Wikipedia:FTN

This noticeboard aims to serve as a place to report instances where undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Often, such fringe theories are promoted in order to push a particular point of view, which violates our rules on neutrality. As the guidelines given at Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus.

If your question is whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the No original research notice board.

Note that the purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that proper balance is maintained. Indeed, Wikipedia has an entire category dedicated to pseudoscience. Wikipedia articles dealing with academic topics aim to reflect both the consensus and the diversity of mainstream academia. Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as "fact."

When acting on articles and issues raised here please be mindful of the December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines on the presentation of topics as fringe, questionable and pseudo- science in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The ruling set forth the following guidance:

• Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
• Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
• Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
• Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

[edit] Bates method sources

We have a dispute at Bates method, beginning here but summed up in a thread below, about what sources are acceptable to cite for the opinions of Bates method proponents. An editor argues that certain websites being cited are not themselves notable, thus any reference to them violates WP:UNDUE. While I don't quite see how UNDUE says that, I do see the basic point that a random personal website is normally not something that should be referenced. Now, for practical purposes, I would say that the sources in question are more than just random personal websites, but perhaps what I call "practical purposes" don't matter here. I looked at WP:FRINGE to see if it addressed what individual fringe sources can be cited in an article about the fringe theory. While WP:PARITY comes somewhat close, it doesn't seem to have an answer for this type of situation. Is this just something that has to be approached with common sense? PSWG1920 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Bates_method#Time_to_remove_poor_sources and Talk:Bates_method#List_of_poor_sources. All but one of these sources are self-published. The exception is a short promotional piece for a class. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the links posted but FRINGE should not be used as a way around WP:V and WP:RS. If the sources are personal websites, they may fail source standards (see WP:SELFPUB). Notability for a source is not a requirement for reference use so long as it follows the policy. I don't believe sources themselves fall under WP:UNDUE weight, but the content itself does. Give weight that is appropriate for the statement in relation to the topic / subtopic. Morphh ^(talk) 19:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as WP:RS is concerned, this seems like a legitimate use of fringe sources. And regarding the specific material referenced, I see no obvious violation of WP:SELFPUB (although I think that policy is a bit unclear.) We need editors to look at the references in the article to the sources in question. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To explain a bit: The sources in question are the main (sole?) sources used for verifying the opinions of current supporters of Bates. (I'm simplifying the situation, but hopefully not too much). --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is one specific example. Now, if an independent, third-party source could be found for this, I'd be perfectly okay with deleting the current self-published source. But even without an independent source, this is still a relevant point. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of The Low Level Radiation Campaign entry

The article about the fringe group The Low Level Radiation Campaign was deleted about a month ago after I prod'd it for numerous reasons. Now the Company Secretary of the LLRC, Richard Bramhall, has turned up here to request restoration. It was restored and then immediately put up as an AfD. Richard Bramhall, who has extensively edited the article, has now asked for the page to be deleted to remove the criticism (on the link above) - and this makes me edgy. I'm all for the current article to be removed, as it's awful. However, should we have replace it with an article that uses the many criticisms of the LLRC, Dr Chris Busby, and their Second Event Theory as sources to accurately describe this group of fringe scientists. Maybe I'm over-reacting, as this is a very small group (and I'm not as mad as I sound), and the article will not be retained in its current state anyway. I'm just interested in what, if anything, should replace it. Thanks. Verbal chat 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could balance them with another fringe group: the good folks at the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons believe that low-level radiation is good for you. In all seriousness, the question is really how notable the LLRC is. If they've been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable third-party sources, then there should probably be an article. If the sources are iffy, then we're better off just deleting it. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If, as some are arguing, LLRC is not notable (which is not agreed for reasons already adduced, but who cares?) then an article attacking it, as proposed by Verbal Chat, wouldn't be justified. Why would Wikipedia attack a unnotable entity? Worse, if such an article set out to "use[s] the many criticisms of the LLRC, Dr Chris Busby, and the Second Event Theory", as VerbalChat suggests, it's hard to see how it would achieve any standard for balance, especially since VerbalChat thinks the sources would be "accurate". This presumably unconscious bias is representative of mistaken beliefs entertained by some of the Wikipedia editors participating in this discussion. Some of the beliefs derive from the original article, for example the apparent belief that the Second Event Theory is central to our theses; others derive from ignorance, e.g. the idea that the mainstream does not support anything we say, and the idea that lack of public awareness of our work is somehow important. On the first point, I have, on these pages, already referred to substantial and important support for the notion that there is something very badly wrong with the scientific basis of radiation protection standards. On the second, we generally speak only to informed, specialist opinion, not to the general public; ours is a highly technical subject area and addressing it to a mass market would inevitably entail the use of scare tactics. We have been accused of this, but not credibly, and many in the nuclear industry and in the radiation protection community acknowledge that we have an important message. Unfortunately the internet is populated by more rabid and more vocal opponents. A notable exception to our low profile was the 1998 – 2000 campaign against implementation of specific provisions of the 1996 Euratom Directive, which achieved considerable prominence with the public and with news media, and which fulfilled its aim in the UK if not elsewhere in the European Union.

I should like to say something about "Conflict of Interest" once again. CoI is being brandished on these pages like a banner at a demo suggesting, without elaboration or specificity, that my extensive involvement in editing the article somehow damages Wikipedia's standards. The original article was rubbish. Was anyone else coming forward to address its bias? No. I addressed it in a co-operative spirit with the clear aim of writing agnostically. It's all in the record, I believe. Can anyone identify actual material written by me which offends against balance? When I had to leave off in May 2007 the article was still not ideal but it was at least somewhat balanced, as noted by one commentator on the original deletion log in June 2008.

I asked for the article to be restored so that we could see exactly what had been deleted. Now we've seen it we think it should go. I don't see why that should make anyone "edgy". As I have already said, we want the article deleted because it will inevitably be subject to malign attention from partisans.. The evidence is there and we don't have the resources to go on (as MastCell says) " dealing with the never-ending petty shoving matches which this site generates." Richard Bramhall, LLRC—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.142.82 (talk • contribs)

Deletion doesn't mean it will be gone forever. What we're trying to ascertain here is whether your group meets notability criteria and whether something, probably a much smaller balanced article, should replace it. Also, you are free to partake in discussion, but due to your CoI you should refrain from editing the page. Instead, bring up points on the talk page. If you can provide reliable sources for your claims about the LLRC, that would be great. Note I never said 2nd event theory was central to the LLRC, and censorship should make anyone "edgy" - especially if your groups claims are true! An attack page has also not been suggested. If you are having problems logging into your account, just follow the instructions on the login page. Also, please be civil and assume good faith of others actions. You are being needlessly confrontational and combative. (PS my name here is Verbal, Chat is a link) Verbal chat 11:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the two examples of "exterior-controversial" topics (evolution and global warming) illustrate the problem you run into. Global warming is a mainstream view, but it doesn't have nearly the universality of consensus that evolution does within the scientific community, and a Wikipedia article on global warming that omitted any mention of skepticism would be severely lacking.

Less critical is a topic that would perhaps be worth adding, namely the question of what sources are usable. Scientists are taught that the best references are primary references, and tend to use them in Wikipedia whenever they can, but Wikipedia policy actually prefers secondary references (i.e., review papers). There is a good reason for this: it's generally possible to spin any story one likes by selective use of primary references. Reliance on high-quality secondary references makes it a lot harder to get OR into an article. Looie496 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanity prevails?

I am impressed with a number of notorious troublespots without any obvious connection apparently sorting themselves out. Satanic ritual abuse seems to reach a safe haven of common sense. Ancient Egyptian race controversy has been sane for two days. No vandalism to History of Armenia topics for ages. History of Hinduism solidifies into something that is actually readable and mostly accurate. No "Türkic" nationalist activity at Turkic alphabets since July. Hell, even currently hot topics like Kosovo and 2008 South Ossetia war are completely under control. Might this mean that ... sanity finally prevails? The beginning of a golden age of Wikipedia where the trolls don't even bother to try? I am particularly impressed with the impact of Moreschi (talk · contribs). He has managed something I never did, he uses the block button heavy-handedly and fixes content at the same time. This is the Wikipedia I signed up for! I know there are disturbing trends, both the admin community and the arbcom showing a capability for bad judgement unimaginable in the old days, but these successes really make things look bright. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) There are definitely signs of an upturn. SRA in particular has seen a massive turn-around, for which hats off to WLU (talk · contribs) and Cesar Tort (talk · contribs). The common connection between all of these has been to rigorously stick to good sources and to represent academic consensus faithfully. This is definitely the way to go with Afrocentrism, and it it precisely how Dieter and others have dealt with the problems caused by influxes of Hindutva ideologists (not to mention how WLU etc dealt with Abuse truth (talk · contribs) at the SRA article).

South Ossetia was interesting: we got a massive entrance of rabid patriots while the guns were still firing, but when the guns stopped, precious few of the influx actually stuck around. Word does get around in troll circles of "where not to go" and even beyond: I read an article in The Economist the other day that commended us at Wikipedia for coping much better with nationalism than the rest of the internet! Obviously, we will always have "hotspots" that are closely tied to real-world events which flare up whenever real life does, but over time, the fallout caused by such flare-ups should be less, as we grow better at dealing with them. The intensity of the flare-ups should also diminish, as the trolls learn that Wikipedia isn't quite the open target they thought it was.

Not that there still aren't problems. With the exception of the one article, most of the Afrocentrism topic is still a ghastly mess. And RFA is still broken - a broken arbcom can be mostly routed around, but a broken RFA will directly feed into declining quality of the admin corps, and that is not good. Partly why I'm experimenting with admin coaching as a vehicle for making sure the right people to pass RFA. It may not work, but something eventually will. All we need to do is persevere. Moreschi (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. Historically, I began focussing on nationalist hotspots back in 2005 not because I had had any special interest in nationalism, but because I found this to be the Achilles heel of Wikiepdia, with science topics much better defended against crackpottery, for the obvious reasons that science students tend to spend more time online than people into the humanities. I also find that there are hardly any topics dealing with actual science popping up on this board, such actual pseudo-science as we get mostly concerns alternative medicine. Topics like the Bogdanov Affair are mostly resolved by the regular community of editors of physics topics without any noise even at AN/I.

I have always reacted to nationalist pseudohistory by compiling information about nationalist pseudohistory, and once the Indigenous Aryans and Voice of India (etc.) article had become stable references, the Hindutva trolling magically went away. It's a sort of on-wiki Streisand effect. The more the trolls try to sell bullshit, the more they find Wikipedia exposes their bullshit until at some point they decide they are better off keeping away.

I also agree that RFA is the more urgent problem than the arbcom. I don't think the arbcom in its current form has any justification left, but it also does no damage as long as it doesn't succeed in becoming more powerful (I think I remember some scary suggestions by arbcom aficionado Tony S.) The admin community seems to be developing into a sort of hivemind which doesn't have any intelligence to speak of, but which is also incapable of doing really stupid things out of mere inertia. It becomes increasingly important to address individual admins who know what they are doing directly. dab (𒁳) 15:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say we've definitely had a decline in AIDS-denialist activity on Wikipedia, though some of that may be because the most active one has forked off his own denialist wiki. But while patting ourselves on the back, could I ask you fellas to watchlist Lyme disease, which sees a steady influx of meatpuppets? That seems to be the major hotspot at present, and even there it's not so bad right now, mostly due to a lot of regular editors being involved.

Re RfA, I'd have to agree - I've come to the conclusion that we don't really need more AIV patrollers. We need people who can understand and effectively intervene in thorny conflicts in a way that reflects the encyclopedia's basic principles. The problem is that we see a ton of candidates who are good people, decent editors, nice folks, but just haven't demonstrated any conflict-resolution skills. They're essentially a black box - will they avoid conflicts altogether? Will they turn out to be the next Newyorkbrad? Or, more likely, will they react unpredictably and possibly harmfully when things hit the fan? But I find it quite hard, still, to oppose a nice, well-meaning candidate solely on the grounds that they haven't been in any conflicts. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

no need for them to be involved in any conflict. My problem is that I have this reflex to fix articles, so I become "involved" immediately, if only in trying to enforce basic policy. So I become vulnerable to cries of "admin abuse" as soon as I touch any of my buttons. You could ask candidates to comment on any ongoing conflict of your choice, e.g. ask them to state how they would feel that, as an admin, they should handle individual editors currently on a pov-pushing campaign. No harm in asking current candidates to e.g. look into and comment on recent events at, say, Egyptians or John Michell (author). dab (𒁳) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This would actually be a great pre-RFA test--candidates should find a problematic article (there's no shortage of them) and fix it, whether it be through conflict resolution, finding good sources and incorporating them into the article, even basic copyediting. Whenever I take a look at RfAs (not often) it seems that several of the candidates don't have any experience writing articles--they're just vandal-fighters, which is fine, but is only a small piece of what needs to be done around here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant idea. As you say, vandal fighting should only be a fraction of an Admin's job. Doug Weller (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.201.241.2 User talk:71.201.241.2 Special:Contributions/71.201.241.2

This user has appeared in the last few weeks, and seems to have an agenda and style of editing (esp WP:SYNTH) similar to former user Rokus01, though I don't think they are identical. S/he has been altering the Neanderthal article and the Paleolithic Continuity Theory article, in addition to others on IE topics, generally seeming to push the view that Europeans are partly descended from Neanderthals and that IE is paleolithic. Some edits are downright bizarre, such as the addition of an image of medieval glass-blowing and a caption about Slovene words for pipes to an article about an alleged Neanderthal flute ([1]). The Neanderthal page has been semi-protected because of the frustration that his editing style and manner of discussion has produced, but is now clearly slanted in favour of the Neanderthal-HomSap interbreeding theory, which is even presented as undisputed fact at points. Other edits may be similarly slanted. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the difficulty is an unwillingness of this editor to engage in discussion and a lack of facility in English. He tends to add material that is meaningless to a general reader because of its technical nature and problematic English. I suspect one reason that his Talk page interaction is minimal is simply that his English isn't really good enough to engage in discussion. I've tried to deal with some of the Neanderthal edits, but haven't had much time this week to give it more attention. Would be great if someone could follow up. By the way, we've tried hard to avoid discouraging this editor from editing because he does seem to have substantial knowledge and familiarity with the literature. And his addition of a listing of Neanderthal specimens to the Neanderthal article is quite good, in my opinion. But I'm starting to wonder if he has the interests of the project at heart. TimidGuy (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Michell (writer)

Could someone take a look at the article and talk page? I got involved because the talk page was being badly messed around, with an IP editor (who was OTT I think in criticising Michell) and others were deleting each other's edits, warnings were being put on the talk page instead of user pages, etc. I've now gotten a bit more involved and have been told that my edits on the talk page indicate I don't understand OR, that I'm using it as a chat page, etc. The main problems seem to be the balance of the article a couple of editors who both don't understand referencing, OR, etc -- and it would be nice to get better balance in the article, but the problem there seems to be although Michell is very popular among New Age adherents he's largely ignored (except maybe for his book on Shakespeare) in other quarters. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Watchlisted. I'll see what I can do. What a mess. At the moment it really does read like one massive puff piece. Moreschi (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You need to read the talk page (which I'm accused, several times, of using as a chat page) to get the flavour of what's going on. And evidently I don't understand much about Wikipedia, I don't realise that Britannia.com is a famous online encyclopedia (number 3 on Google I was told and in fact if you enter Britannia.com into Google the Britannica does come up), and, if you search the history of the article, one of my edits was reverted partially for being NPOV if I understand the edit summary correctly. Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is horrible. Personally I recommend reverting to a much earlier version, such as this one, and starting from scratch again. This horrific puff piece isn't really on. Moreschi (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, SageMab (talk · contribs) is now fervently resisting any attempt to remove some of the more egregious puffery. We have a problem. Moreschi (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

this used to be a problem, back in November, but hopefully not now it has been brought up here on this noticeboard. dab (𒁳) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The same guy you clashed with back then is the problem now. He wants it to be a list of approving quotations about JM. I'm particularly amused by the last section about his "prestigious" art exhibitions. Paul B (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He/she seems to have a bit of a hangup about administrators, keeps reminding me I'm not one and has asked another editor (Sesquipedalian) if he is one. Evidently he thinks if an editor isn't an administrator there are things he shouldn't say or something. Doug Weller (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

if I was worth my salt as an admin, I'd have clamped down on him ten months ago :) dab (𒁳) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest [2] as an alternative to the old version Moreschi pointed at? It has a bit of puffery, but also a substantial amount of useful information. I think the puffery could easily be removed if SageMab was not constantly interfering. Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked DougWeller to stop following me around. What about this article is puffery? Be specific please. I do think that Looie is working to improve this article. I think a lot of the other edits are done by people who do not understand NPOV and who have no love of the author's subject matter. Paul, do not assume what I want. It shows no good faith. A lack of serious negative critics over an authors 40+ year wrting career does not make other commentary about his work "puffery", a biased term. I have seen picking at this article rather than constuctive edits that added new material. I am not a "fan" of any subject on Wikipedia. I do care about facts and how they are edited. I would like to request a stop of the "ganging up". The article, not a major piece, is being chatted to death on the discussion page. SageMab (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think editors need "love of the author's subject matter" in order to write an article, I daresay it is you who has trouble understanding our NPOV policy. --dab (𒁳) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Having love for John Michell's subject matter is probably the scariest thing I've been accused of since I started editing Wikipedia. I do have the attitude that articles about fringe topics should actually present information about them, not restrict themselves to pure criticism, but I have no sympathy for the pov-pushing that SageMab is trying to get into the article. Looie496 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And where Looie in the above quote, or any place else, have you been accused of "Having love for John Michell's subject matter..."? Read my comment carefully and do not accuse me of pov-pushing for an author. Uncivil and untrue. It's not like anyone is accusing you as being part of a cabal. SageMab (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the true spirit of Jimbo Wales behind the original WP:CIVIL policy, but I almost never see it invoked other than as a last resort of problem editors thrown into the fray after it has become clear they have no case. We need to make clear that while comments like "your mother smells of elderberry" may be incivil, dry statements to the effect of "you are wrong" are not (WP:SPADE). --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, this is excellent. It's wonderful how all this fringe stuff interlinks. Michell is apparently a member of the Lindisfarne Association, which is in turn closely tied to our old friends - wait for it - integral thought and Ken Wilber, which have been up on this noticeboard a good few times previously. The backdrop of guff is being peeled away and hopefully a proper article can now emerge. Moreschi (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

related trouble at Radical Traditionalism. Yes, this is a little walled garden. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Busy day today. Hopefully we can agree the article is now much saner. Mr SageMab has just been blocked for 3RR. It seems his inability to comprehend policy has led him him to an unfortunate end. Moreschi (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see he thinks people have been naughty and inserting NPOV into the article. Bad editors, inserting NPOV! Doug Weller (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever next, they might even abuse RSes for their own wicked ends! Yes, that was today's lighter touch :) Moreschi (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chemtrails

This article uses almost exclusively self-published websites to offer a slew of conspiracy theories about chemtrails. I'm not even sure that this is an encyclopedic topic: I couldn't find a single secondary independent source that acknowledged the notability of this particular fringe theory. We need some people to look it over, cull out the stuff that is referenced solely to looney-toons webpages, and try to make an article that actually tells people about the social significance of this conspiracy theory (if there is any). Whew! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem here. The article was written in a skeptical tone even before your edits — the first cite is to an article in Skeptical Inquirer. It's extremely fringey stuff no doubt, but it's the kind of stuff that somebody might come to Wikipedia wanting to learn about, and I personally wouldn't be ashamed about what they would learn from that article. Looie496 (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Several of the sources and external links are poor quality, with some of the publications carrying "official" sounding names obvious tracts generated in some amateur's living room. I agree a scrubbing to clean up sources is in order.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of electromagnetism

Reddi. I just cut out a bit of unattributed quotation (referenced, but no indication it was a quote) from an 1890s book which I didn't think was helpful, and some fractured English about Thales replacing it with the original stuff, he's replaced both (I did note that the English was bad, maybe it's me that can't read?). I'm not sure about do to about some ancient speculation from the 1890s but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, but it seems like the first step should be to raise the question on the article's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct. My edit summary made it clear but I should go to the talk page also. Doug Weller (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus myth hypothesis, part 7295

This perennially problematic article could use more attention. Let me direct your attention to a recent issue that's cropped up: recently, the article Acharya S was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination)). Acharya S is a proponent of a version of the Jesus myth, but previous consensus was that she didn't belong in the article because she was not a particularly notable advocate of the theory. After her article was deleted, a large section devoted to her popped up in Jesus myth hypothesis. The editor who inserted it acknowledges that Acharya S fails WP:BIO, but cites WP:FRINGE as a reason why she can be included in Jesus myth hypothesis despite a lack of reliable sources or any indication that she's a prominent writer on this topic. Perhaps it's just me, but this looks like a circumvention of the AfD result. More input would be appreciated at Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Acharya_S. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

there could be a compromise of mentioning this author in a brief paragraph, but obviously not in a "large section". Yes WP:FRINGE says that it's ok to discuss fringy literature in an article that is dedicated to a fringy topic in the first place, but the "Jesus myth" article in this case needs to make perfectly clear that it is about a crackpot subject right from the start.

I frankly never understood this dedication to "debunking" Jesus as "a myth". There are, of course, legends about Jesus' life just as there are about Buddha's, Muhammad's, Charlemagne's, Pope Silvester's or Isaac Newton's. This doesn't make any of them unhistorical, nor does accepting that there was probably a historical Jesus make anyone a Christian any more than believing that L. Ron Hubbard lived 1911-1986 makes you a scientologist. --dab (𒁳) 07:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The scope of the article is not necessarily limited to sources that completly deny the existence of a historical Jesus. There are, in fact, highly regarded scholars, such as Hyam Maccoby, who deny that the historical Jesus had any similarity to the Jesus of the Christian Bible [3]. In any case, there are other problems of the article too, such as the inclusion of sources said to give historic evidence of Jesus, ie Josephus, that are problematic because it is disputed the references have anything to do with the historic Jesus. There is a lot that could be said about the problems of the article, but the problems are certainly not all on one side of the issue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that we already have full articles covering these aspects: historical Jesus, Historicity of Jesus and mythological aspects of Jesus Christ cover all reasonable aspects of this. The "Jesus myth" article is really just limited to the fringe theory that "Jesus is just a myth". Maccoby's theses (according to our article) that Jesus was a Jewish Messianic claimant whose life and teaching were within the mainstream of first-century Judaism ... executed as a rebel against the Roman occupation of Judaea are perfectly mainstream and have nothing to do with the "Jesus myth" thing. --dab (𒁳) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article does not actually define itself that way. But, if it is a content fork (or POV fork), it might be better to merge it with the other articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article does define itself that way, and this has been covered in detail before on this noticeboard and on the article's talk page. This is a good example of the kind of circular argument that constantly bedevils the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Circular argument? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Circular" in the sense that it comes up again and again, without any real change. Maybe I should have used a different word, because circular argument has a particular meaning in logic, and I wasn't referring to that meaning. I should have said "repetitive" or "recurrent", I suppose. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest "perennial" Verbal chat 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you might want to read this: Circular argument, so you will have it ready in situations when it actually applies. I will say our disagreement on the article is unresolved. But, if it is you position that my disagreeing with you proves I am am wrong (which I think you have implied a number of times), that probability really is circular reasoning. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I just linked to circular argument two posts above, and noted that I didn't intend that meaning of the phrase. Perhaps this illustrates a common problem with Wikipedia discussions: editors often don't read each other's posts very carefully. At any rate, Malcolm, I have explained in detail why I disagree with you on several points (see, e.g. Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Page_is_locked.2C_locking_horns_won.27t_help) and it would be tiresome to repeat that here. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had it written (without the mind-reading ability to know you would include the same link) and went ahead and saved it because it included a very different point than your edit. I always read your edits. It is always such a pleasure to have these little discussions with you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sheesh, Malcolm. So the argument is perennial (or "Sisyphian"), we get it. Can we now do something about the problem? As in, spelling out the scope of the article in giant letters so that even our more cranky clientele with lexical deficiencies will Get It? Or perhaps split it? I mean, just how many distinct articles dealing with Jesus' historicity do we really need? --dab (𒁳) 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sisyphean" is perfect. Although I think what needs to be done at the moment is more like cleaning out the Stables of Augeas--there's a lot of stuff in the article that's very poorly sourced. Every time I try to do something (even correcting a misuse of the word "euhemerization") it sets off a revert war, with cries of censorship, POV-pushing, and pro-Christian bias on the talk page. (Hm, this may not be the best way to ask people to come edit the page...) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the solution. It seems to me that, if the article is to exist, it needs scope to include a little wider range of sources. Or it could be merged, maybe that would be okay too. Certainly the editing situation seems to have been at an impasse for a long time. I would be happy to support any solution that would seem to have a chance to improve the situation. I do not see Akhilleus' solution as workable, and I do not think the problem is all on one side (for example, and as I pointed out above, the Josephus section that claims to support a historical Jesus, is really very problematic.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The scope of the article is just fine, and conforms to how it's treated in academic works that deal with the subject. The Josephus section that Malcolm refers to is in a section of the article that I think should be removed entirely. The article really ought to follow a chronological format, dealing with Jesus myth authors individually, rather than synthesizing them into a single position (as the article does now). So if, say, Arthur Drews said something about Josephus, his position could be detailed in his section.

Of course, as far as I can see, the mainstream position is that Josephus gives us some evidence for Jesus' historicity. Of course, we have Josephus on Jesus to report what the scholarly consensus is; Jesus myth hypothesis is a different animal. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

the mainstream position is that it is perfectly plausible that the gospels themselves refer to a historical rabbi. I mean, why make one up when Palestine was perfectly riddled with messianic teachers at the time? This would be like, to grasp for a simile at random, faking a Washington DC sex scandal when there is ample supply of real ones to choose from. There must have been dozens of "the end is nigh" preachers in Palestine at the time. So one of them was called "Yeshua" or similar. Or perhaps it was a different one of the same name. The entire point of the gospels, the resurrection is quite another matter. If you believe in the resurrection of Christ, you are a Christian. If you just surmise that some bloke that may or may not have been called "Yeshua", or similar, was annoying the Romans in the 30s AD, you are just applying Occam's razor. After all, the gap between the death of Jesus and Q is a measly 40 years (or less). Hardly comparable to Arthurian romance vs. Sub-Roman Britain (>800 years). This entire dispute is such a non-issue, it's difficult to know where to begin. Also, consider Socrates. Do we have epic disputes surrounding the historicity of Socrates because the man is only known by word of his disciples? Why not? --dab (𒁳) 18:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article Josephus on Jesus, which the Jesus myth article does not link to; and this does not seem to support your view on Josephus [4]. I will stand by what I said, that the POV problems are not on one side only, and that the scope of the article needs to be slightly expanded. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the introduction contains this sentence: "A related hypothesis is that the stories of Jesus found in the New Testament are transfers from and embellishments on the life of an earlier religious teacher who lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE."

That certainly allows the latitude for using sources such as Hyam Maccoby in the article, but Akhilleus' gate keeping activities have blocked it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The multiplicity of fabrications and "pious frauds" versus the dearth of credible evidence that such an individual existed is enough to demonstrate the negative. Yeshua was a very common name in Palestine at the time, and there were more than one or two would-be prophets named Yeshua/Jesus (or Yudah/Judas), including at least one of the Hellenistic Hasmonean clients of the Roman Empire (as well as a couple in the Oniad dynasty which proceeded them), but none who quite fit the bill. Too many aspects of the gospels clearly borrowed from other traditions speak to their lack of historicity, not the least of which is the fact that much of the myth is based on the idea that the so-called Israelites were slaves in Egypt who "escaped", wandered in the Negev for forty years, then invaded and conquered the land of Canaan, for none of which is there any archaeological evidence. Indeed, the complete lack thereof demonstrates that nothing of the kind happened. What the archaeological evidence does indicate is that the "Israelites" developed as a nomadic group within Canaan itself, and northern Canaan at that, the archaeological record showing the southern part, referred to by Judeo-Christians as Judaea and Muslims as Filastin, were almost entirely deserted between ~1200 BCE and ~722 BCE; you'll note the latter date as being the year in which the Assyrians conquered Canaan-Phoenicia. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In the last part of your edit I assume you are referring to the archaeological evidence discussed in The Bible Unearthed. Unfortunately, I see that article has been reduced to stub. However that is, I do not recall anything from that book which could serve as a source in the Jesus myth hypothesis article. There are, I think, some good sources, but the article is being excessively restricted by some well editors who have good intentions. I have not even looked at the article recently because it is so frustrating, and rather think nothing much will be possible now. Savlanoot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion debates

Users who watch this page may be interested in the articles that have nominated for deletion mentioned at this section of WP:ANI --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collectivization_in_the_Ukrainian_SSR

Fringe theory what

In Soviet Ukraine this policy had a dramatic effect on the Ukrainian ethnic population and its culture as 86% of the population lived in rural settings. The forceful introduction of the policy of Collectivization was one of the main causes of the Holodomor.

Article was created as copy-paste from Holodomor and now from main article removed significant and important chapters under “brand” “Deleted duplicates from Collectivization in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic”. In fact this chapters has nothing or little relation to historical event Collectivization_in_the_Ukrainian_SSR. While in general it’s another article in fringe theory about “Ukrainian Holocaust” (see other Language link which referred to Holodomor”, List of Books and articles [5] and External links [6] – note the first ref in list.

Actually it’s thory widely popular because of “

One example on the discourse on the war and the Soviet past among the some of the children of the members of the post war Galician Ukrainian emigration; or directly participated in the destruction of the Jews during German occupation. Through a victimized national narrative as well as presentation of the Great Famine of 1932/1933, they have tried to compete in order to obscure the “dark sides” of the Ukraine’s national history and to counter accusations that their fathers collaborated with Germans.”

(From p.59 ISBN 978-966-02-4679-9 and John-Paul Himka, A Central European Diaspora under the Shadow of World War II: The Galician Ukrainians in North America, in: Austrian History Yearbook 37 (2006), 17–31, here 30. Dieter Pohl, Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien 1941–1944, Munchen 1996. See also Johan Dietsch, Making Sense of Suffering: Holocaust and Holodomor in Ukrainian Historical Culture (Lund: Media Tryck, Lund University, 2006).)

May be would be good to limit effort by group of editors to exploit WP as soapbox per

Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising.

ThanksJo0doe (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand this. What is the problem? In fewer words, and no quotes, please. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems in misusing widelly known (in relevant histrocals society) historical fact only for “Ukrainian Holocaust” proposes Jo0doe (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)-

What the editor is perhaps trying to say is that this is part of the "Holodomor" walled garden, which is a politically and historically fraught topic, apparently, and in which most of WP's articles are sourced to extremely doubtful sources and consist largely of massive SYN violations. I was unfamiliar with the question, though not with the collectivization-related Soviet famine of 1932-33, before I discovered the worst article in Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in the details of what underlies this fringe-pushing, they can email me. I don't want to start a firefight on this noticeboard. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoxsey Therapy

I'd like some outside input at Hoxsey Therapy. This is an alternative cancer treatment condemned as ineffective by major groups including the FDA (who outlawed its sale as a form of quackery), the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. There has been recent discussion of using claims which a journalist made in a polemical book on the subject as a counterpoint to argue the effectiveness of the treatment. More detail is on the article talk page; input requested. (Cross-posted to WT:MED) MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be sure, this is about the use of a book by Kenny Ausubel? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although as you can see (having stopped by) the issues do go a bit deeper and involve fundamental aspects of WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Kanellis

Doing some RC patrol, I came across this article on a female professional wrestler, and was bemused to see that it's written with the point of view that all those competitions are actually real. Now of course that's nonsense -- I wonder whether this happens in other wrestling-related articles, and whether anybody cares? To be honest, I'm not sure that I even care. Looie496 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I care about it, and I'm not sure it's a matter of fringe theories, exactly--but there are a lot of WP articles that are written in an in-universe perspective; wrestling is only one of the many areas in which this happens. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it is general practice on wrestling articles to link to professional wrestling (where the scripted nature of pro-wrestling is explained), and to write the "career" section as if the matches were genuine. To be fair, the article does use wrestling jargon such as "push", "jobbing", "legitimately", all of which point to the fact that pro wrestling is choreographed (if you click the links). Moreschi (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy: Quackery in the lead

I'm trying to improve the homeopathy page by looking at problems that have been raised and then finding what the consensus for dealing with it is (no change, small change, big change, etc). The first issue I've proposed is keeping quackery in the lead. Here is my summary: Several people, mostly homeopaths, have commented that they don't like the word quackery appearing in the lead. Now I agree that it should be included in the article, as it's verifiable, a common opinion, and from a reliable source. However, for the lead I feel that the term pseudoscience is enough. I would suggest keeping the sentence in the lead up to the semicolon (replaced with a full stop), and integrating the remainder into the body of the article. Perhaps into the "Research on medical effectiveness" section or the 20th century section. This is something I've suggested before but which has been overtaken (usually) by discussions as to whether homeopathy works, so please lets keep his on topic: quackery removed from the lead, put somewhere else. Note that currently quackery doesn't appear elsewhere in the article.

Please come and join the conversation or suggest other topics or fixes. All the best. Verbal chat 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to my intent with this, so can I assure people that I'm not advocating censorship, and could people please go over and leave their opinions on the talk page (try to stick to the subject, and stay civil due to sanctions and the homeopathically potent atmosphere over there) Verbal chat 10:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"quackery" is pseudoscience in medicine. "pseudoscience" usually refers to the natural sciences (cold fusion and the like). dab (𒁳) 13:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If a single source goes against a consensus, is it fringe?

That's part of the issue raised at Wikipedia:RSN#David_Cymet.2C_Pi.C5.82sudski_and_anti-semitism. In order to centralize a discussion - which is related to FRINGE - I'd like to ask for some editors to comment on it at the RSN. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This sort of problem is precisely the reason why Wikipedia favors secondary sources over primary sources (see wp:source). If you use primary sources, you can find one to support nearly anything. I think the answer must be, if you have absolutely no choice but to rely on primary sources, you need to use some judgement in handling them. But it's much better if you can rely on reputable secondary sources. Looie496 (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So what is your recommendation as to what should I do? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hunor and Magor

The fascinating published opinion that there are etymological connections between medieval Hungarian legends and ancient Sumerian myths has unfortunately run up into some opposition by a team of wikipedia editors in Europe calling themselves "The Rouge", who wish to be able to decide on the behalf of the reader which ideas the reader is or is not allowed to hear about. On the flimsiest of grounds they have decided to damn the memory of these theories to non-existence. [7]. This obviously has to be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

chuckle, you had me confused there for a minute FutPerf :) --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be on this either today or over the weekend. I've got Pál Engel's The Realm of St. Stephen, pretty much the definitive history of Medieval Hungary in English, and he has a few bits on the origins of the Hunor and Magor myth. --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced what I could reliably source with the books I have. Some of the stuff I cut was probably fine but it was unreferenced. I'll have a scout around to see if we can expand it. --Folantin (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, massive improvements :) Moreschi (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. It's been a few years since I looked at Hungarian history but I knew this was pretty important (and I forgot just how influential Werbőczy was - his interpretation of the legend was used to justify serfdom in Hungary until 1848!). There are still a few things that need sorting, namely the different versions of this myth. For instance, some accounts apparently have Hunor and Magor as the offspring of Gog and Magog. I'd also like to check whether there are any recorded versions prior to Simon Kézai (though I'm pretty sure this is a 13th century thing). But it can wait. --Folantin (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys, you're my heroes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This might need looking into. (Oh brother.) --Folantin (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian prehistory

That's quite a lot of myth and "alternate theories". Moreschi (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the article is fine, some of it is drivel, some of it has obviously been translated (badly). It's tricky to disentangle because: there is genuine scholarly controversy about some aspects of "Hungarian prehistory"; there are some notable "nationalist fringe theories" that have had historical influence, but there are also some fringe theories which are little more than the invention of "nutjobs on the Net". The basic point is that the Finno-Ugric hypothesis of Hungarian origins is almost universally accepted by scholars, but some Hungarians don't like it. As Molnar says in his history: "This [Finno-Ugric] linguistic theory has, however, been fiercely disputed. From the nineteenth century onwards, Hungarian public opinion was reluctant to accept the family connections between their language and that of poor, primitive fisherman [i.e. the Finns and others], finding the possibility somewhat humiliating. Hungarians nurtured more glorious dreams: some connection with Attila's Huns or Sumero-Babylonian culture would have been more acceptable, just like the mythical Trojan origins of the French!". --Folantin (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I need to add something here. The Finno-Ugric hypothesis is a LINGUISTIC theory. Stop presenting it as an all-encompassing theory for the origin of the Hungarians. Doing so is no better than what the "nutjobs on the Net" do.--Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You have just quoted one POV, if you really wanted to be neutral you could just as easily find quotes for the opposite POV, which is something like (if I understand it correctly) that the "Hun connection" at one time enjoyed considerably more currency throughout Europe, and in fact always did so, until the Austro-Hungarian elite in the 19th century did their best to squash all mention of it, for mostly political purposes.

BTW: Many other project pages on wikipedia actually require the editors submitting problems, to phrase the problem in the most neutral terms as possible; will this page be one of the last holdouts from npov, where we can all feel free to lampoon the other side without restraint, and sometimes even have proponents of both sides, (or points-of-view), of a given issue, attempting to paint each other as the "fringe"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Yes, the alleged connection between the Huns and the Hungarians is a notable and influential piece of Medieval pseudo-history and has been described as such in the Hunor and Magor article. But no mainstream scholar now believes any such thing - so that's what we say. --Folantin (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure that the Hungarians do not need to look far, to see that their ancestors really were the guys wearing the pointy helmets, and not the "poor primitive fishermen". But there has been a lot of revisionism in the last couple of centuries, so why only present those voices that agree with only one side of the issue? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. The Finno-Ugric theory of Hungarian origins is almost universally accepted by mainstream scholarship. --Folantin (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps those who hold this theory have proclaimed themselves the mainstream, and pretend that those who dissent, either do not exist or do not count, and therefore must be silenced. This isn't science, it's ostracism. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just like the academic conspiracy to suppress the Trojan origins of the British. *Rolls eyes*. --Folantin (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure one case is "just like" the other, the difference being, there is absolutely nobody disputing the validity of the Brutus stuff today, everyone agrees it is false. It would take a bit more "pushing" to get everyone to agree that the Hungarians who wore pointy helmets had nothing to do with the Huns who wore pointy helmets; but this should not be the stage for "pushing", it should be the stage for honestly reporting that there really are still published povs today who disagree with the "mainstream" view on that, instead of summarily writing them off simply "because we know better". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Pointy Helmet Theory" is a new one to me. I'm sure it's highly scientific. A lot of (mainly) far-right Hungarian nationalists don't like the Finno-Ugric thesis and that's about it. --Folantin (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that new or suprising. Archaeology should surely be able to determine conclusively whether Hungary was settled by invaders wearing pointy helmets, or by "poor primitive fishermen". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fascinating. Til Eulenspiegel's advocacy of a grand Finno-Ugric conspiracy to suppress the Hun truth is really just the continuation of a long-standing nationalist meme on Wikipedia: this dates all the way back to 2005 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antifinnugor and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor. I remember Til from the seemingly endless flame-wars over Aratta...having a tussle with Sumerophile (talk · contribs). And what's all this about pointy helmets? Moreschi (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know anything about that Rfa / Rfc from 2005, and am not particularly passionate about Hungarians as you might guess, but I can predict, from past experience, that if it is indeed a "longstanding meme", then it probably isn't going to go away anytime soon, and it isn't going to go away just because you tell it to, nor if we stick our heads in the sand... all evidence that there truly are a "significant" number of dissenters out there, from the "mainstream" "ignorant fishermen" opinion already quoted above. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It's a truly notable and "popular" fringe theory, no arguments - and so we write about it as notable fringe theory. Such is Wikipedia. Moreschi (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is this rubbish about "ignorant fishermen"? Is there something wrong with being a fisherman? Were "pointy helmet" wearers somehow not ignorant? This kind of language gets us nowhere. The ancient forebears of all peoples were "ignorant" by modern standards, so what's the problem? Paul B (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I think Molnar's use of "primitive fishermen" is a parody of Hungarian nationalist attitudes towards their Finno-Ugric ancestors. Such a shame, really. Moreschi (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the "primitive fishermen" refers to the Finns. Molnár is having a laugh at the expense of early 19th century nationalist snobbery in Hungary. Remember, at this point in time Finland had yet to flood the world with mobile phones and World Rally Champions, so its cachet was pretty low. So it was "uncool" to be related to the Finns, whereas the Huns and Sumerians had quite a bit of historical glamour attached to them. --Folantin (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the "primitive fishermen" refers to the Mansi. The Mansi are the closest linguistic relatives to Hungarians. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but Molnár is referring to the "Finns and others" (he doesn't mention the Voguls/Mansi by name). See Vilmos Voigt on the historical relationship between Finland and Hungary in In the World of Signs (ed. Jadacki and Strawinski) p.399: "Hungarian magnates did not like the 'fish-odoured' or 'fish-greasy' relatives, serfs in the Tzar's feared autocracy. It took a century to persuade the majority of Hungarians that Finns, Estonians, and even more surprisingly Voguls, Ostyaks etc. are the kinfolk of Hungarians, very proud of their Christian kingdom designed by King Stephen on Christmas Eve of the year 1000 AD. A dubious feeling characterizes Hungarians in the 19th century. They did not like to be alone, they much appreciated the achievements of the Finns (as, e.g., the Kalevala) , but on the other hand they never forgot to stress their superiority as against all other Finno-Ugric peoples, listing dozens of saints, kings and other medieval requisites of their own which their 'poorer' relatives lacked." --Folantin (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this conversation and before I read any further what has been written I must give some perspective. The Hungarian prehistory article started out originally as a POV fork. All of the content originally was a translation of Istvan Kisztely's fringe theories with some stuff thrown in by "scholar" Fred Hamori. Since that time I and several other editors have attempted to bring the article back into mainstream without starting edit wars. A lot of work was done to get better material from reputable sources incorporated into the article. It is still has a long way to go though. Then you new editors to the article just come in with your own biases that the article is "fringe" and start chopping up everything without this perspective, it rankles feathers. I won't defend the article because it still needs a lot of improvement, but it does absolutely no good when I see Folantin remove the Historiography section. What are you trying to do? Make it even more fringe so you can delete it? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Other alternate theories" section should be definitely checked for notability. There are fringe theories about any topic, but not all are notable. bogdan (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page of "Hungarian prehistory". "Then you new editors to the article just come in with your own biases". Please assume good faith. Nobody here is saying that the article itself is "fringe", because Hungarian prehistory is a valid topic. However, the article does need a lot of pruning to separate the bona fide material from the dross. --Folantin (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Assume good faith from the past editors who have been trying to work to correct the problems with the article! I didn't want to start throwing around wikilawyering terms, but you've done it so I will too. Why did you remove several times the Historiography section? To me your actions look like you didn't assume good faith when you did that. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this noticeboard is about articles that give undue weight to fringe, not articles that are in need of additional "pruning" towards your POV. So please explain how Hungarian prehistory gives undue weight. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've explained at great length in the edit summaries and on the talk page why I deleted the "Historiography" section. Have you actually read the "Historiography" section? This whole article began life as a coatrack apparently promoting some cranky theories from The Hungarian Old Country by Istvan Kiszely. It should have been deleted as such. Then a fresh Hungarian prehistory article should have been started from scratch based on proper, scholarly research. Instead, some users have obviously tried to "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" and have ended up preserving large amounts of the original drivel for reasons I have yet to understand. --Folantin (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's real simple. It is called "differing wiki philosophy". Users are much more likely to fix mistakes they see or offer corrections when asked for inline than write from whole sections from scratch. Gradual changes also prevent useless edit wars, like the one you predictably got into with Til Eulenspiegel when you deleted the whole Historiography section. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, your "wiki philosophy" has helped preserve this appalling dog's dinner of an article which has been around fooling readers since 2004 (judging by the edit history). It's really that simple. --Folantin (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are quite judgmental. Who put you in charge of deciding? Why don't you delete the whole article and start from scratch yourself? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you do around here? Sit and watch a noticeboard so you can come into an article mid-sentence with your self-righteous attitude and throw some pseudo-weight around? If you were so concerned about the article where were you to begin with? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just finished taking a look through the entire article. I could only find 2 or 3 sections where some of the original POV wording from the Istvan Kisztely version of the article still appears. Everything else of what you called the "dog's dinner" is rather new and sourced. From that I have to say that my "wiki philosophy" method has worked out quite well. What have you accomplished other than ruffling feathers? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"What have you accomplished other than ruffling feathers?" Well, over the past couple of days I've expanded Wikipedia's coverage of Hungarian linguists and ethnographers (genuine ones) and I've created an article on the background to the "Turanian" nonsense which is probably the basis of the material which you are trying to "reupholster" on the Hungarian prehistory page (see initial version of the latter here [8]). All using reliable sources. I tried working on the Hungarian prehistory article (and working on an article includes removing tend