Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by POVbrigand (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 21 June 2012 (→BaBar_experiment: r Steve). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Heads up

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded to the good folks at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard for their excellent work in keeping Misplaced Pages mainstream and above-the-board. 209.2.217.151 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how long I'll be allowed to stick around with the WP:RANDY police, but I made some midnight raids today I thought you all should know about:

1) Cold fusion. A wired.com source is being used to claim that DARPA is secretly funding cold fusion through SRI International and Michael McKubre in particular. It may be true that McKubre received some money laundered through the DARPA funding scheme, but wired.co.uk is not a reliable source to expose this and the DARPA document the cold fusion proponents want to cite seems to simply not say anything of the sort. There is this game being played of trying to "legitimize" cold fusion research by claiming quiet funding by the likes of NASA, the US Defense Dept, etc, but these claims are usually dubiously sourced and seem to be mostly soapboxing. Still, expect some pushback and anger from the dedicated cold fusion advocates on that one.

2) Masreliez. Search the archives for more on this one.

• I AFD'd this one. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

3) Plasma cosmology. An organized campaign has happened off-site to try to commandeer this article. Poor sourcing seems to be par for the course. I commented on User talk:Art Carlson's page about my major concerns on this one. Keeping an eye on it would be good and also the fringe physics proponents who are most active there lately.

4) Fractal cosmology. Could use even more clean-up than I gave it. The end of greatness is more-or-less observed and, though there are some who don't believe this, it is a pretty damning falsification of this proposal. One can look at the maps of the cosmos themselves for more on this.

5) Fringe theory: I see a lot of action there, but kept out. Keep up the good work, folks. Educators everywhere thank you for your diligence.

• I reverted one recent unhelpful edit, however the article does not appear to be in such bad shape. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All the best,

209.2.217.151 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

SA / VanishedUser314159

I think there is sufficient evidence to assume the IP is a SOCK of SA / VanishedUser314159. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think an IP is a sock puppet the best place to take this is: WP:SPI. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I also think IP 209.2.217.151 is a sock puppet. And IP 50.74.135.246 is carrying on in a very similar way, so I have reported them both as sock puppets of ScienceApologist at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

Some of you may be interested in this.

50.74.135.246 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - it's a pretty clear case of WP:SYNTH. SteveBaker (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The section was restored by another editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Saltville, Virginia

Edited to make correct the article titled Saltville, Virginia , only to have it changed back to reflect conjecture today. Scientific fact, There is no proof that Spaniards were ever at Saltville as claimed in article or that the Chisca Indian ever lived in the area. Confirmed by Virginia Division of Archaeology. Statements in article are unverified claims and/ or wild guesses. Rockhead56 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a matter for WP:FRINGE. The reference for this fact is a secondary source (the Roanoke Times) which seems to be a respectable paper. It says that the original work was published in the Smithfield Review and cited in the Library of Virginia's "Virginia Memory" Web site. If others are disputing the fact then both sides of the dispute should be mentioned under conditions of WP:NPOV. So now we have primary, secondary and tertiary sources for this claim. I don't see any evidence that the vast majority of mainstream historians disagree - which is what it would take to make this a "Fringe" topic. This may be a matter of historical debate - but it's not "Fringe". SteveBaker (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely not fringe. The most probable location of Maniatique being at Saltville was proposed on several grounds by Beck in 1997. Since then several other scholars have concurred with the evidence, but nobody has disputed it, said "this is fringe" or anything like it. But I reverted your edit there the other day for other reasons as well, like the way your insertion began with the phrase "Editors note:" followed by your unsourced rebuttal ... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion really belongs on the Saltville, Virginia talk page where other/future editors of this article can find and discuss the matter. SteveBaker (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Rockhead does have a point. The Roanoke Times is not really an ideal source for reporting on scientific/scholarly claims, and even this says simply that "He was even able to pinpoint Saltville as the likely location of the murderous raid by conquistadors on an Indian village called Maniatique". Other sources say the village was "near" Saltville . In other words, it's not established fact, which the Saltville, Virginia article seems to say it is. Nor does the article suggest that there is a consensus in favour of his theories. Indeed, it seems to imply they were being ignored because they were considered fringe. "For a while, he wondered if his work was being ignored by the historical academic establishment. Perhaps his assertions that the Spanish set foot in Virginia before the English interfered too forcibly with the commonwealth's accepted historical narrative. But in the past couple of years, many of Virginia's most notable historians have come to regard Glanville's research as valid and significant. 'He's onto something,' said Peter Wallenstein..." So, we have the idea that his theories were "ignored", followed by the claim that his work is "valid" and he may be "onto something". Again, it's not presented as accepted fact, but a new and perhaps still non-mainstream view. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There are primary (Smithfield Review), secondary (Virginia Division of Archaeology) and tertiary (Roanoke Times and Library of Virginia's Web site) sources for this claim. Sure, it might not be true, and it's probably disputed - but that doesn't make it "fringe". SteveBaker (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the general view that the Spanish did a bit of burning and plundering in the area seems to be fairly mainstream and uncontroversial, if still not undisputed. Having looked at this in more detail now, the "fringe" aspect seems to be the campaign by Glanville (a retired chemist who has taken up local history) to have commemorative plaques put up at the supposed exact sites of events such as the "First Battle of Saltville". It's his claim to have identified these sites that's of dubious historical value - and may be "fringe". Glanville actually seems to be wildly exaggerating the shocking radicalism of the basic claim in order to suggest that mainstream historians are coming round to accept views they never seem to have found particularly startling or radical at all, as if that justified his rather more speculative claims about the exact sites of events. Anyway, I've commented further on the Saltville Talk page. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a better scholarly link than the Roanoke Times in the main article Chisca, as well as the Robin Beck paper I linked above, which was well before Glanville, but isn't discussed by the Roanoke newspaper, which indeed wasn't the best source. But still hardly fringe. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Glanville is piggybacking on Beck's research while trying to promote himself as the person with the radical new theories that the "establishment" is being forced to come round to. But the two are not saying the same thing - not quite anyway. Paul B (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Note there is a high school mentioned as an archaeological site in Beck, with a cite to an earlier 1992 paper by other archaeologists, but it is actually the Chilhowie High School, just down the road from Saltville, rather than the Saltville HS. Some slight confusion that might need straightening out. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't access that one. The link does not work for me. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I can access it now for some reason. The article seems to refer to speculation that the Chilhowie High School site might have been the centre of a settlement, but that seems to be all. Paul B (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Misplaced Pages on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 05:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Also note this sock puppet which made changes to articles mentioned here: Misplaced Pages:Contributor_copyright_investigations/GreenUniverse. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Esau

User Dilek2 has been adding a fringe theory that the Ottoman Turks are descended from Esau.. This editor has also posted this theory to several other pages and claimed the Orghuz Turks are descended from Uz (son of Aram) At no point has Dilek2 provided even the most unreliable of sources to support any of this. Edward321 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then this isn't a matter for WP:FRINGE - it's WP:NOR and WP:RS that need to be wielded against this editor. SteveBaker (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Cosmos and Psyche

This article appears to be missing mainstream balance and makes it look like Astrology has demonstrated predictive power. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, that's quite awful a real problem. A quick web search failed to turn up even a single review critically evaluating the book's claims (positively or negatively). Many of the reviewers / readers seem very impressed by the volume of evidence presented, but of course that doesn't tell us much. There are also a number of positive reviews of the book as literature and as personal philosophy. It's not inappropriate to include these, as they form an important part of the critical reception of the book. However, the complete lack of any source evaluating its factual claims leaves a huge gap in the article, and the positive literary reviews easily give the impression that the factual claims have also been weighed and accepted. My reading of WP:FRINGE is that, in the absence of secondary sources critically evaluating the author's claims, the article should not attempt to go into those claims in any detail. The sources that would allow us to describe them in a balanced way simply do not exist. The article can still describe the book's contents and an overview of the author's ideas. I think a good rule of thumb is that the article should describe the contents of the book in about as much detail as reflected in existing secondary sources appropriate to the topic. Since we do have reviews describing Cosmos and Psyche as a work of literature and astrology, we can go into some detail on those subjects. But since we don't have any secondary sources to determine e.g. whether the author's claims about correlations between culture and planetary alignments are statistically meaningful, there's not much we can or should say about this subject. As for the critical reception section, I think it's enough to add an introduction making it clear that the section concerns the book's reception as literature. --Amble (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I should say that I don't mean to criticize the editor who has written the article. Looking through the article history, I can see that the primary author is making a good effort to present the material in a fair and neutral manner, and it seems to reflect the sources pretty well. The fundamental issue is in the lack of balance in the available sources themselves. --Amble (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like fringe sources are being used where it is dubious to do so, I saw one published by the Anthroposophical movement. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove large sections of well-referenced material from the article simply because you don't like the opinions being expressed. The article describes peoples opinions, noting that they are their opinions. It does not claim that astrology is valid. Your removal of sections of well-referenced material has no basis in Misplaced Pages policy. Accordingly, I am reverting your edits. You seem to be on some type of ideological mission to remove material with which you disagree. That type of attitude is extremely unfortunate and harmful to the Misplaced Pages project. Please stop removing well-referenced material from the article. — goethean ॐ 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have given reasoning in my edit summaries and on the talk page, I suggest you read them. The material is clearly inadequate for claiming that Tarnas' view is informed by quantum physics. The views of Louise Danielle Palmer of Spirituality & Health magazine don't have due weight for how compelling a case is made by Tarnas. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The source cited is reliable for the opinion of the author. It was presented as the opinion of the author. I am sorry that you think that you need to spoon-feed readers, removing the authors opinions which you deem harmful to their well-being. Misplaced Pages policy allows for the neutral documentation of the published reaction to Tarnas' book. Your removal of large sections of well-referenced text are contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. — goethean ॐ 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is already filled with the different opinons of individuals. Firstly, you had not mentioned mentioned who the individuals were (i.e astrologers etc), and thus the text was misleading, secondly the article is already full of quotes and opinions, but what the quote from Sean M. Kelly is being used is to suggest there is in fact evidence for astrology when this is clearly misleading: Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but --- according to your highly implausible personal spin on Misplaced Pages policy --- we can't add that back in as Kelly's opinion because you object to who published Kelly's book. That's your claim, right? — goethean ॐ 19:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with these differing opinions is not that they are poorly referenced as opinions that those people hold. Sure, there are a bunch of random people with opinions. But that's true of almost any subject. The issue here is one of WP:WEIGHT. The mainstream view is the one that Misplaced Pages must give prominence to in such articles...that's a requirement of WP:FRINGE. So if you fill the article with perfectly well sourced claims from a bunch of fringe supporters without giving considerably more space over to stating the mainstream view (which, evidently, is that this is all a bunch of nonsense) - then you're giving undue weight to those individuals. That's not allowed here - no matter how well referenced. So at the very least, you should pick the most common fringe views, back them up with a couple of choice quotes (which you'll doubtless be able to reference) - and devote the majority of the article to stating the mainstream view. SteveBaker (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, Anthroposophy is a social-religious-philosophical movement that include certain ideas that could be considered fringe. Such a source could be a valid source of information for the reception of the book as a work of religious-philosophical-spiritualism. Most likely not as a source of critical evaluation of Tarnas's attempt to provide historical evidence for his ideas. Have you discussed with the primary author of the article? It looks like he's working to write the article in a balanced way and taking feedback in a constructive way, e.g. from your talk page comment. --Amble (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthroposophy sources would only be acceptable for WP:ABOUTSELF descriptions in related articles due to reliable sourcing issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a self-published source, it is a reliable source for the opinion of the author on the subject of the article. Your edits have no basis in Misplaced Pages policy. — goethean ॐ 17:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you check your text again. You aren't using it for the opinions of the author. You are stating it in the wikipedia tone: Tarnas' view is informed by developments in quantum physics, postmodern philosophy and Jungian psychology. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I say that Kelly thinks that Tarnas' view is informed by quantum physics? If not, please cite the Misplaced Pages policy that you imagine gives you personal veto power over Kelly's words. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Kelly is not a reliable source for what ideas are informed by quantum physics. Only experts in quantum mechanics are reliable enough to offer such opinions. 24.215.188.24 (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I also note that the critical reception (WSJ and John Heron) do not have any of the large quotes etc and only small mentions while positive reception in fringe publications has large quotes, this is clearly unbalanced. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So expend the sections on the critical material! Improve the article! Help out a little! or is your role limited to being a self-appointed religious inquisitor? Maybe you should come up with some sort of rating system according to how much each author agrees with your personal philosophy, and you can remove well-referenced sections of articles based on that. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a legitimate issue in that the book claims to present empirical evidence for astrology. That's not a matter of personal philosophy or religious inquisition, and it's not always possible to fix it by expanding the article, since there may not be any reliable sources that critically evaluate the author's claims. I'm not arguing for or against specific edits, but IRWolfie has a valid concern about the article. --Amble (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. And it's not acceptable to write an article that's stuffed full of fringe quotes and demand that other authors fix the balance problem for you by adding lots of mainstream opinion. It's certainly necessary to maintain the balance of the article - but one perfectly valid way to do that is to prune the undue weight by removing the less notable quotations. If anything, the fault lies in the person who unbalanced the article by putting in all of that undue weight in the first place. That's a clear violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT that should never have happened in the first place. SteveBaker (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why should any positive material about books like this be allowed at all? If anything which supports the author is fringe, then we could just have a hard-and-fast rule that no positive material about astrology will be allowed. That would make things much simpler for everyone. — goethean ॐ 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that I've taken the over-aggressiveness of Goethean here and on the article to WQA. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also note the related article Archetypal_astrology which I have put up for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also this article Archetypal_cosmology which appears to claim the existence of the new paradigm sciences that with Jungian Psychology help to outline a new mythic worldview. No indication at all about the mainstream view or acceptance is given in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another candidate for AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream media source presenting minority version

The mainstream German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has in a report by one of its senior reporters on the Houla massacre presented an account of the May 25 events that supports the claims of the Syrian government and thus contradicts the opinion of mainstream media in general. There is discussion on the talk page on whether or not to allow the FAZ article into the article. One principal contributor to the article has asserted that it should not be included, citing it to be a fringe position, and that it shouldn't be used unless other mainstream media in turn report on it. I'm not sure if this demand for coverage by more mainstream media for a source that is already mainstream, presenting an obvious minority viewpoint, represents a good understanding of WP:FRINGE. I'm therefore asking for clarity on the issue. There might be other relevant considerations from a WP:FRINGE point-of-view besides the one I'm inquiring specifically about. __meco (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Cross allegations of "fringe" seem to be common in international or global political disputes. What is "mainstream" in Russian or Chinese media, may not be at all "mainstream" in the German, Belgian or Canadian media, for instance. It worries me to think we may be seeing an increased tendency to use "fringe" as an opportunity for wikipedia to weigh in for one government or its media versus another's. From a neutral standpoint, we should use varied sources to explain and attribute what all the significant viewpoints are on such an international controversy or dispute without making an endorsement of any of these sources, taking a stand, or marginalizing any of them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion in the talk page this is really under the purview of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. At any rate I too am hesitant to use the term "fringe" to encompass minority versions of recent events; when we're talking fringe history we should be talking long-established viewpoints, not counting accounts in last month's newspapers. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm the contributor meco's talking about, and if I misused the term "fringe theory", I apologize. I've actually stated 3-4 times in that thread that I agree that the FAZ report should be included in some form, including in the post meco's citing; I'm not sure why meco claims the opposite here. I merely meant to point out that the FAZ report, which has only been reproduced by one other reliable source, should be given little weight compared to the thousands of reliable sources that give credence to the UN report instead. I'll use a phrase like "extreme minority" in the future instead. =) Khazar2 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hidden character stone

Hoax, joke? Source 1 (not a RS) suggests it might be the equivalent of an April Fool's joke. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the original English article it apparently came from: http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-5-31/29172.html, and the Chinese article it was translated from: http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/5/5/26/n934027.htm. Equazcion 08:39, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why people don't simply assume that the rock fell, split, and then someone came along and carved the words into it? Seems like mundane graffiti is by far the most reasonable explanation. Are we missing some detail in the story here? SteveBaker (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

John Major Jenkins

Article about a writer on the horrible Mayan doom this year, I've removed some puffery in the lead but needs work. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Biology and political orientation?

I have been told that this is a suitable forum for an alert about the encyclopedic quality of Biology and political orientation.

The page is currently supported by a single political project (and no scientific project). Personally, I wish to refrain from involvement, following unfortunate interaction elsewhere with a prominent member of that supporting project.

—MistyMorn (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

This is attracting SPAs. See WP:NPOV and this thread at DRN to see one of them. A new one has just arrived. If you look at the talk page, you can see I've been removing some bad sources, got rid of the quoteboxes which were pov (probably everyway, we shouldn't have any pov in any direction), and have removed a section on Punt that besides being badly sourced didn't actually discuss the history of the controversy.

Note please the bright yellow banner when you edit and the note at the top of the article page - this is not an article about the controversy, it is an article about the history of the controversy although editors too frequently ignore this. I'm sure it needs more work to make it truly NPOV. SPAs of course can make it almost impossible to keep that way. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be one of the most common repeat offenders here. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

See - IP, again, adding 'European' to "scholarly consensus", and white/darkened to caucasian. The Diop stuff would be ok if it was oriented towards the history of the debate, which it might be (in a rush), and the Petrie/Budge stuff is a slight problem. Budge seems to have simply been wrong but I can't find a source discussing him, and I think Petrie belongs in the Dynastic race section. The problem is with few to no other editors involved, SPAs can take over. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Diop's positions may take a good deal of unpicking. I did some work on his biography, and dug out a good source on his studies in the 1940s-1950s. But most stuff written about him claims him for more simplistic positions than he actually took, and that's both the pro and the anti. Bernal similar. Bernal's first volume of Black Athena has a detailed history of the debate from C18 through to C20, and I have been wondering whether it might just be considered reliable. It was the ancient history that was so heavily criticised (but also has defenders). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Since this article is under probation per Arbcom, we already know it is a troublesome article where disputes may occur. A brand-new IP editor, 86.161.173.98 (talk · contribs), has been adding controversial material with no discussion. In my opinion it is reasonable to issue two months of semiprotection. If SirShawn (talk · contribs) re-adds his own material again before getting consensus on the talk page, he might be blocked. The Arbcom probation allows any uninvolved admin to issue a topic ban if needed. In my opinion, we are not yet at the point where topic bans are necessary, but we could be there soon if the new editors don't show willingness to follow consensus. SirShawn has already been notified under WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the potential copyright violations from the article from the banned sockpuppet GreenUniverse. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hindu astrologist Ravinder Kumar Soni

Anyone want to have a go at this one? Some very dubious sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion is the route to go. I get no hits but social networking and us. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings and its friends and relations

The article ethereal beings is up for deletion as (in User:AndyTheGrump's assessment) "One Big Pile of Synthesis and Original Research". I would agree that something drastic needs to be done, though I'm more inclined to merge and prune the bejesus out of it. Anyway, the ancillary issue is that there are a lot of terms for immaterial beings, both by genus and as overall classes, and the latter are really quite a mess. Spirit lacks references but is basically sane, and on the other hand we have horrible messes like this one, and non-physical entity, and I haven't chased about the reset of the general articles. There are also questionable genus articles like Daemon (classical mythology), which I'm pretty sure is a more or less made-up modern term. The whole set of articles needs at least a once-over to deal with the most egregious cases. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

BaBar_experiment

I think the other members of the board might also want to share their thoughts on whether this is a fringe theory or not. The experiment is not replicated and so far no peer reviewed papers are published. So that's fringe as far as I understand. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The results were (or were going to be) submitted to a journal last month , and are across science news websites. Clearly they aren't going to be published yet in only a month. There is nothing fringe about this in any way, this is as mainstream as it gets. It is obvious that you are also aware of this. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No a team of 500 scientists is not mainstream. Just pick up your favorite physics text book to read what is mainstream. This is new unverified non-peer reviewed experimental claims. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence ! A couple of newsy items will not suddenly make this mainstream. Believe me, I have been working long enough on a fringe topic to know one when I see one. btw, I have reread my original comment and I agree that there are parts that I could and should have written differently --POVbrigand (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

List of journal papers published by the BaBar team: , mostly in peer-reviewed journals. I also took your advice by glancing at an introductory textbook on particle physics and found several prominent mentions of the BaBar experiment. Here's another one that specifically mentions flavor physics at BaBar as an avenue to find physics beyond the standard model. In fact, I doubt you will find any general textbook on particle physics from the past 10 years that doesn't devote some space to physics beyond the standard model, and most of them will mention BaBar. Your attempt to ridicule WP:FRINGE backfires by showing how utterly trivial it is most of the time to distinguish developments in real science from fringe claims while guided by bedrock Misplaced Pages policies and outside sources. --Amble (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice list, doesn't mean a lot. Many fringe stuff managed to get through peer review. Only the last non-peer reviewed paper is the extraordinary claim and that one is not yet replicated, but in Japan they are working on a replication "Belle". But even a replication wouldn't mean it will become mainstream overnight. Surely there are textbooks that mentioning this effort, that doesn't mean it is mainstream. Plenty of textbooks also mention the Fleischman-Pons experiment for example.

I am not ridiculing WP:FRINGE at all, so I don't see anything backfiring at me. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that you honestly believe WP:FRINGE applies here, because it is so easy to show that this is not remotely a fringe topic.. The huge number of peer-reviewed papers, prominent mention in textbooks as mainstream science, etc. clearly demonstrate this. Plenty of textbooks mention Pons and Fleischman as an example of pathological science. None do for BaBar. If you think the recent analysis showing a 3.4-sigma discrepancy from the standard model prediction is too new to be sourced well, you could make that argument, but that's completely different from calling BaBar a fringe experiment, which is what you originally posted above. Moving the goalposts in this way also leads me to doubt that you're presenting an argument you sincerely believe. --Amble (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is fringe or not - but in a sense, it doesn't matter. The article is pretty good about saying that this isn't settled science. If there is "mainstream" criticism of it, then we should be sure to adhere to WP:WEIGHT - but aside from that, I don't see a problem with this. We should keep an eye on the news - see if there is independent verification and/or peer-reviewed publication - or whether there are widely expressed criticisms that need to be mentioned in the article. SteveBaker (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above a Japanese "Belle" experiment for replication is underway, but even a replication doesn't mean it becomes mainstream. Otherwise I see it the same way as you. --POVbrigand (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The project is investigating an aspect of an established phenomenon in physics with an almost half-century history and for which a Noble Prize has been awarded. Unless obsolete, which this is not, then as IRW says you can't get much more mainstream. Applying a Jacobellis test is not sufficient justification for labeling science as fringe. Likewise, the absence of a peer-reviewed publication is a possible basis to challenge verifiability and notability, but does not reflect whether it is fringe or not: many mainstream scientists have unpublished mainstream data - that may make it non-notable and unverifiable, but does not automatically make it fringe, nor does publication automatically turn fringe into mainstream (e.g. water memory). Agricolae (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I think this falls under WP:Fringe "4. Alternative theoretical formulations". It is not mainstream, this is new. I trust that these scientists use the scientific method and that their results truly indicate something remarkable. But as long as it is not replicated, nor peer reviewed this is fringe. When there is no plausible theory presented for these experimental results this is fringe. To paraphrase Huizenga: ""Furthermore, if the claimed measurement is not in line with the conventional theory, one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring." --POVbrigand (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no "alternative theoretical formulation" because there's no theoretical formulation at all. What you're talking about (when you're not suggesting that BaBar as a whole is somehow a fringe project) is an experimental result. --Amble (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

POVb, is there some larger point you're trying to make? You're usually pretty reasonable, but to argue that a large, collaborative project at SLAC is "fringe" is so utterly bizarre that I can't help but wonder if there's an unspoken subtext. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(I was thinking the exact same thing!) SteveBaker (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

To declare something cannot possibly be fringe just because "a large collaborative project" came up with it is also bizarre. It would make mainstream out of any extraordinary claim that comes out of a well funded project and it would dismiss as fringe anything extraordinary that comes out of a shoestring budget funded project. The level of budgeting is not the indicator to decide what is to be believed, or is it ? Are the funding agencies defining what is mainstream ?

But if it is true that it is now a mainstream fact that the standard model is flawed, than how can we judge any other claim that is not in line with the standard model ? It would be bizarre to argue that a claim is fringe because it is in conflict with the standard model and at the same time argue that it is mainstream accepted that the standard model is flawed.

Just read my original comment as a "thesis" that I like to discuss. Surely it is obvious to the editors who know me that I deliberately used wording that I encountered here on WP. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course he is. POVbrigand has repeatedly argued that fringe theories should be treated with more "respect", as it were. It's being going on for as long as my glass of Evian can remember. This section is pure WP:POINT. 'Oh Looook, we can argue that a BIG INTERNATIONAL scientific project if fringe; doesn't that tell you that the whole concept of 'fringe' theories is arbitrary and unfair?' Paul B (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

boring rhetoric --POVbrigand (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Infantile phrase making. Please do something productive. Paul B (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

POVB - did you actually read what it says, in full? "Other things usually SHOULD NOT be called pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages: 4. Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are NOT pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process." (emphasis added) You are right that this applies (sort of, but see Amble above) and it means the opposite of what you are saying. As to your point about a theoretical model, for the first 90+ years that we used aspirin as an analgesic, we had no plausible theory about how it did so. That doesn't mean that aspirin being an analgesic was fringe until the late 1990s. Peer review is not the sole determinant of fringe (again, think water memory). It is one indication of acceptance by the scientific community, but not a foolproof nor lone way of assessing that. As to your Huizenga paraphrase, if one result is at odds with the conventional theory, then one must suspect experimental error. If respected scientists have been reporting solid data at odds with a conventional theory for 50 years, then you have to suspect that the conventional theory is wrong. If a Nobel prize has been awarded for the discovery that reality is at odds with the conventional theory, then the scientific community has accepted that the conventional theory is wrong, and it isn't the conventional theory anymore. Agricolae (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

When something is fringe it does not mean it is also pseudoscience. I am not arguing that this BaBar experiment is pseudoscience, my goodness no. I think this BaBar experiment is good science with a fringe outcome. For some reason everyone here seems to accept the fringe outcome as mainstream. I have seen other good science with fringe outcomes, where editors will use some of the same silly rhetoric that I used (and worse !) to keep "physics subjects free of trash."

Regarding the theoretical model. I agree with you, but it seems that the scientific method doesn't. If there is no theory, then it is not falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is dismissed as pseudoscience.

"If respected scientists have been reporting solid data at odds with a conventional theory for 50 years, then you have to suspect that the conventional theory is wrong." Not necessarily so, if you have a preconception that something is crackpot, you can simply resort to discrediting the scientists, discrediting the reports, the papers, discrediting the "advocates", discrediting the publishing journals, ridicule, mock, bagatellize, ignore. And even take pride in doing so. I have seen many fine examples of that behaviour here on WP. cheers --POVbrigand (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this further demonstrates the WP:POINTY nature of bringing this here. If you continue to disrupt this board WP:RFC/USER or similar is the next step. Also, this most likely falls under pseudoscience sanctions broadly interpreted. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTPOINTY Important note: A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate it. As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which he or she does not really agree with, for the purpose of discrediting a policy or interpretation thereof.

Please be so kind and tell us which edits are pointy. Thank you --POVbrigand (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I presume that this accusation is because some people here believe that you put forward this article on a seemingly "normal" scientific project as "fringe" in an effort to weaken the WP:FRINGE guidelines to the point where they might someday be dismissed - which it is pretty clear is something you'd like to happen. Hence this note might be broadly construed as an effort by you to make edits that you don't really agree with in order to make a broader point about the WP:FRINGE guidelines. It's pretty obvious to absolutely everyone (yourself included, I'm sure) that Ba-Bar isn't remotely on the level of (say) Homeopathy or Indigo children - and doesn't need to be subject to the stringent rules that we place true fringe theories under. So I guess I understand why the WP:POINTY accusation is being levelled at you - although it's not an accusation I would have made. Rather, I'm just puzzled as to why a normally level-headed person such as yourself would suddenly make this utterly incomprehensible request. SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you assume I am level-headed (which I am), then why do you assume I would like to see the fringe guidelines dismissed ? (which I don't). I don't want to weaken any guideline or subvert policies. My request was mostly tongue-in-cheek, I honestly didn't anticipate that people would take it for face value. As you explain below, I agree that I am arguing the "fringe hypothesis". I do not think the whole BaBar is fringe, but that their latest claim ("standard model is flawed") is currently indistinguishable from what is regularly understood here as fringe. But you make good points below, so I'll continue there. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I think I have to agree with User:IRWolfie- - your post to this noticeboard is WP:POINTY - you provoked a discussion, seemingly seeking to make the BaBar experiment page fall under WP:FRINGE - not because you believed it truly was fringe - but to make a "tongue-in-cheek" point about the WP:FRINGE guideline as a whole. That is absolutely WP:POINTY - and an egregious waste of everyone's time here. If you have a problem with the guideline - then just come out and say it without causing all of this grief over something that even you don't believe is problematic. SteveBaker (talk)

I think the issue here is that this work is not a "theory" at all - it's still a "hypothesis". They've followed the scientific method correctly:

• Hypothesis: We can advance understanding of the disparity between antimatter and matter by measuring the CP violation.
• Experiment: Do something complicated with gigantic and expensive machines - then measure the outcome.
• Result: Weird things going on that seem to violate the standard model.
• New Hypothesis: OMG! The standard model might be wrong!!
• Publication: (coming soon, we promise)
• Replication: The "Belle" experiment...soon.

At no point have they claimed to have established a new "theory". They are simply saying that they did an experiment and the result appears to be (subject to verification) contrary to the predictions of the standard model. This is the way science advances!

Contrast that with other WP:FRINGE stuff - in just about every other case, the "theory" came first (think Hydrinos or Homeopathy) and the hypothesis/experiment stuff that should have preceded it simply never happened. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream rejects it out of hand.

You might successfully argue that this is a "fringe hypothesis". But they aren't claiming any kind of new "theory" - in the intended sense of Scientific theory. Since there is no new theory it can't possibly be a "fringe theory". Right now, it's a poorly understood, unexplained, not yet properly validated experiment with an uncertain outcome.

The comparison with Fleishmann & Pons is a good one. Initially, the FP experiment was just like this one - a hypothesis and an unvalidated experiment. Then the experiment was reproduced by third parties - and the anomalous readings were elegantly explained using nothing more than mainstream theory. Up to that point, this was not a fringe theory - after this point, it was merely a slightly poorly done experiment. But subsequently, a bunch of people rejected the mainstream explanation and insisted that something real was happening and started pushing out claims for actual new theories. That's why we now talk of cold fusion as "A fringe theory" with good justification.

As to the "BaBar" name being a clear indication that this is fringe - that's just ridiculous mud-slinging. It's called BaBar because the particle that figures centrally in the experiment is the anti-particle of the B meson - which is written as a B with a bar over the top of it and pronounced "B bar" in conversation. Choosing Babar the elephant as a mascot is just a little light humor of the kind you see throughout the scientific world - it's no indication of a lack of seriousness in the project itself. Recall that Homo floresiensis is nicknamed "The Hobbit" after the children's book - and the seminal paper by Alpher, Bethe and Gamow on the origins of the universe is almost always referred to as the "αβγ paper" because it's humorous.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read my naming argument with lots of salt. They can call their experiment whatever they like and it doesn't indicate anything regarding the scientific quality of work.

I like your scientific method list above. But it would also mean that as long as you are presenting a (fringe) hypothesis you are not yet truly fringe. For LENR there are a multitude of fringe hypotheses so the comparison of BaBar with Fleischmann-Pons is surely a good one. To many LENR is "a poorly understood, unexplained, not yet properly validated experiment with an uncertain outcome." It is only partly true that some "anomalous readings were elegantly explained using nothing more than mainstream theory.", because many other thoroughly performed experiments yielded anomalous readings that simply could not be explained by using the mainstream theory = identical situation as BaBar currently is in. So that last category experimental replications brings LENR back to the same level as BaBar currently is: Result = Weird things going on that seem to violate the standard model.

The main idea I have for bringing this topic up is that when the BaBar experiment is true and replicated successfully, than many other past claims that were dismissed for being in conflict with the standard model need to be reassessed. That reassessment is of course not something we will do here on WP, it will be done outside. But in the meantime it would be good if we can stop being so hostile towards anything that is in conflict with this shaky standard model. It seems the jury is still out. I wanted to bring this "heads up" to this noticeboard and I really think there is nothing wrong with that. AGF. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution