Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Earl King Jr. (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 2 September 2016 (→Ethereum: comment). 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 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Rolfing again

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

There are some remaining unresolved issues with this article which could benefit from extra input. As I see it the issues include:

• Should the article be copiously tagged? I'm not entirely sure any more what this issue is here by those who want to keep the tags, but the description of Rolfing as pseudoscience/quackery has been objected to for example (it was proposed we should say that opponents see it as pseudoscience).
• How should the question of effectiveness be dealt with? It has been proposed that we say some sources support Rolfing's effectiveness and some don't - although as I see it the only WP:MEDRS we have appears to say there is no good evidence.

Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much controversy about MEDRS on the Talk page; there clearly aren't adequate studies to claim medical benefit. Any question on this topic is just about the exact wording of that phrase. Stating it succinctly works ("There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition" - as it is currently written is fine to me). There has been a line added about the lack of studies to determine safety or cost-effectiveness; if this is to be included, all of these unknowns should be stated in one simple sentence. We don't need to belabor these points; no evidence is no evidence.

The manner in which pseudoscience/quackery is discussed and the use of a number of weak sources (single-word mention of Rolfing with no specific critique or analysis of the method) is a problem, however. --Karinpower (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the lede currently reads:

"There is no good evidence that Rolfing is effective for the treatment of any health condition. It is recognized as a pseudoscience, and has been characterized as quackery. It is not known whether Rolfing is either safe or cost-effective."

The controversy as I understand it is that 1) the characterizations of quackery come from two sources that simply include rolfing in a laundry list of alternative health, all of which fall into the quackery category in the opinion of the authors. This seems like weak criteria to include in a lede statement. Granted, it's important to include criticism of a topic in the lede and to assure that the alternative nature is apparent. But this categorical statement is not made in the same way on other alternative medicine topics that are included in the laundry lists. 2) The first and third statements in this paragraph seem unnecessarily redundant.

Thatcher57 (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence concerns safety and cost-effectiveness, which are not the same things as effectiveness for treating health conditions Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. That Rolfing not is known to be safe or worth the fee is kind of an essential point. It would seem a bit WP:PROFRINGE not to say this in the lede. As to the "laundry list" complaint, I don't see the point. It seems sources mention that Rolfing is quackery as a characterisation, much as they might say (on another topic) "the most beautiful tourist cities in Europe are: X, Y and Z". That doesn't make it any less sourced, or inherently call the source into question, though it does limit what Misplaced Pages can say about this which is WP:DUE. As I understand it the Rolf-enthusiasts want to remove all mention of the word "quack" from the article, right? Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I propose removing the word "quack" from the lede, not removing it from the article. If the sources referred to rolfing as one of three or four types of quackery, it would carry more weight in my opinion. But it is included in a list of 24 in one source (Agin) and the list is longer in the other from what I can see online (Shapiro). Combining the first and third sentences is a reasonable way to address the effectiveness (or lack thereof). Thatcher57 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think whether quackery is due in the lede, is debatable. But we deffo need to have the (lack of) safety and cost-effectiveness knowledge mentioned. And we should also say the concepts of rolfing contradict medical science, per our sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały - the cost-effectiveness phrase comes from an Australian study on 17 Natural Therapies, so that the government paid only for services where a literature survey (2008 to June 2013) found lots of studies meeting highest criteria, and did not find that for any of the 17. I read it as one POV and better worded as "few studies" or "little evidence" or "insufficient evidence" rather than the article wording "no good evidence". In general, the study said about the 17 Natural Therapies "Very little literature exists". For Rolfing 2008-2013 it said in summary "The absence of evidence examining this technique (both in SRs published since 2008 and in RCTs) limits the ability of consumers, health providers and policy-makers to make an informed assessment regarding the effectiveness (and safety, quality and cost-effectiveness) of rolfing." and about overall completeness and applicability "The absence of evidence examining this technique (both in SRs published since 2008 and in RCTs) limits the ability of consumers, health providers and policy-makers to make an informed assessment regarding the effectiveness (and safety, quality and cost-effectiveness) of rolfing." Hope this explained the oddity of saying 'cost-effectiveness'. Markbassett (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to the points raised above by Thatcher "The controversy as I understand it is..." Whether the statement is supported as stated was not part of the alleged "controversy". Minor disagreements about wording belong on the discussion page of the article, not here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with those sources (the ones that only have a list in which Rolfing is included) is that they give a drive-by accusation without supporting it with specific critiques, and the list of items is usually quite random, everything from colonics to iridology to past-life regression. So the reader leaves not knowing *why* the author included Rolfing on that list. Also we are unable to assess what research the author did on the many methods that are listed. So, it sounds like we have agreement to remove "quackery" from the lede, and we don't have agreement about removing it from the article itself.

Regarding how to handle those sources.... For over a year (from April 2015 until July 13 2016), all of those sources were grouped into this line: "Skeptics have included Rolfing in lists of alternative health methods that they consider quackery, based on a lack of scientific evidence as well as questionable assessment and treatment methods." To me that is an appropriate container for those sources - they don't give Rolfing enough detailed consideration to warrant quoting them or citing them otherwise. Since that wording proved to be very stable we should return to that. --Karinpower (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you wrote "Yes, I think whether quackery is due in the lede, is debatable." Are you willing to have quackery be removed from the lede (with it still remaining in Reception)? As you previously discussed, this would not affect "pseudoscience" or the cost/safety elements in the lede.--Karinpower (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't have a super-strong opinion on it, but the "RfC" was just closed and consensus seems to be to leave it there. It's harmless enough. Alexbrn (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't my take on the consensus.... seemed to me that quackery in the lede was pretty mixed. Besides the editors that were completely on one side or the other, there were some editors who wanted to keep everything else as it was, but thought quackery in the lede was the one weak spot. Only a couple sources mention it, as opposed to pseudoscience, which has broader support. That's why I'm coming back to this topic now. Thanks. --Karinpower (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Meat?

Also of concern here now is new accounts warping in with apparently WP:PROFRINGE edits - e.g. Recruiting or something going on? Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli up for deletion

Ruggero Santilli is up for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination). Please comment there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Now closed as keep. (I think the result should have been no consensus, but it makes little difference in terms of what happens to the article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should have been closed at all, since discussion was still ongoing. I also disagree with the outcome, but I won't lose any sleep over it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Reopened again. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• it is an interesting case. I hope folks here consider the question. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

Just an FYI. If one of you FRINGE folks happen to be an AfC reviewer, and want to take a look at this small novel, that would be...uh...welcome. Seems obviously fringy, but I'm not really an expert. TimothyJosephWood 18:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I stopped reading before I got to the end of the seven paragraph lead. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was actually scientifically accurate, and well sourced, it would be a featured article! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the issue I was having is how to really elucidate a standard for declining it. TimothyJosephWood 22:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go with "too much words make Grug brain hurt." Seriously. That article is a wall of text and should be at least rewritten from scratch to be actually readable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it fringe, though? There seems to be a few respectable sources on it from the APA: . "Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy", of which this seems to be a branch, gets more hits. I think we may simply be seeing a jargon-clouded window into a very niche branch of psychotherapy.

I've talked to the author a bit in the Teahouse and I sympathise with them, they've put a lot of effort into the draft including an effort to understand and stay with in policy (my personal gold standard for what separates the wheat from the chaff at AfC)... but they just don't seem to have grasped the difference between an encyclopedia article and a term paper. Joe Roe (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I agree with this assessment. Although the article definitely gives off a fringey sort of vibe, I do not get the impression that the actual subject is fringe. (At least, not any more than any other modality for psychotherapy—but that's a whole other can of worms.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've accepted the draft. It's not an easy read but it's not fringe and it passes the criteria for AfC. Joe Roe (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's not fringe, but the breadth and depth is more like that of a thesis on Fosha than an encyclopedia article. It's been noted the author is willing to make the effort to improve the article, so with some collaboration with editors in similar areas, it should be possible to take it down to a manageable length. Roches (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but I wonder how often the original editor will tell customers to look it up in Misplaced Pages, knowing they won't understand a word? -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Google readily reveals the COI. I am personally uncomfortable with an article of this size created by a brand new editor with no other contributions whatoever, whose business is supplying the described service. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You guys are gonna love this

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

Prophet_Yahweh - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoark (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention this snow-keep from 2005 Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is a result of a cleanup at WP:RSN over the use of the website beforeitsnews.com in articles. Its being used in a variety of places, including some fringe articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• I am unimpressed by the original AfD. Giving it a second go around... Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prophet Yahweh (2nd nomination) -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Well, I got to write a dissenting !Keep opinion. Releasing metal foil helium balloons and calling it "summoning a UFO" is illegal in California, though it might be said that Nevada is well known for being a place for doing things that are illegal in California. Roches (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• I voted Keep as well. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Promoters of pseudoscience

You can cut and paste this: ]

Editors recommended to rename the cat. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 12#Category:People accused of pseudoscience. That's exactly what I did. The cat can be added to an article where a person is known to be a promoter of pseudoscience. Edit wisely, QuackGuru (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me the decision was to delete, not rename, this cat. Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Besides the actual CFD outcome being delete, there is already Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. But you already know about that category, making this new category doubly puzzling. Manul ~ talk 15:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see the extensive discussion about Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. I don't understand why it's not sufficient to have e.g. Category:Pseudoscience -> Category:Intelligent design -> Category:Intelligent design advocates, but I suppose it's already been discussed to death. Manul ~ talk 16:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 20#Category:Promoters of pseudoscience. - MrX 16:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

What cat can be used for articles. I think Category:Advocates of pseudoscience is only a container cat. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of an article for which such a categorization would be a defining characteristic of the subject?- MrX 19:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See "In 2010, Shermer said that Chopra is "the very definition of what we mean by pseudoscience"." QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Links would have helped, but I assume you are talking about Deepak Chopra. Do you really think our policies would allow a living person to be labelled an "advocate (or promoter) of pseudoscience" based on a cherry-picked opinion of a single person? I think you need to read WP:CATDEF and WP:BLPCAT.- MrX 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You asked for "an example". I will give another example from the same article. See "Chopra's "nonsensical references to quantum physics" are placed in a lineage of American religious pseudoscience, extending back through Scientology to Christian Science." Also see Vani Hari#Promotion of pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your examples don't convince me that our policies (as I cited) would allow those subjects to be described as promoters or advocates of pseudoscience via categorization. Before you embark on a quest to RIGHTGREATWRONGS, I strongly suggest that you conduct an RfC at WP:BLPN or WP:VPP to determine if the community has an appetite for (possibly libelously) describing people as advocates or promoters of pseudoscience. - MrX 21:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

See "Hari has been criticized by scientists and others for promoting pseudoscience."

Since you did not oppose or delete the specific text then I assume you think there is no problem with the text. The claim of "possibly libelously" must be shown not asserted. MrX, so what is the problem with the current text? If there is no problem then the cat is appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories speak in Misplaced Pages's voice. You can't use them to apply contentious labels to people based on the opinions of a few other people. For this same reason we don't use categories to label people as racists, fraudsters, pedophiles, homophobes, and other such pejoratives.- MrX 14:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Put it this way, try and make a category 'Racist' and tag a certain US politician with it citing all the numerous reliable sources that have accused/outright labelled him as such, and see how long it lasts. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: The category has no benefit. While someone might get a one-minute warm glow after adding this category to declare someone is a promoter of pseudoscience, the only people who will notice are those on the other extreme—the rusted-on supporters of pseudoscience. The only result will be completely pointless bickering about adding/removing/deleting the category, and those who persist in adding it will have the battleground activity thrown in their face when some ANI issue blows up. There is an encyclopedic benefit from having an article make it clear that some claim is pseudoscience, but the category is an invisible distraction. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

What he said. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the category does have a benefit: it allows a reader to see a list of all well-documented purveyors of pseudoscience on one page, rather than having to click through further categories. This would save time for someone trying to look up one of these people without remembering their name. That being said, there is a BLP issue with directly labeling individuals like this, as well as the political (WP politics, not government politics) issue of creating a category of people that 'slanders' all of its members. I was initially tentatively supportive of this idea, but the more I think about it, the less appealing it is. Is the time we save the reader worth the fight? No, I don't really think so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see the value, but can also see how it would be a continual PITA for everyone (same as any contentious category). Rhoark (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Purveyors of pseudoscience

I know Jimbo Wales can resolve this issue if the cat is deleted. Wales speaks to the media, but editors on Misplaced Pages want results. See WP:QUACKS. Wales can start a new cat called ]. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Or, and I know this is a really radical thought, you could listen to what people above have said and stop trying to label living people with contentious, argument-causing categories that cause more problems than they solve. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this initiative doesn't help. Alexbrn (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich bis

Editors views are solicited on the talk page thread captioned Deletion of Rewards. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

An Rfc has been posted here. It could use comments by editors who are well-versed in sourcing and editing policy. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Markus Rothkranz

This BLP of a handsome chap (I googled him) never got deleted after an AfD "delete" result. There is some handwaving at the talk page. My interest was sparked by this entry at COIN.

Much Some of the sourcing is to a website by another handsome chap called Mike Adams, who seems a little confused about reality. The same ref appears three different times on the reflist, and is cited more than thrice.

What to do? -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is blatant advertorial and the latest puffery was added by an obvious sock of a banned paid editor. I have nuked it pending any actual Wikipedian writing a proper article. We have surprisingly few active good faith editors whose mission is to promote "wellness" gurus, but you never know. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That was quick. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain

The theory that the natives of Britain were exterminated is generally considered highly unlikely by all sources, except for one source claiming the opposite. I do not think one source is enough grounds for accepting the theory as necessary for acknowledgement.

"Weale et al. is very recent scholarship and it claimed that 50% to 100% of English genetics derives from North Germany. Most other recent scholarship does not agree with this extreme view." - Urselius (on talk page)

An extreme view seems to be a fringe theory. Besides, Weale's study does not even give evidence to extermination unless the number was 100%. But the number is between 50 and 100 allowing a certain number of natives to survive. Thus, my case is that no contemporary source supports the extermination theory and should be edited for lacking sources. Gordon410 (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There seems to have been an extermination theory that enjoyed popularity in the 1880s and was out of favor by the 1960s. The theory expressed starting with genetic evidence in 2002 is clearly not strictly a historical theory, and not pseudoscientific. Rhoark (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I realize that Weale is not fringe. But I am making a case that extermination is fringe and should be classified as a historical theory not a contemporary theory as it is now. Can we conclude on this? Thanks. Gordon410 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I say yes to the historical vs. contemporary thing, although if it were me, I'd offer the olive branch of mentioning that there are a handful of fringe sources who still buy it (one sentence, max). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What are the "fringe sources who still buy it"? You can't just state it without there actually being sources that support extermination. Gordon410 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Your first comment in this thread indicated that there was such a source. If you were wrong to suggest that there are sources still claiming it, then do not add any mention of it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Weale et al. don’t argue for the extermination theory at all: in fact they say “… our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number.” They do consider large-scale immigration—“an Anglo-Saxon immigration event affecting 50%–100% of the Central English male gene pool”—to be the best explanation of their findings (a pronounced ‘tide-mark‘ at the England–Wales border), while acknowledging even this hypothesis to be unproven. So if this paper is supposed to be the “one source claiming the opposite” mentioned in the first paragraph above, I would strongly dispute that characterization, regardless of the accuracy of the 50–100% figure, or whether or not it’s “extreme”. I haven‘t looked at the discussion, but from here it looks like someone trying to beat a dead horse with an overcooked noodle.—Odysseus1479 18:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I was only quoting what Urselius said who has obviously erred. I do not support his/her stance in anyway. This also doesn't solve the problem of the fringe theory. I can't find any source in favor of it now that Weale is out of the picture. Thus, my case is further strengthened by the lack of any sources whatsoever. Gordon410 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What about Thomas 2006? Rhoark (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

What about him? Gordon410 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a paper cited several times in the current article. The primary author was a co-author of Weale and cites Weale. He seems to concur that >50% of English Y chromosomes are of Anglo-Saxon origin. Rhoark (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientists don't use primary sources like Thomas uncritically and as Misplaced Pages editors we cannot use them critically; we avoid them when writing about biology/medicine and they should never be cited in this kind of historical article. Ever. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, policy says no such thing. Secondly, a 2006 paper is not a primary source with respect to history in the 7th century, nor in this case is it the primary source for the genetic population studies it cites. Rhoark (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The paper is primary for its analysis of the genetic data and application to the historical issue; it presents the results of research and the methods they used to do it. Every policy urges us to rely on secondary sources and use primary sources with great care. Again, other scientists would not use this uncritically and we cannot use it critically. It has no place in an article about history. Bad things happens when people do what they can do, rather as they should, and fringe pushers will do as they will, ignoring best practices in pursuit of whatever their agenda is.Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources perform their own analyses. It may have been some time since you carefully read WP:PRIMARY. What you're suggesting is writing articles based on tertiary sources alone. That might result in higher trustworthiness, but would certainly leave gaps in knowledge. In any case, its not a policy or widespread consensus. Rhoark (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Whatever, you are locating yourself more and more solidly outside the mainstream of WP. Not what I would choose to do, but you will do as you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rhoark: I can't believe what I'm reading here -- have you actually survived on Misplaced Pages since 2014 with this as your sourcing philosophy? Yes, a 2006 paper on genetics is not a primary source for events of the seventh (fifth?) century, but it most certainly is a primary source for its author's own 2006 genetics research. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANALYSIS A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. That describes more or less what Thomas has done using the Domesday book and Weale's 2002 genetics research as primary sources. Rhoark (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don’t see anything in the Thomas paper about extermination. It argues for “differential reproductive success” due to socio-economic factors, suggesting that the indigenous British and Romano-Celtic men were squeezed out of the gene-pool over a period of a few centuries, rather than having been eliminated during the invasion. (I don’t agree with their use of “apartheid-like“, which to me suggests not only relegation of the colonized people to a low status but also avoidance of ‘miscegenation’, but regardless apartheid is not the same as genocide.)—Odysseus1479 20:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's where we're at. Extermination, as in 100% would be a fringe idea. Whether it happened directly at the head of an axe is fanciful. Neither Weale or Thomas seems to advance these ideas. What they do advance is that "differential reproductive success" took the Anglo-Saxon proportion of English population from <%20 to >%50 in less than 15 generations. It's apparently a minority view in scholarship, but not a fringe or pseudoscientific one. Rhoark (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

So let's get off the subject of Thomas and Weale, and focus on sources that support extermination, and there appears to be none. Extermination is a fringe theory, full stop. Let's repair the article. Gordon410 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

What damage has been done to the article, exactly? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The extermination/displacement hypothesis was the only widely-accepted theory from the mid 19th century (with even older antecedents), right down to around 1960. This is a very long time and it has taken firm root in the collective psyche. It has given way since then to acculturation scenarios. However, before I and another editor (who did the majority of the work) started on the Misplaced Pages article in question, the older theory was the only one truly represented in it. It looked as though it had been written c. 1955! The article needs to represent the full range of scholarly thought in order to be impartial, a major Misplaced Pages goal. User Gordon 410 would like the article to reflect his opinions (see the extensive discussions on the article talk page) as to what he thinks is the most-likely scenario. I also have quite firm opinions that the acculturation scenario for English ethnogenesis is probably much more likely than the extermination/displacement scenario. I, as Gordon 410 should emulate, do not push this viewpoint to the exclusion of differing possibilities in the article. Hiving off the extermination/displacement hypothesis into a 'historical/fringe section' is not at all a helpful suggestion, as retaining the Pryor view (virtually no immigration whatsoever - just acculturation due to cross-North Sea contacts) would create bias. We need the full range of hypotheses to be available to the reader, until such time as fully watertight evidence points to a particular scenario. This, of course, may never happen. Urselius (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Urselius i fucking love what you wrote. Yes, when we don't know, we don't know. So much bullshit is generated from claims of certainty when things are actually unclear. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's find sources that support extermination. You can say all you want, but unless you have a source to back it up, your case is useless - give it up. Gordon410 (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not apply your evident zeal and industry to something constructive? Instead, you either construct huge swathes of own research synthesis, and expect this to be incorporated into articles, or you pick at minor elements and expect others to expend their limited time and patience defending to the minutest of degrees the bloody obvious. Urselius (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Criticizing the way another spends his/her time is a miserable way to defend one's own case. Until a source shows up supporting it, extermination is a fringe theory and should be editing according to WP:Fringe_theory. Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time with these niggling hobby-horses, do so and I will return to my usual civility. Urselius (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Urselius: If what you say in your above long comment about how the extermination theory was the dominant theory until around 1960 is accurate and verifiable, then I am in essential agreement with you. It should be discussed in a section of the article focused on the history of older scholarly views of the issue, but if it is no longer widely accepted then it should not be treated as though this is not the case. Can you cite sources that specifically verify what you wrote above? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The abstract from a typical review-type paper from 2007, I quote: "The nature of the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain c 450-600, and the survival of the incumbent Romano-British population, has long been an emotive topic. Traditional views represented the coming of the Anglo-Saxons as an invasion of entire tribes with large and aggressive warbands, and used vivid imagery of the Anglo-Saxons 'storming the earthwork camps ... slaughtering and driving away the Romanised Britons', and of the Romano-Britons being 'as nearly extirpated as a nation can be'.1 The last 50 years, however, have seen a growing trend towards representations of the Anglo-Saxon arrival as an elite settlement, in which the Romano-Britons assimilated with the Anglo-Saxons, adopting their cultural characteristics in order to fit in to a new social order. This paper aims to consider the process by which views of the Anglo-Saxon arrival have undergone this transformation, and to place this process in the broader context of England's changing position in the world, and its changing relationship with its Celtic neighbours." Grimmer, M. (2007) Invasion, Settlement or Political Conquest: Changing Representations of the Arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association, 3(1) pp. 169-186. See also: Brugmann, B. Migration and Endogenous Change in The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (2011), Hamerow, H., Hinton, D.A. and Crawford, S. (eds.), OUP Oxford, pp. 30-45. The book is on Google Books as a preview, with the particular chapter readable, so this can be checked for my reliability of interpretation. Urselius (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

In no way does this support extermination. In fact, it does quite the opposite. It shows that the extermination theory, in the last 50 years, (really 59 since the book is published in 2007) has decreased in popularity. And basically, the only reason people still believe the theory is that they are uninformed. Are we going to continue to uniform readers by acknowledging this fringe theory as a possible reality? Furthermore, if this source is really a good one, why is it not represented in the Misplaced Pages article? Gordon410 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It is - they are both referenced in the article. Urselius (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The extermination/displacement view was the only show in town before c. 1960, but it is not a museum-piece and should be retained as one extreme of a wide variety of viewpoints, not hived off into a 'museum of ideas section'. It is the default position from which all modern discussions of the subject start, and to which all other hypotheses relate. It is of continuing importance and relevance in contemporary scholarship. Urselius (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"It is of continuing importance and relevance in contemporary scholarship." Find a source that supports the theory. You cannot. Drop the case. Since a source is required and it is not common knowledge, the fringe theory must be edited. That is the position I am taking. Can we come to this consensus? Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no case. I have shown that contemporary reviews use the extermination hypothesis as the starting point of any scholarly discussion; therefore it retains contemporary relevance. Let me spell it out: because it is still prominently featured in current scholarship - even if the review/book then goes on to argue against it - it is still relevant. End of. Stop wasting my time! Urselius (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does it matter to document a "starting point"? The theory is a myth. I appeal to the editors reading this page to help conclude this discussion and inform us of any Misplaced Pages policy of which we need to be aware. Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note that scholars refer to the extermination/displacement theory not as a 'fringe theory', not as a 'disproven theory', but as 'the traditional view'. A viewpoint that was the mainstream view, but was also virtually the only hypothesis available, for over a century is never going to be a 'fringe' viewpoint - by definition. If anyone can come up with a relevant source that states that this hypothesis has been entirely disproven I would be incredulous. If Gordon 410 can come up with a reputable source that states that the hypothesis is a "fringe view" (not merely an extreme or outdated view) I would be equally incredulous. Urselius (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." - WP:Fringe_theory. In this case, the old hypothesis is taking prominence in the article to the new hypotheses. For the moment I am willing to compromise with you, however. Reverse the order of Freeman and Allen in section 6.3 so that the modern hypothesis will appear before the old one. Can we do that? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No it is not. If anything, quite the opposite. The article is in general terms more favourable to the acculturation hypothesis. The extermination/displacement theory is mostly raised in order that the opposite viewpoint, or at least a more moderate viewpoint, can then be examined. However, the extermination/displacement theory remains at the heart of all the discussions within the article. It is the fons et origo to which all other theories refer. I will not engage in any discussions with you on this matter again. You have a repetitive history where you suggest unsuitable changes to the article, the editors who patrol the page, who know most about the subject, invariably tell you that your suggestions are inappropriate and potentially damaging. Then you argue until everyone loses any patience with you (I think you are the sole person responsible for trebling the length of the talk page/archives of the article). Following this you appeal to some part of the Misplaced Pages apparatus (dispute resolution. fringe etc.) in order to try to gain backing from editors who, on the whole, know less about the subject than the editors who have just told you not to make the changes you have suggested. You are just a time-waster, wasting the time of everyone who is drawn into your wrong-headed schemes. I for one will not engage with you in any form of discussion again. Urselius (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016

An AfD that falls within the scope of this noticeboard -- interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by FourViolas on the one hand and Rhododendrites and MjolnirPants on the other, so I'm abstaining because I'm torn and don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. I'm commenting here instead of at the AFD since it's already quite lengthy. I also wanted to say that I found a lot of the discussion interesting and constructive. :) —PermStrump(talk) 06:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sherri Tenpenny

Recently, an editor removed the word "false" from the article Sherri Tenpenny in response to an edit request on the article's talk page. Prior to this word being removed, the article stated that "She supports the false beliefs that vaccines cause autism, asthma, ADHD and autoimmune disorders." Is it, in the opinion of other editors, a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:BLP to include the word "false" in this sentence? Everymorning (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a violation of NPOV, specifically WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, to remove it. I don't see how including violates BLP. —PermStrump(talk) 02:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It may be better to add context in a separate sentence. I think the body and the lead is lacking context. See "But Dr Tenpenny's opinions, while disproved by science and criticised by medical experts, are not against the law and should be allowed a forum." QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Autoimmune reactions to vaccines are a rare but documented phenomenon, whereas a connection with autism is a conjecture that's been totally rejected. Whoever this person is is probably vastly overstating the autoimmune risk, but it requires more careful wording. Rhoark (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NotHere issues at Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016

K.e.coffman has been aggressively (though, so far, within the bounds of RR) deleting this section (titled "Specific claims") of content that notes videos and photos cited by conspiracy theorists who believe in the "Healther" hoax were manipulated or taken out of context. Some additional eyes would be appreciated so this doesn't turn into a pro-CT article. LavaBaron (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, please see the discussion with the OP on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I commented at the talkpage. —PermStrump(talk) 06:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Zoltan Istvan advocate at transhumanist politics again

on the talk page, cut'n'pasted from the subject talk page. A combative advocate given to personal attacks. I originally thought it was a persistent driveby (what looked like sandboxing)(removal of criticism) so set the article to autoconfirmed, but the editor claims to be spearheading a call to action. More eyes needed - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY MORE EYES NEEDED. That's the issue here. You hae a few people, like David Gerard, editing and essetially controlling various[REDACTED] pages to the world regarding transhumanism. With Zoltan Istvan's running in the top 6 or 7 presidential candidacies now for 2 full years, there's a lot of people looking. And his page, the transhumanist politics page, and the transhumanism page is way off. It's deliberately not repesenting him or transhumanism politics correctly. There's an enourmous amount of material out there to create accurate pages. What's needed is more eyes and more editors being honest. Endlessdaysagain

@David Gerard: You should post about this on ANI as well. Having more eyes on the article is good, but WP:NOTHERE accounts should be blocked as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I did post a request for page protection, given the claim that this was the spearhead for a brigading - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I left a note about civility, reliable sources and signing comments on the user's talk page. Hopefully, it will help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory and Richard Carrier

I normally avoid religious topics for the standard reason, but I'm running up against 3RR on Richard Carrier because of a Christian editor Gonzales_John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who insists Christ Myth Theory is a conspiracy theory and keeps putting that phrase into Carrier's biography. He also has ripped out tons of text from the article with (IMHO) misleading edit summaries. I've restored most of that text and engaged with him on his talk page, but he's already trying my patience with super verbose replies to my requests (footnotes on a talk page? really?). Doubting the Historicity of Jesus as a fringe theory has come up before on this noticeboard - here are just a few links to previous discussions: Feb 2013, Aug 2013 Sept 2014 and April 2016. Anyway, would appreciate a few eyes on what's going on over there. As I said I'm not super experienced on religious edit wars. --Krelnik (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

For your information, I'm an antitheist. And scholarly consensus determines whether or not a theory is a fringe theory, leading us to the conclusion that CMT is a fringe theory.Gonzales John (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the supposed conspiracy about? Is it alleged by CMT advocates that academics are covering up the evidence of CMT? Or that CMT proponents are being silenced? Because, the thing is that there's a very big difference between a fringe theory and a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are not always fringe, and fringe theories aren't always about conspiracies. Also, why do Carrier's qualifications as a historian not belong in the lead? Isn't that pretty much the definition of stuff that belongs in the lead? Don't get me wrong, I think the CMT is complete bunk, but that doesn't mean I agree with edits like these, that seem to be very POV. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

.I went overboard back then. I didn't put those edits back anyway. I'll change "conspiracy" to "fringe" to avoid all possible negative connotations.Gonzales John (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Related: there's currently an RfC discussion going on at Talk:Christ myth theory#Request for Comment. FRINGE-related claims abound, so it seems kosher to bring it up here? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a conversation that has been rehashed numerous times on the article's talkpage and on this noticeboard (Additional archived conversations in no particular order: ). The article is frequently edited by identified and unidentified socks and anonymous IPs. The discussions are so convoluted they make me go cross-eyed. Except for this comment, I haven't engaged in previous conversations and I've only come across them after-the-fact when I was looking into issues related to other articles that somehow led me there. I'm genuinely not accusing anyone participating in this thread of being involved as I can't make sense of who's who and what's what anyway. I just wanted to point out for anyone newly getting involved that discussions on this issue has been problematic in the past, so maybe we can connect the dots and break the cycle. —PermStrump(talk) 19:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Jill Stein

Editors are invited to review and comment at Talk:Jill Stein#RfC: Should the article discuss a crowd-funded YouTube documentary or include a quotation from Chris Hedges stating that "the Democratic Party is one of the engines for ... proto-fascism," or include similar content?. Neutrality 19:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Hamilton and Integral City

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Hamilton

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Integral City (2nd nomination)

Comment, please. jps (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this another Integral theory (Ken Wilber) person? —PermStrump(talk) 21:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. jps (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

a rare effort to debunk FRINGEy stuff, published in the scientific literature

See Shearer, Christine; et al. (10 August 2016). "Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (8): 084011. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)

Being discussed here: Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#New_paper Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good paper, and thanks to the authors for making it open-access. It contains a lot of information that can be used to combat the chemtrail myth. The one expert out of 77 who did say they had encountered evidence of a chemtrails project stated "high levels of atm barium in a remote area with standard 'low' soil barium'" as their reason. Not exactly a smoking gun, just an anomaly that wasn't explained. I'll look at the talk page linked above. Roches (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Lonnie Zamora incident

Lonnie Zamora incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Huge article, often editorializes in favor of the UFOlogy fringe view in Misplaced Pages's voice, and no independent reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah -- way longer than justified by its marginal notability, and nowhere close to NPOV. DoctorJoeE /_{talk to me!} 14:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

False accusation of FRINGE

I believe there is a false accusation of WP:FRINGE at Talk:Ürümqi#Demographics. Views expressed in an RS source by a University Professor, James Millward, are getting called fringe for no good reason.Rajmaan (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Professor of Chinese and Central Asian History James A. Millward

The book in question was published by Stanford University Press

False accusations of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are being hurled with no reference to any of the content of those guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmaan (talk • contribs) 13:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• The issue at the article isn't whether the material is fringe... But whether it is relevant to mention. What we have is a source which attempts to refute what it says is a "common misconception" about the topic cIty. That's all well and good... The problem is that the article does not mention this "common misconception", and so there is nothing to refute. The fact that the source contains a refutation is irrelevant if you don't mention what it tries to refute in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It does mention what there is to refute- the refutation itself. Millward mentions both the misconception, and refutes it and that is basically all that is required. In fact, I believe if you have another source propagating the misconception and use Millward's source to refute it, that is a violation of WP:SYNTH. You need one source to mention both. But anyway I have a source propagating the misconception.Rajmaan (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You got your answer above. Now WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Cite the exact guidelines from both WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE which apply to removing RS university published sourced content from an article and telling me to I have to commit a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS to include two points of view. Before lecturing other people on following them. None of the content under UNDUE or FRINGE says you need multiple sources to include points of view which are not disputed between scholars. You are wikilawyering by digging up policies and making up your own definitions.Rajmaan (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer on the issue, I would just say that Lemongirl942 is wrong to to label the information as fringe. Rajmaan however is also wrong to add something that might be perceived as a POV edit into the paragraph. The demographics of the region have always been in a flux, for example there would have been ancient Uyghurs in the area given that Beshbalik was nearby, trying to impose a simple narrative is a POV edit. It would be better to simply say when modern Uyghurs moved into the area (and more recently influx of Han Chinese) rather than saying something about misconception which might be read as a pushing a POV. Hzh (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The architecture and culture of Old Uyghurs was Buddhist and Manichean and built Buddhist Temples while the modern ethnic group are Muslims and use Central Asian architectural Mosques and Bazaars and follow Central Asian Muslim culture. All Mosques and Bazaars in Urumqi are not older than 250 years old and there weren't any before Qing rule. Millward mentioned people mistakenly thinking Han architecture and culture replaced (modern) Uyghur ones. Many Uyghur Mosquss in Urumqi were built recently and so were the Central Asian style Bazaars.Rajmaan (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You are not saying I don't know or you haven't already mentioned in the discussion, and they are not particularly relevant to the point I'm making. If you want to introduce any content from any book, then consider its relevance and appropriateness to its topic, its significance (important enough to be included?), how you write them (e.g. in a tone that is as neutral a way as possible), etc. Read for example WP:POV which suggests careful use of words so as not to introduce bias. In the case of Urumqi where there is ethnic tension, introducing any idea or even a hint that the city belongs to any particular people is likely to be contentious and would introduce a bias that should not have been there. It would be better to simply state facts rather than opinions, and not write in such a way designed to refute any particular opinion. Avoid telling people what to think, the facts can speak for themselves. Your initial edit did introduce something that could be construed as an undesirable POV that was previously absent in the article. Hzh (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Another one of Millward's books contains raw data on the Hui and Han majority population in Qing Urumqi. Saying the Qing founded the modern city and it was populated by a Hui and Han majority is enough?Rajmaan (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem with presenting the historical demographics of a place if you have the proper data (which you can put under the demographics section). However, you should note that the page does not give any figure specific only to Urumqi, and only says that there were few Uyghurs in Urumqi, and that it had a large Han population for some time in the next page. You might want to look at the sources quoted. Note also that this is not the appropriate place to discuss this. Hzh (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

David Wilcock

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

This is just plain WP:SOAPy. It almost reads like a paid promotional piece. Are there any WP:FRIND sources available about this fellow?

jps (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, now there is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Wilcock (2nd nomination), so if you find some sources it might be worth mentioning there. jps (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Diversified technique

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

The article was restored with two non-independent sources. There was a previous discussion for the Diversified technique page. See Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 50#Diversified technique. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Didn't we recently review Gonstead technique? I remember the article previously claiming the subject to be the dominant school within the Chiropractic healing movement. And now this article claims to be the dominant school. It sounds like both topics ought to be merged into Chiropractic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Salimfadhley, it was merged to Chiropractic_treatment_techniques#Diversified_technique. I guess some editors like duplicate content on different articles. It must be one of those WP:IAR thing. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Could anyone please pay attention to the article on Soka Gakkai. To my mind it is in breach with a number of guidelines in place already mentioned in the talk page. I am not an active editor. --Tonisana2 (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Heberprot-P

• Heberprot-P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a pretty bad article, but is it bollocks or ist it just that the stuff is mainly used in countries which are not part fo the medical mainstream? Guy (Help!) 12:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Its bad, but there are studies into growth factors for treatment. Also Cuba is far from being a fringe medical system - in some areas they are at the cutting edge so to speak. I would expect them to have done some decent checking on it, but I cant find much useful info about the place (CIGB) that created it except from themselves, as there is a naming conflict with another more international centre. It is a commercial product but appears to have solid research behind it. Might want to ping a Med specialist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Many have pitched in; you can find what is left at Epidermal_growth_factor#Medical_uses. Thanks for bringing it. Turns out not to be not ridiculous if you search pubmed for the generic name, like this. Doc James did that. Jytdog (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Association of Health, Food, Nutrition & Dietetics

• Association of Health, Food, Nutrition & Dietetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I seriously want to nuke this spammy article, but it may be a notable subject. Does anyone know? Guy (Help!) 12:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't do that, they have interlinked with the different community after all. -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ethereum

A couple of editors over at Ethereum repeatedly assert that this Ethereum page is WP:FRINGE (also making similar assertions relating to The DAO (organization)) and therefore delete large swaths of content added, asserting compliance is required with WP:FRIND. See a current discussion here relating at Talk:Ethereum#Coin_desk. I thought I would create this entry here at this message board and seek consensus if this is the correct venue and if this is in fact a Fringe article. This issue is currently manifesting in a discussion if CoinDesk (a cryptocurrency news site) can be a WP:RS on the Ethereum page. Similar ad nauseam discussions has been going on for at least 6 months (many previous discussions archived) with much content deleted, reverts, and endless back and forth... So I thought I would shine some light on it here to see if the page is indeed Fringe, and do a noticeboard posting to see if CoinDesk is an RS for this page located here Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CoinDesk_and_CoinTelegraph_on_the_article_Ethereum. Is my approach correct? Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

+1 as an editor on the other side of this one from Jtbobwaysf :-) Eyes welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Fringe using sources CoinDesk and such, these libertarian fantasy sites are not a good idea of reliable sourcing. They are being or were being used to a huge degree to pad the article. A lot of have now been removed and more should be removed. Using promotional advert sites is just a gateway to the crypto currency world of make believe money scams, hacking and future chaos of these schemes. They are primary promotional, all the coin ref sites talked about and being used to over source non important information. Kitco is not used to source our gold articles. Kitco is a buying and selling semi conspiracy information site that promotes the buying of gold to mostly hedge against the collapse. These coin sites are similar. Stick with actual news worthy sources not promo rah rah sites. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• In my view there is some nuance here. I found some very good stuff at coindesk critical of The DAO and realistically identifying some of the risks in the model (like, it was not unlikely that there would be no corporate veil protecting investors from liability - yikes!!), and this was at the time when everyone was swooning over this "decentralized investment model". (this ref which I used to add some of the first reality-based content to that article - dif). So sites like Coindesk can provide ~some~ useful "trade rag" insights into what is going on that the mainstream press doesn't get into. (many industries have similar trade rags). But I agree 100% that out-of-bubble sources (main stream, not trade rag sources) need to ground things and that if an article becomes too heavily drawn from in-bubble sources it floats off into la la land that is all hype and no substance... no grounding in reality. The walled garden thing is a real concern. Sorry that is not black and white. use with care. Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been finding them mostly okay for clearly factual claims, absolutely useless for notability (e.g. is a particular thing worth noting in a list of applications next to the NYT and Bloomberg refs) - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The issue we are having on these pages relates to the "mostly okay" statement just you made above, hence subjective deletion of content which results in WP:NPOV problems on these articles and confusion of editors who attempt to contribute to this page. This noticeboard discussion started as Earl King Jr. felt it was ok to delete the launch date of Ethereum (a non-controversial fact) because it has a coindesk source (which is reinforced by your repeated claims that CoinDesk is not a news site and is in fact a blog). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No. As said the Times article can be used to date the thing. Piling on four Coin Desk style Crypto promotion sites is totally ridiculous for sourcing somethingno real new stories hardly consider important and the date is in the info box there anyway so its a non starter from the get go. Lets not use this as an excuse to source four exaggerated coin blogs. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• The dating of Ethereum launch is not a fringe theory at all, it is a fact. Whether CoinDesk is an independent reliable source is a different subject matter discussed elsewhere. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the walled garden theory; of course the date of launch is a fact. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting

This is a pretty bad article, a sort of catch-all for all sorts of stuff. See Talk:Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting#Various issues: WP:UNDUE, lists of proponents, bad sourcing. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC on sources for nutritionist

See Talk:Michael_Greger#Request_for_comments_on_SBM_source Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Rick Strassman

Looks entirely single sourced and self promotional. Came across an article of his on "Spirit Science" and wanted to see if he was an actual doctor. Please take a look at this article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution