broad consensus that the Gospel of Matthew is not a a translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Casey, Ehrman & Edwards all state this. They further state that Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew and then Casey argues that Hebrew Matthew was the fountainhead or source for the Canonical Gospel of Matthew. Can you name any sources that disagree with Casey.

Most Biblical commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, even study Bibles have a section on the Papias tradition which says that Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. They present both those who support and oppose Papias. We should follow the reliable sources and also write our article from NPOV Google Books - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not what Casey 2010 argues. Casey argues that Matthew the apostle collected sayings in either Hebrew or Aramaic to which Papias was referring and which were a fountainhead for some traditions, and these traditions were in turn sources for the canonical Gospel of Matthew. He is not saying that Matthew wrote a gospel or some such work in Hebrew and the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew used this as a fountainhead or source. Such implies that what the apostle wrote was like Q or the Gospel of Mark, which is not what Casey is saying at all (in fact, he suggests that some of these traditions from Matthew the apostle made their way into Q !) But even this view of Casey has reliable sources that disagree with it, including sources which you have been citing: Duling 2010 (p. 302), Edwards 2009 (pp. 260–262). Try asking instead: What reliable sources agree with Casey on these points? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has become about SCOPE and WEIGHT, which can only be decided by consensus. Therefore, it should be ended here and continued on the article talk page or in DRN. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE - the meaning of Papias' statement is indeed discussed by just about every important scholar who writes about the composition of this gospel, but the important thing is that the overwhelming majority (and it really is overwhelming) don't see an Aramaic or Hebrew original behind it. We do discuss this in our article - we have a whole paragraph about it - and that's enough. PiCo (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Is that correct? Is the discussion over as far as this noticeboard is concerned? I'm not sure how much this noticeboard can help rather than wikiproject christianity/religion. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I too agree that the question is WEIGHT, not FRINGE and I see no specific editor that asserts any fringe content. Still, we should keep the discussion open a little longer to make sure nobody is left out and that everyone who is interested has been notified. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a simpler point to be made: you have quoted some reliable sources in order to prove exactly what these sources disagree with. So, you made a misleading summary of what these sources actually say. Do you expect such edits to pass as good faith edits? You were either unable or unwilling to render the actual viewpoints of the sources and posited your own view as if it were the view of the sources. So, this is not a case of weight vs. fringe, it is a case of something made up against something verifiable. The point which you have made up is not supported by the sources, except by the fundamentalist Christian apologist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to Ret.Prof, he brought this question to FTN because of a lot of loose talk on the article talk page about the fringiness of the topic of a Hebrew Gospel as a justification for the deletion of reliably-sourced content. I think we are in general agreement that this dispute is not, and never was, about FRINGE. The beginning of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith signals the end of rational discussion, so I propose this emotive dialogue stay on the article talk page and we finish up here. Ignocrates (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to others, much of that loose talk about fringiness was really his own fault, as at least one of the threads one the article talk page about it being "fringe" was started by himself. I agree that this never has been about WP:FRINGE, but WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Those are entirely separate pages, and I believe it would be in everyone's interests if certain editors made a clearer effort to familiarize themselves with all those pages, and the differences between them. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu - I just finished reading your comments, and I think I found the problem. You were reading from an older version of Ehrman. Please look at the following quotes, but sure to follow the links to see their context! Feel free to point out any errors, add any important material you feel was left out and of course add more up to date sources. Thanks for taking the time to join our discussion.

Taken from David E. Aune (Ed), The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, John Wiley & Sons, 2010. pp 301 - 303

• Author and Setting The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together the sayings in Matthew the Hebrew dialect and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)

Taken from William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Ed)' The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p 602

• We encounter a striking and incontestable fact. Virtually every piece of external evidence we have from the first few centuries regarding the authorship and composition of the Gospels concurs that Matthew's Gospel was the first written, that it was written in the Hebrew language...the widespread agreement of early sources on a number of points is remarkable and cannot be brushed aside, particularly since discrepancies among these sources regarding other points strongly suggest that they are not, for the most part, simply copying one another. (quote from p 602)

Taken from Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101 After quoting the Papias tradition which states "Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue"

• Still, on one point there can be no doubt. Papias may pass on some legendary traditions about Jesus, but he is quite speciflc—and there is no reason to think he is telling a bald-faced lie—that he knows people who knew the apostles (or the apostles' companions). This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)

Taken from James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. pp 2-3

• This is corroborated in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.7 and 14, where Eusebius says that Papias confessed to having received the words of the apostles from their followers. Of course, if John the Elder was in fact John the Apostle — although this seems unlikely — then Papias's testimony comes directly from the apostolic fountainhead. It is in any case very early, within living memory of the apostolic age. Eusebius records Papias's relevant testimony: “Matthew organized the oracles (of Jesus) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he was able.”8 This testimony does not specifically identify the Hebrew work of Matthew as the Hebrew Gospel, but it is reasonable to equate the two.9 Papias's primary intent seems to have been to emphasize the Hebrew composition of the work. (quote from p 3)

Taken from Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88

• Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)

• It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew.It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now I hope this clears up the confusion. Thanks for being patient with an old guy who was clearly overwhelmed! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Ignocrates Thanks for restoring sanity when needed! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The confusion and lack of "sanity" is I believe pretty much inherent in the prejudicial, emotional approach one editor, the starter of this thread, has seemingly taken from the very beginning. I once again extremely seriously urge that individual to review all the relevant conduct guidelines before engaging in further conduct which could not unreasonably perhaps be taken as both disruptive and tendentious. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as Ehrman's book is concerned, the quote starts with "Many conservative Christian scholars use this statement to prove that what Papias says is historically accurate (especially about Mark and Matthew), but that is going beyond what the evidence gives us." So, Ehrman does not claim that Papias would be accurate in his reports, except for reporting the fact that he knew people who knew the apostles or their companions. As shown from another source, Ehrman believes that almost everything else Papias told is inaccurate and there is no indication that Ehrman has changed his mind about Papias's reliability. So, you cannot make Ehrman say that what Papias reports about a Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew would be a reliable report. What Ehrman stressed is that Papias is not a reliable source for the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and it could be even be inferred that Ehrman affirms that Papias is historically inaccurate (with the exception of knowing those people). Just read the quote above ignoring the parenthesis and you will see what I mean. So, using Ehrman to establish the historical reliability of Papias's report fails verification, it is using partial quotations to justify an idea that Ehrman rejects. So, I was at least right about misrepresenting Ehrman's view. That's why I said that I cannot assume a fair rendering of the viewpoints of those sources, either you have failed to understand Ehrman's point or you have willfully misrepresented it. At least you could concede that you have misread what Ehrman has to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the sources who say that the Gospel of Matthew was written anonymously:

• E P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, (Penguin, 1995) page 63 - 64.
• Bart D. Ehrman (2000:43) The New Testament: a historical introduction to early Christian writings. Oxford University Press.
• Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1995:287) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P MATTHEW, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Quote: „Matthew, like the other three Gospels is an anonymous document.”
• Donald Senior, Paul J. Achtemeier, Robert J. Karris (2002:328) Invitation to the Gospels Paulist Press.
• Keith Fullerton Nickle (2001:43) The Synoptic Gospels: an introduction Westminster John Knox Press.
• Ben Witherington (2004:44) The Gospel code: novel claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Da Vinci InterVarsity Press.
• F.F. Bruce (1994:1) The Gospel of John Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
• Patrick J. Flannagan (1997:16) The Gospel of Mark Made Easy Paulist Press

List by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Could use some eyes on Acupuncture. Some editors are trying to elevate some unsupported or poorly supported explanations to the level of "theories". A lot of the material in the section on "Proposed mechanisms of action" is not supported by sources complying with WP:MEDRS, and the most widespread explanation, the placebo effect, is played down, probably violating WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which of my sources do you think fail WP:MEDRS? -A1candidate (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which of the sources being used for highly speculative ideas about mechanisms violates WP:MEDRS? Is that your question? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

FTN Discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales

An editor has raised concerns with FT/N on UT:Jimbo, thread can be found at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#fringe_theories_notice_board_vs_forum_shop_.26_canvasing. Nformation 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Precognition

A new user Seleukos256 has been pushing some fringe views and deleting scientific sources on the precognition article. I did some further research. Here is one of his comments (it is obviously the same guy):

"I visited the Misplaced Pages page on precognition this morning and it was awful. It said things like: no replicable experiments, violates scientific principles (I have a Ph.D. in physics and say this is a B.S. excuse and no I don't mean the degree), no scientists believe in it... yadda, yadda. I fixed and replaced some of the most painfully false statements today. But I think we need to be more proactive in promoting and defending scientific parapsychological results on Misplaced Pages. It is the first place many people go for reference.

If you see these kinds of statements on Misplaced Pages pages, please DELETE! The "skeptics" have nothing to back them up."

From a spiritualist blog . Eyes may need to be put on some of these parapsychology articles, I suspect that other stuff may start being deleted and all kinds of crackpot claims are going to be inserted. I don't have time for this because I am busy working on some other articles. But just giving a heads up, if anyone wants to watch that article. Thanks. Fodor Fan (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Added to watchlist, I also note "I have a Ph.D. in physics and say this is a ..." is an appeal to authority, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The section on "Tachyon theory" does injustice to the word "theory". Surely this is conjecture at best? --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed it wholesale, undue weight fringe theories. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory

Christ myth theory is a minority theory concerning the historical origins of Jesus. I'm concerned about some POV language in the article's lead section which gives the impression that this subject is fringe or bogus history:

"Modern scholarship has generally dismissed these analogies as without formal basis, and a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors."

The quote about "parallelomania" comes from a single specific Jesuit Priest Gerald O'Collins who seems to be quite a mainstream Catholic theologian but hardly representative of historians in general.

The article presents a comprehensive list of mainstream objections to the theory, however none of suggest that the theory is 'laden with historical error'. I think it's also odd that this is characterized as "Modern scholarship" - as these objections to Christ Myth theory have existed for as long as as the theory. I can only suspect that the editor may have been trying to suggest that this theory has been recently debunked. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would love Misplaced Pages to demand genuine reliable sources (not historians' interpretations) for the claims about the existence of religious figures, but it ain't gonna happen. Any argument like this is going to be coloured by the beliefs of the participants. It's a waste of time and energy. It will never be properly encyclopaedic. Just forget it, and let the believers and non-believers believe. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I share your frustration but that's really not a very constructive thought! ;-) --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess that it could be a good idea to list some related discussions from the archives:

• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 34#Zeitgeist: The Movie - is Christ Myth Theory a conspiracy theory?
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Jesus myth theory and fringe
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Christ myth theory RfC
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Christ myth theory
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Christ myth theory
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Christ myth theory and Historicity of Jesus
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Jesus myth hypothesis
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jesus myth hypothesis, part 7295
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Jesus myth hypothesis
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Jesus myth hypothesis, part 624
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Jesus myth hypothesis

So, let's see what do we have now... You do not like "Modern scholarship has generally dismissed these analogies as without formal basis, and a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors."? Especially "I think it's also odd that this is characterized as "Modern scholarship" - as these objections to Christ Myth theory have existed for as long as as the theory.? Well, as far as I understand, that statement means that the theory was more popular at some time, but now is fringe. By itself it does not say if this change is because of new evidence or because of change of fashion. Anyway, the statement looks true and no reason to think otherwise has been given, thus there is no need to change anything at the moment.

Also, HiLo48, "I would love Misplaced Pages to demand genuine reliable sources (not historians' interpretations) for the claims about the existence of religious figures, but it ain't gonna happen." corresponds to wishes of supporters of many fringe historical (and non-historical) theories. You might think that this theory is unpopular unjustly, but Misplaced Pages must make sure it does not correct any existing injustice (it is somewhat related to Misplaced Pages:Righting great wrongs)... If you don't like that, read the archives of this noticeboard and (hopefully) you will start hating the alternatives far more. If that won't help, there's also my essay Misplaced Pages:Wikiheresy...

Anything else..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have read far more into my comment than I said, or meant, and I meant little more than I said. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Then... Um... OK, I guess..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• So far as I know, there are no credible academic sources supporting the idea that Jesus never existed. Nor any support for the idea that he might have existed but the gospel-epistle writers made up his teachings. There's some discussion of the possibility that the gospel writers based some parts of the gospel stories on OT stories (it's mainstream that Matthew seems to have gone out of his way to paint Jesus as a second Moses and to have ransacked Isaiah in particular for "prophesies" proving that Jesus was the Messiah). At that end of the spectrum, you're moving out of "Jesus as myth" and into solid scholarship. Perhaps the article needs to be clearer about what it considers "myth". PiCo (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Morna Hooker takes the possibility seriously as does Dawkins, Ellegard believed it. Price seems like a credible source, even though he is far outside the mainstream of biblical scholarship and now mainly writes for a popular audience. But the problems with bias in the article are not so much that it misrepresents the mainstream opinion among biblical scholars, but that it tries to hide that it is mainly an issue studied by biblical scholars, not scholars of antiquity in general, and tries to persuade the reader that the consensus is much wider than it really is. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins and Ellegard were both unqualified to offer an opinion; I'd need a citation for Hooker's statement. I have to question whether we have to consider any consensus beyond biblical scholars, theologians, and historians of the period; otherwise we would also be ratifying the widely held idiocies about 9/11. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins and Ellegard are certainly credible academic sources, which is what PiCo was talking about, and much more so than most biblical scholars. Theologians are of course not credible sources on this, though their opinions should certainly be represented. Biblical scholarship should certainly be represented, though there are grave problems with both bias and methodological professionalism, as is acknowledged to varying degrees both inside and outside the field. But the thing is, very few scholars outside these disciplines have even studied the matter. The article should make that clear, rather than falsely implying that there exists a consensus of "historians" or "scholars of antiquity" who have studied the matter. There is a clear consensus among biblical scholars, their credentials as historians and their impartiality have been questioned by serious scholars inside and outside the field, biblical scholarship maintains that in general this does not invalidate the conclusions of biblical scholarship, most of the very few scholars outside biblical scholarship who have studied the matter agree with the conclusion of biblical scholars that Jesus almost certainly existed, and that's about it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.122. Classicist Michael Grant wrote in "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." The reason why scholars of antiquity do not study "Jesus never existed" is that they consider it a silly idea not worth wasting their time on, similar to why few Shakespearean scholars bother refuting "the earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works."Smeat75 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We'd need a source about most historians finding the idea silly. So far no one has presented such a source. Maybe it exists. If so, let's have it so we can add it to the article. Until then let's represent a consensus among biblical scholars as just that, a consensus among biblical scholars, and mention that of the very few scholars outside that field who have studied the matter, most do not consider the CMT tenable either. Note that Dawkins does consider the CMT a reasonable possibility, though on balance he thinks it's probably false. Price, one of the leading proponents of the CMT goes the other way, he holds that while historicity is not a ridiculous point of view, on balance the CMT seems more probable to him. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not "a consensus of Biblical scholars". You were right the first time, "most of the very few scholars outside biblical scholarship who have studied the matter agree with the conclusion of biblical scholars that Jesus almost certainly existed". The only classical historian I am aware of who has addressed the matter at all for many years was the already referred to Michael Grant, that was in 1977 and his view, quoted above, has not been challenged. Smeat75 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Good debate - from what I can tell, within bible scholarship (which is dominated by people of a religious worldview) Christ Myth Theory is fringe or bordeline fringe. Amongst secular bible historians (a very small group of scholars which includes people like Robert M. Price) Christ Myth Theory is considered (at least) to be a viable theory. My concerns were that the quote above misrepresents the erea in which objections to the theory were developed and also quotes the opinion of a jesuit priest as an example of as a mainstream historian. I'd prefer an alternative text like:

"Critics have dismissed these analogies as without formal basis: The Jesuit scholar Gerald O'Collins describes it as a form of parallelomania laden with historical errors." --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, a theory taken seriously only by "a very small group of scholars" is fringe by definition.

"Critics have dismissed these analogies" is misleading, as the whole point is that "critics" include almost everyone. It is just as bad as "Critics think that perpetuum mobile is impossible" would be in some other article.

So, let's put it this way: Salimfadhley, do you agree that Christ Myth Theory is fringe..? If you are a proponent of a fringe theory, that's OK (as far, as Misplaced Pages is concerned). It is OK to think that the theory is fringe undeservedly, for wrong reasons, as long as you accept that it is fringe and it is not Misplaced Pages's job to change that. But it is not OK to pretend that that theory is not fringe. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli

Please see Talk:Ruggero Santilli#Page seems to be giving credibility... The page is giving credibility to the man and to several of his theories, that are clearly fringe theories and fringe science, without giving due warning, or showing credible sources of refutation, thus giving it undue weight. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the BLP makes it clear that none of his theories have been accepted. Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

March Against Monsanto Deletion discussion

I've put the article March Against Monsanto up for deletion. It is of interest to this board because the reason for deletion is that the article inherently fails WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE because it appears that the scientific consensus can not be stated without WP:OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

While the movement might be full of crazypants, the article is notable enough. What does scientific consensus have to do with a political-ish movement? It behooves us who frequent this board not to get too wrapped up in fighting against the crazy that we forget that properly described and referenced crazy has a place in an encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's being kept. For me, the crunch point comes (when taking fringe guidance into account) when the article states, of the protestor's concerns, "GM foods can adversely affect human health, causing 'cancer, infertility and birth defects'". Should that be allowed to stand as-is, or immediately qualified as a fringe view in accord with the fringe guidance? Alexbrn 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

After a quick search of the article, I could not find the claim Alexbrn cites. petrarchan47tc 19:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Try the "Concerns" section; first bullet point. Of course the content may go since the article is in flux, but on a point of principle in how to apply fringe guidance, the question of how this content should be dealt with is of interest to this board, I think. Alexbrn 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fringe or not, a statement like that needs a real reference, not my 17 yr olds blog. And that's really my point, crazy views are fine, IF there are references to back them up and other references to explain the real context. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well this is sourced to the International Business Times, one of the better sources in the article, and based on some material on the March's official site which states: "Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects." Clearly IBT haved toned this down a bit by removing the "Research studies have shown" claim. So, given that the sourcing looks good, the fringe question remains: does this "crazy view" need to be qualified with the scientific counter-view, or not? Alexbrn 20:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO, one cannot make that statement without 'research studies' of some kind at least. So, if there are none, then it should be qualified. If there are some, then the article should either say that, or link to another Misplaced Pages article that discusses the matter in detail. My preference would be to keep an article like this focused on the group, not whether they are right. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In my understanding there are no reliable sources that support this protestors' concern. Alexbrn 21:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not complaining about anything in the wiki article, but rather that someone related to the protest printed something off-wiki that you disagree with? Why does that deserve mention at a noticeboard or on wiki at all? petrarchan47tc 21:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's right there in the article text: "The stated belief that GM foods can adversely affect human health, causing 'cancer, infertility and birth defects'". Alexbrn 21:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if you have such a big problem with this, why did you add it to the article? This was pointed out at the last ANI about Viriditas' behaviour... did you not realize this was pointed out? He said that claims were being added by the very people who then used them as evidence for their complaints. Reread Viriditas' comments, my friend. This looks highly suspicious to anyone with a brain stem, I would imagine. petrarchan47tc 22:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WTF? are you just trolling us now Alexbrn? I thought you generally had a good approach to the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As discussed at the time on Talk, I don't believe a solution to the issue is to sanitize the protestors' views or be selective with sources so as to swerve around the issue. They hold a certain view, and are reliably reported as doing so. It simply wasn't/isn't honest to pretend otherwise so the fringe issue goes away, surely? That would just be editorial expediency. (And in any case, Viritditas' less good source made mention of more vague "serious health conditions", so it is not as if that resolves the fringe issue here either). Alexbrn 06:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what Alexbrn has said. He never denied adding it, and he appears to be looking for guidance as to whether an incorrect view given through a quote should be added to an article when there is no contextualisation to the scientific consensus. He did not state he had a problem with it, he stated he was not sure where policy stood, and thus was seeking guidance. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - I drew attention to my edit at the time and raised the fringe concern, so it's not as if this is some kind of revelation. There's been too much focus on supposed editor behaviour in this article, at the expense of content. Alexbrn 06:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So what are the options?

Taking this case of the claim that GM food has adverse affects health (which runs counter to science) it seems 3 options are in play:

1. Do not include the claim in whole or in part. An editor recently attempted this solution but was reverted on the basis that "we include claims made no matter the science".
2. Let the fringe claim stand 'as is', accepting that it is the view of the protestors, and inaccurate, but sufficiently qualified by the overall context of the article that this does not matter: readers will understand it's a view and not a scientific statement. This is the situation in the article right now.
3. More immediately qualify the statement with a statement of the scientific consensus.

I am not sure the guidance in WP:FRINGE gives clear enough direction in this kind of case. It says "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Is the MaM article "covering" the GM health view "in detail"? Alexbrn 07:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• We should never mislead readers into thinking something inaccurate is true. If something can not be written in context, then it should not be included. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What makes this tricky in my view is that omitting (or watering-down) the protestors' #1 stated concern is also a kind of "untruth" by misrepresentation. I suppose if it came to it this would be a lesser problem than having false health information ... Alexbrn 06:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(Add) And it seems to me the fringe guidance is a lot softer here than the actual policy itself, which states "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. ... This also applies to other fringe subjects ..." (my bolding). Alexbrn

I disagree that the guidelines are softer. They conform to the above. Any specific part of the guidelines you are thinking of? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevant quote from WP:FRINGE: "Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality". IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Any fringe claims anywhere in WP absolutely must be clearly identified as such and placed in the context of the mainstream view. There is no conceivable reason for making an exception here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, call me a language-lawyer but "located within a context" (guideline) is more wishy-washy than "clearly described as such" (policy). Indeed, the argument has been made about the MaM article that since the topic is a protest march, that fact in itself provides all the "context" necessary to address any concerns about fringe claims. I think the guideline would be better mirroring the policy wording more closely here: "Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context clearly identified as being so derived Such claims may, for example, contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality" (new wording in bold). That could make the provisions of the policy more clearly applicable to the MaM problem. Alexbrn 06:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We would not remove a statement of principles and goals from the Communist Party article, no matter how much of a consensus may exist that Communist principles and goals are wrong. There might be a major debate about March on Monsanto's ideology and the veracity of the goals it espouses. As long as it is not asserted, within the article, that MaM's views represent a scientific consensus, we ought to present their views fairly and even-handedly. Endless back-and-forth debates about the veracity of each claim should probably go in Genetically modified food controversies, the article conveniently existing for such debates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hear, here.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

To test the content conforms to policy we must ask: is the fringe view "clearly described" as such? Simply "not asserting" the fringe view's fringeiness would not pass that test, and so the content would be in violation of WP policy. Alexbrn 06:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds do you assert that MAM is "fringe"? Its views on the science of the effects of GMO food may be out of the mainstream, but its other assertions are not necessarily science-based, but rather are allegations and conclusions about corporate control of agriculture and the bioethics of genetic modification that are not subject to a falsifiable test. We should describe their conclusions about the health effects as out of the mainstream of current science, but the rest of their ideas and beliefs cannot be so described. It is clear from the data that a general distrust of GMO foods is not, in any way, shape or form a fringe belief. For example, polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans support requiring that GMO products be labeled as such.

In other words, we are required to note that the health effects issue is opposed by the weight of current scientific data. There is no scientific data that can prove or disprove a concern founded upon bioethics of transgenics or a concern based upon the issue of corporate control, patents, etc. relating to agriculture. This may represent minority views, but they are quite clearly not fringe theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

MAM itself is not necessarily fringe, but the claim that GM food causes cancer, birth defects and infertility certainly is. It is that specific claim which is under discussion here. Alexbrn 09:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The article already spells that out. "There is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater health risk than conventional food."

If you are referring to the mention in the "positions" section, there is absolutely no call to emplace a rebuttal to each and every claim made in that statement of positions. The section title makes it abundantly clear that those are the positions held by MaM. A "Positions" section would be rendered useless and incomprehensible if every statement of position was followed by a lengthy back-and-forth about whether that position is right or wrong. The point of the section is to lay out the claims made by MaM - no more, no less.

If you believe that further rebuttal is required, why could a sourced critique not be inserted in the "Monsanto and industry response" section below? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

An example is to be found in the concepts section of our Marxism article. Marxism today is, if anything, far more of a fringe theory than opposition to GMOs. A vast majority of economists and political scientists would probably consider it entirely disproven. But we do not overload the "Concepts" section with an endless debate. Instead, the "concepts" of Marxism are clearly laid out, in a manner that clearly and unambiguously presents them as the tenets of the theory and ideology. Criticisms of those tenets are placed in a separate section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

First, There is some straw man argumentation here. There is no proposal for "every statement of position" to be "followed by a lengthy back-and-forth". The discussion is about fringe claims: in this case the single claim that GM food causes cancer, etc. Secondly, what happens on the Marxism article does not determine WP policy, so is really irrelevant. The statement that GM food causes cancer is, as the article stands, a fringe statement that is not "clearly described" as such, and so this content violates Misplaced Pages policy. The fact we have a sentence a dozen paragraphs earlier that qualifies it is not "clear description". We simply need to add a rider in situ. Alexbrn 13:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

Could use some eyes on this please. Several "fans" of Sheldrake are trying to hide the fact that his work isn't very highly thought of by real scientists. Community consensus on pseudoscience is being ignored. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. This is one of those articles that has been forced to cite 17 references in order to have Sheldrake's work accurately described as pseudoscience in the lead. And yet, not even a fraction of the criticism contained in those 17 references can be found in the article itself... - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could list them under one ref? It looks very silly. I'll do it if you don't revert it :-) User:Carolmooredc 22:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've combined those refs into a note. I've also removed a primary sourced paragraph talking about articles he wrote. This should not be mentioned here, there is no weight given to primary sourced material. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This article links to psychic staring effect which may have some fringe issues. Related to Sheldrake there is also Telephone Telepathy which is stuffed with primary sources. Vzaak (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Astrology

There is an ongoing discussion about the definition of astrology at talk:astrology. Part of the problem is that our treatment of the concept of divination is split between two articles, Divination, which deals with religious rituals, and Fortune-telling which deals with non-religious forms of divination like astrology. I'm reluctant to use the term "fortune-telling" in the definition in the Astrology article, and would much prefer to use the term "divination". However, that would mean wikilinking the word "divination" with the article on fortune-telling. Further input would be appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The closely-related question of the definition of fortune-telling was brought up at Talk:Fortune-telling after this edit.--Other Choices (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Some very quick GScholar searching tends to show that they are nearly the same thing. The very many more hits for "fortune telling" are to a large degree accounted for by many laundry lists of spiritualist/occultish practices and to a lesser degree by discussion of fortune telling as a source of Romany livelihood. There are numerous hits which show they are taken as synonyms by the authors. My sense of it is that divination and fortune-telling are largely the same thing, but that there is a contextual difference. Divination seems to invariably imply that the practitioners take it seriously, whereas contexts where people are just fooling around or entertaining themselves with it (e.g. using a Ouija Board at a party) invariably use fortune telling. It seems to me that a unified article would make more sense. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I did suggest that a merge might be in order, though I'm not sure that it would succeed. While I personally think the distiction is artificial and doesn't reflect what I'm seeing in the literature, I can sort of understand the desire of the ediotors involved to distribute the religious and non-religious practices into separate articles. Disagree that the difference intended is serious vs. non-serious. It seems like it's religious vs. non-religious. Some people take fortune-telling methods like astrology very seriously. Talking to someone who does can be quite an, um, interesting experience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also the question of to what extent astrology is reliably associated with divination and/or fortune-telling. From what I have seen, there is NOT a 1-to-1 correspondence. Brockbank's Ph.D dissertation, Chapter 2 (p. 57 and following), discusses divination as one of several explanations of astrology. And Peter Whitfield's scholarly Astrology: A History has the following on page 8: "It would be easy to argue that its motive was simply the desire to see into the future, but astrology has always made intellectual claims which were far higher than fortune-telling or crystal-ball gazing."

And Whitfield on page 128 states that during the Renaissance "astrology was not merely a system of divination, but had widened into a system of beliefs about cosmology, natural events, health and disease, destiny and death."

--Other Choices (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the abstract of the dissertation you cited says: "Instead, it argues that astrology cannot be a science and should be seen as a form of divination;"... Also, I don't see why a "widened system of divination" (as other sources you gave seem to describe it) should not count as a "system of divination"... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Whitfield, I don't think that "widened system of divination" fits Whitfield's beginning statement that "astrology has always made intellectual claims that were far higher than fortune-telling or crystal-ball gazing." If the essential difference between fortune-telling and divination is the context within which the activity takes place (as Dominus Vobisdu argues), then Whitfield's statement logically applies to divination as well as fortune-telling. But perhaps such reasoning is WP:SYNTH.

--Other Choices (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Brockbank, I think there are two separate issues here. First of all is Brockbank's SUMMARY of different explanations for astrology in Chapter 2, which shows that there are long-standing non-divinatory explanations (or rationalizations, if you prefer) for astrology. My understanding is that this material is within wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Second is Brockbank's own conclusion that astrology is a form of divination, which he situates within his new "Responsive Cosmos" hypothesis, and this is a whole new layer of fringe for wikipedia editors to deal with. (Brockbank's "Responsive Cosmos" could easily pop up on the talk pages of the Theology or Religious studies articles, not to mention the Astrology or the Divination or the Astrology and science articles.) He summarizes in his conclusion, starting on p. 381.

--Other Choices (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, I don't think I understand. If you say that Brockbank's dissertation is "fringe among the fringe", then, um, why should we care what it says? Can't you find something that is at least "mainstream among the fringe"..? Also, it doesn't even seem to have full bibliographic information in some comfortable place. For example, year. Or school. Thus it doesn't look like a reliable source...

Likewise, could you, please, give a little more bibliographic information about the other source? For example, if I understand correctly, Whitfield's book you mentioned was published by Abrams Books, which is described as "publisher of high-quality art and illustrated books"... At this point it does not really look very "scholarly" (as you described it)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Brockbank, I'm making a distinction between his summary of existing scholarship (standard procedure in a Ph.D dissertation, and within the scope of reliable sources) and his presentation of his new "Responsive Cosmos" hypothesis, which is by definition fringe because it is so new, so it should be used with extreme caution, if at all. A quick google search shows that his dissertation was accepted by the University of Kent in 2011.

Regarding Whitfield's Astrology: A History as a source, I'll quote a comment by User:Dominus Vobisdu from the Talk:Astrology page: "Whitfield is a real historian, and has written the ten-volume Grolier History of Science. His Astrology: A History was published by the British Museum, which is very reputable. It's on par with the Encylopedia Britannica article."

My copy of Whitfield indicates that it was published by the British Library.--Other Choices (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You are really over relying on this thesis. On Astrology: A History', of I recall, if you check the book it says Abrams. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, could you please explain your vague statement that I am "over relying on this thesis"? Regarding the publisher of Whitfield's Astrology: A History, I have a copy of the book in my hand. The publishing information reads as follows: "First published 2001 by The British Library, 96 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB." The British Library and the British Museum used to be housed in the same building; hence Dominus Vobisdu's identification of the British Museum as the book's publisher. EDIT: And you can check amazon.com here: the publisher is the British Library. --Other Choices (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Atacama skeleton

A new editor appears to be re-inserting POV pushing content without discussion to make it appear that the Atacama skeleton is possible alien. More eyes are welcome, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a good name for the article if anyone has any good ideas, see the talk page. I called it the Atacama skeleton. I was considering Ata (anthropology) since that is what Science (the journal/magazine) calls it, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Medical claims

I don't know if this is the right place. They told me at the Administration noticeboard to try here. Can Mindfulness (psychology) really treat these diseases? I'm not a scientist so I can't decipher the medical studies. Maybe someone can look at them if they have time. Alexbrn reviewed the MBSR article but I think this one needs a review also. Research suggests that mindfulness practices are useful in the treatment of pain, stress, anxiety, depressive relapse, disordered eating, and addiction. Mindfulness has been investigated for its potential benefit for individuals who do not experience these disorders, as well, with positive results. Mindfulness practice improves the immune system and alters activation symmetries in the prefrontal cortex, a change previously associated with an increase in positive effect and a faster recovery from a negative experience.--LarEvee (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

For Mindfulness-based stress reduction the research did appear to indicate some positive mental effects for people taking the program, though nothing like the miraculous curative effects the article was falsely claiming before it was tidied-up. I'll take a look at Mindfulness (psychology) this weekend. Alexbrn 08:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was also worried about the topic some months ago, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_30#Within_scope.3F. The guideline of interest is WP:MEDRS. If you want to start making changes consider also giving the people at WP:WPMED a shout, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'm glad to see there are members who can look at these things and evaluate the research and make the claims and statements accurate and scientific.--LarEvee (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice

I don't think it's worth naming the article, but on a long-standing problem article I added MiszaBot archiving to the talk page after 7 days. This seems to have vastly reduced the problems, since threads didn't stay active to be constantly resurrected. May be worth trying elsewhere. Adam Cuerden 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC re splitting List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

I have posted a proposal to split List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. The talkpage section is Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Splitting article: science .26 non-science topics. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution