Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia:FTN 

General help
Report abuse
Request assistance
Noticeboards
Shortcuts:
WP:FTN
WP:FT/N

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:

Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Contents


Harvey Milk and the Peoples Temple

Resolved. After an ANI report the issue went to Medcab and was resolved. -- Banjeboi 22:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I rewrote the Harvey Milk article in a sandbox, using the best available sources. These include Randy Shilts' comprehensive biography The Mayor of Castro Street, the Oscar-winning documentary derived from it titled The Times of Harvey Milk, five encyclopedia entries (that reference Shilts' book), two books about the Dan White trial, and Bay-area newspapers from 1973 to 1978. I had it in mind to do for several months, but Mosedschurte (talk · contribs)'s involvement in the article inspired its completion. Mosedschurte has been inserting information about Milk's involvement with the Peoples Temple in its own subsection starting in May and it had been contested ever since. The full section was trimmed down but remained problematic with Benjiboi (talk · contribs) and Mosedschurte in an edit war with Benjiboi filing an RfC to resolve the issue which disturbingly had some {{SPA}} !votes. Benjiboi then sought other eyes at ANI which resulted in a rather forkish article, Political alliances of Peoples Temple, being created to appease Mosedschurte's concerns. Despite these steps and calls for NPOV and RS the disputed content was continually re-inserted by Mosedschurte. Before I jumped in, I wanted to read as much as I could about Milk to make sure the information is actually not notable in his life. While it is true that Milk was tangentially involved with the Peoples Temple (stipulated in the expanded article under the section titled "Race for state assembly"), it is not true that his involvement is notable in his life, nor is it notable in light of the experiences of San Francisco and state politicians at the time. Most politicians in Northern California were working in some way with Jones and the Temple. None of the sources available for Milk discuss his involvement in the Peoples Temple or with Jim Jones at any length. They mention it only in passing.

Mosedschurte was using a fringe theorist's call for content for a book that was supposed to have been written about gay members of the Peoples Temple (does not appear to have been published after checking with Amazon). This amateur historian, Michael Bellefountaine, according to his obituary, was well-known to support radical causes such as AIDS denialism. This essay provided the context for the closer look at the relationship between Milk and the People Temple, stating "If Milk supported Peoples Temple, now is the pivotal time for us to unveil the truth". The essay, however, is not a reliable source, and asks more questions than it answers—none of which appear to be fact checked. Without Bellefountaine's assertion that Milk was more directly involved in the Temple than he was, there are apparently no historians who claim that Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life. At best, this weights the article, creating an event that really had no importance taking into account what people knew about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple; it also calls into question why a single cause of Milk's is highlighted when Milk attended hundreds of meetings in the city, and wrote hundreds of letters for his constituents. At worst, it suggests that Milk was aware of Jones' criminal activities, condoned them, and used his political office to further Jones' cause. That is unacceptable. The information, however, has again been added to Milk's article and Mosedschurte continues to argue that the Jonestown suicides were notable, making that information the reason it is in Milk's article.

Tired of arguing with Mosedschurte, I offered a compromise to place information in a footnote—far beyond what it deserves. However, Mosedschurte wanted it in the full text of the article in the section on Milk's career as a supervisor, which inherently places it on the same significance as Milk's involvement in the Briggs Initiative—where he appeared on television and public forums across California for months, and his passing ordinances that got him press coverage across the country. Quite simply, that is ridiculous. I also asked SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) and Slp1 (talk · contribs) to chime in on the talk page. Their comments are available there.

I am not convinced Mosedschurte is familiar with Wikipedia policy regarding notability, original research, synthesizing information, and fringe theories despite links provided for him. Neither am I convinced Mosedschurte has access to research beyond what he can type into Google's search engine that connects "Harvey Milk" with "Jim Jones". He has been unable or unwilling to provide passages in books he's been claiming to use, and details of the number of times Milk spoke at rallies at the Peoples Temple, dates - particularly in light of Jones' investigation, and even the nature of the investigation's charges. Mosedschurte is reverting sound edits that reflect the best of the encyclopedia in favor of the promotion of this non-event in Milk's life. I think enough time and energy has been spent on this. --Moni3 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Mosedschurte was using a fringe theorist's call for content for a book that was supposed to have been written about gay members of the Peoples Temple (does not appear to have been published after checking with Amazon). This amateur historian, Michael Bellefountaine, according to his obituary, was well-known to support radical causes such as AIDS denialism. This essay provided the context for the closer look at the relationship between Milk and the People Temple, stating "If Milk supported Peoples Temple, now is the pivotal time for us to unveil the truth". The essay, however, is not a reliable source, and asks more questions than it answers—none of which appear to be fact checked."

There is not a single Bellefountaine source left. The one cite to one article he wrote was deleted long ago.

Bellefountaine was an author who was interviewing former Temple members and examining documents to work on a book about the Peoples Temple and a preliminary article of his was posted parts on the San Diego State Jonestown Institute site. A cite to one such article was included before. He since died before finishing the book.

After one editor accused Bellefountaine of being a questionable source, the source was simply deleted. It is no longer cited at all. Re-raising his name is an attempt to fabricate a "fringe" theory regaring the entirely noncontroversial facts that remain.

Re: " Without Bellefountaine's assertion that Milk was more directly involved in the Temple than he was, there are apparently no historians who claim that Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life."

No one, including even Bellefountaine probably (though I haven't read all of his work, and don't care to), has ever suggested that " Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life."

Rather, what is very briefly stated is only that Milk attended the Temple while it was under investigation and wrote a letter to President Carter praising Jones and attacking the motives of the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown.

That is why there was only one sentence in the entire 77,000 byte Milk article on the subject.

Re: "Neither am I convinced Mosedschurte has access to research beyond what he can type into Google's search engine that connects "Harvey Milk" with "Jim Jones"."

This is again another ridiculous charge, and the sort of sniping I've been attempting to steer clear of during the entire time despite you're continued reliance upon it.

And it's flatly inaccurate. Not that this is relevant at all, but I have purchased several books, hundreds of newspaper articles and, as an aside, also possess many documents, audiotapes and videotapes on the subject.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Tired of arguing with Mosedschurte, I offered a compromise to place information in a footnote—far beyond what it deserves. However, Mosedschurte wanted it in the full text of the article in the section on Milk's career as a supervisor, which inherently places it on the same significance as Milk's involvement in the Briggs Initiative"

It is not even remotely the size of the of the Briggs initiative, which has an entire multiparagraph section.

Rather, the 3 Milk lines being disputed here -- what this entire "Fringe Theory" complaint is about -- consist entirely of the following buried at the bottom of the Supervisor subsection:

While serving on the Board of Supervisors, like some other local politicians, Milk spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple while it was being investigated by newspapers and the San Francisco District Attorney's office for alleged criminal wrongdoing. [1][2][3] Milk also wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter praising Temple leader Jim Jones and questioning the motives of the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown.[4][5]
Mosedschurte (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Mosedschurte writes:

No one, including even Bellefountaine probably (though I haven't read all of his work, and don't care to), has ever suggested that " Milk's involvement in the Temple was a significant part of his life."

If it wasn't a significant part of his life, it plainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia bio. This is the essence of WP:UNDUE. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The one sentence belongs not because it was Milk spent a significant portion of his life with the Peoples Temple, but because of the notariety and activities of the group, perpetrating the largest loss of American civilian life in U.S. history until 9-11 (not including natural disasters).
For example, if Rudy Giuliani (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001, this would be notable even if Giuliani had no knowledge of their 9-11 plot. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers.
And to further illustrate the point, the above example would merit a much larger part of a Wikipedia article than a one sentence mention buried deep in a subsection.
Frankly, there is zero reason to scour any mention of this from Milk's article, and there has been a rather odd ongoing effort from a few posters to do so for a while now. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, this topic was the subject of a Request for Comment long ago, when there was a subsection on Milk's involvement (now there is merely a tiny 3 line text in the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection) and others stated that the material should stay.

As it is, it is a tiny 3 line mention of sourced NPOV encyclopedically phrased text in a huge 77,000 byte article on Milk. Mosedschurte (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a Fringe theories issue. I would have said that the info was relevant to the People's Temple but not relevant to the life of Milk. Of course, those who had contact at the time with Jim Jones did not know how his movement would turn out and it could be seen as weasellish to include information about such contact. On the other hand, you might wish to go with the balance of comments on the RfC. You could try the NPOV noticeboard, or a further RfC or mediation. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Though I appreciate the thorough cleansing of my arteries about this issue, Steven J. Anderson is right. I am too, by the way. You're making a connection that journalists and historians have not. No reliable source is available that says the relationship between Milk and the Peoples Temple meant anything more than political back-scratching, and you're equating it with Guliani and Muhammed Atta. I don't get to make connections in the articles I write. Neither do you. There's nothing to scour. It is not notable.
That "others noted the material should stay" is dubious. Those were anonymous IP accounts who had no or few other edits than that RfC. --Moni3 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith: I agree generally with that, but I would add that what remains now is already a severely cut down version of the prior material in order to comport with an editor's prior complaints.

In fact, it used to be it's own multipart subsection.

The tiny part that remains is what would be of note to Milk. Much like for Giulliani if, for example, he (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001, this would be notable even if Giuliani had no knowledge of their 9-11 plot. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers. Such meetings and letters are notable.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "You're making a connection that journalists and historians have not." (moni)

Again, this is simply false. Or worse.

I have made absolutely no "connection" other than precisely what is stated by journalists and authors. I have simply cited them.

In fact, only a tiny part of the interaction remains in the article as is. 3 lines.

The only part are the meetings post-investigation and President Carter letter. This is primarily notable because of the notariety and activities of the group. As stated, much like for Giulliani if, for example, he (or a NYC City Councilman) attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers.

Even though they do not take up large parts of his life, such meetings and letters to the President attacking that group's opponents are very clearly notable.

As it is, it has already been cut down to just a 3 line mention in the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment. Again Mosedschurte is again confusing quantity with quality. WP:Undue concerns not only the lines and percentage of text but the actual weight of it. Despite their insistence at filling up talkpages with voluminous posts that overwhelm other editors' views they don't offer credible sourcing repeatedly and civilly asked for. They either fail to understand or outright refuse by red herring discussions the core issues of reliable sourcing and NPOV. Leaning on fringe specialists for content doesn't bode well for Wikipedia and misrepresenting sources, edit-warring and piles of bad-faith accusations certainly don't contribute to a collaborative atmosphere. Neither do the SPA's that magically appeared, and Mosedschurte has quoted elsewhere, on the RfC. The RfC was also overwhelmed by Mosedschurte, SPA's and the only other support was from Wildhartlivie who also edits the Peoples Temple articles. I don't challenge a user's sourcing habits too quickly but in observing how the rhetoric on these issues has only been modified when called on it concerns me. This content has stuck out like a sore thumb from the rest of the article and every version re-introduced has been only marginally better with first myself and now Moni3 trying to fully vet what, if any connections there were. We each vetted and added NPOV and RS content but Mosedschurte simply had to re-insert an entire section, at this point simply duplicating content already in the article, and adding poorly sourced - and with the Raven book, still unverified - statements in order to scandalize. This is not an isolated incident as the entire Political alliances of Peoples Temple seems a hitlist of more of the same but involving more politicians. Mosedschurte overwhelmed the talk page and seemingly derailed constructive dialog. I hope they will reform but see little evidence of that as of yet. Similar content has been added by them on George Moscone, Donald Freed, Willie Brown (politician) and Angela Davis; other articles may as well. That they are heavily invested in the Peoples Temple in some way is obvious and I welcome those who have specialized knowledge and interests - where the problem arises is the ownership issues especially with POV and OR material which also suffers from misleading and misinterpretation of sources. That they would entrench and edit war doesn't sway it simply increases the disruption and shows they are determined. -- Banjeboi 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is, again, a broad based -- and frankly false in so many parts -- attack on me rather than the subject.

In fact, every time I directly address the vaguely asserted NPOV and UNDUE concerns, you switch the topic to me personally. For whatever reason, the Milk article appears to generate emotional responses from some editors.

Getting back to the topic, the only WP:Undue and WP:NPOV arguments I've heard are:
(1)The post-investigation activity is not in Randy Shilts biography, which is entirely irreleavant; and
(2)That a significant part of Milk's life was not involved with the Peoples Temple, and no one has ever stated that such was the case. Rather, a 3 line mention is made of him speaking at the Temple after investigations and writing President Carter praising Jones and attacking the leader of those trying to extricate relatives from Jonestown. That is all that is stated.

These are short but rather notable events given the notariety and activities of the group. That is all they have purported to be.

These notable events are concisely summarized in an entirely NPOV fashion with proper sources in a tiny 3 line section buried at the bottom of the "Supervisor" subsection of a 77,000 byte article.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you would consider following the formatting of comments per the spirit of wp:talk. I'm not attacking you but the content and your behaviour in relation to it as well as your treatment of myself and others who've tried to reason with you. I've always addressed the content concerns and would prefer that you would as well. Again this seems like a red herring to dismiss policy concerns as simply some editors being emotional or personally attacking you, that's a bit insulting. There is nothing vague about presenting fringe content in our NPOV, UNDUE and OR policies - we don't do it unless it's done with reliable sources and presented NPOV. If you won't present direct quotes from the Raven book then we should remove that source. The remaining material you keep re-adding is either already covered in context or undue and unneeded. It's not that it's not covered in just the Shilts book but in any meaningful way as has been painstaking explained, several times and civilly and now in several venues. The events you want to re-add are simply already in the article or not that notable. -- Banjeboi 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "There is nothing vague about presenting fringe content in our NPOV, UNDUE and OR policies - we don't do it unless it's done with reliable sources and presented NPOV."

There aren't any specific NPOV, OR or UNDUE concerns I've heard except for the above.

And, as I have explained going directly through the issues, the tiny summary is presented in a very concise NPOV fashion in the "Supervisor" subsection.

Re: "If you won't present direct quotes from the Raven book then we should remove that source."

I've stated this probably 5 times now on the Milk talk page, but the ONLY thing the Raven cite is left supporting in the small remaining text is that Milk attended a single meeting, the July 31 meeting.

Another source, VanDeCarr, which is cited, states that Milk last spoke at the Temple on October of 1978. This is what is stated:

Milk spoke at a service for the last time in October 1978. He had been enthusiastically received at Peoples Temple several times before, and he always sent glowing thank-yon notes to Jones afterward. After one visit, Milk wrote, "Rev. Jim, It may Lake me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something deal" today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours mad energy, placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave." (VanDeCarr)

Regarding the one meeting for which Raven is still cited for this particular text, this is precisely what the book states. Here is quote from pages 327-8: "Lavish expresssions of solidarity marked a July 31 rally designed to unify Temple members and their supporters." The book then goes into an extended quote of Jones speaking via telephone over speakers from Guyana, to which he had just fled. It then states "When Jones finished, State Assemblyman Art Agnos, who was visiting for the first time, turned to county supervisor Harvey Milk, 'Harvey, that guy is really wild.' Milk smiled, 'Yeah, he's different all right.'"

Re: "The events you want to re-add are simply already in the article or not that notable."

They are already in the article because I added them back after deletion. They were deleted a few days ago again, and I re-added them, this time NOT in their own section, but in a smaller 3 line piece of text in the "Supervisor" subsection.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the verbosity is obfuscating the issue here: original research, synthesis and undue weight in a biography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed "Undue Weight" at length above. Given the notariety of the group -- largest loss of U.S. civilian life pre-9-11 -- and their activities, the meetings and speeches at their meetings and letter the U.S. President praising them and attacking the leader of those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown were themselves notable. No one has really attempted to make an argument to contrary.

In fact, to take just one far less notable example, look at the Dennis Wilson bio article. There is an entire 23 line section devoted to just his picking up hitchhikers that belonged to Manson's family and friendly relations with the group well before any crimes were committed (in fact, Wilson turned away from Manson's group), which obviously pales in comparison in terms of notoriety to the Peoples Temple. There isn't even an instance of Wilson supporting the group to officials or attacking its opponents.

Or, as the other even better hypothetical parallel, if Rudy Giulliani (or a NYC City Councilman), for example, attended and spoke at a meeting of Mohammed Atta and the 9-11 bombers in August of 2001. And it would be far more notable if Giuliani (or an NYC city councilman) had written President Bush opposing locals wishing to investigate Atta and the bombers.

And keep in mind that this is a sourced 3-line mention in the 77,000 byte Milk article. And, yes, I know that size alone does not determine Undue Weight, and I am only pointing this out to further demonstrate that the size itself here is not an issue.

The "synthesis" concerns simply don't exist here where no conclusion is at all reached. WP:Synthesis states "an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." The 3 lines of text simply state undisputed events that occurred without conclusion.

There is no "original research" in the Milk article as far as I know.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Giuliani/Atta hypothetical is not a particularly good parallel and I don't see why you keep repeating it, as it is not going to convince anyone. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, kids. I'm gobsmacked by this. Mosedschurte is not interested in the best sources for the subject's life. He hasn't read the best sources and he is not interested in reading them. This is an WP:SPA that edits only on articles involving Jim Jones. Anonymous IPs take his side in the only edits they make in RfCs, and he counts no consensus as victory. He responds by exhausting his opponents with verbal gymnastics and voluminous posts. The best interest of the article is clearly not his priority. What is Wikipedia here for if not integrity of content? Would it honestly be much easier to allow this POV and Synth to remain in the article? Tell me what I need to do! --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I share this assessment. After months of edit-warring to re-insert this content the article was completely rewritten to accurately reflect what reliable sources supported by a trusted editor known for their FA writing - Wikipedia's finest articles. This was disregarded by Mosedschurte who has continued to game the systems. Mosedschurte's entire presence on the article has been solely to scandalize the subject of the article, edit warring and otherwise disrupt progress by arguing voluminously. After months of asking for a source verification they admit that the Raven book also says little about Milk accept that he attended a rally. This coupled with a primary source, continually mischaracterized and hosted by a conspiracy theory website is an unwelcome blight on the article. NPOV and RS connections between Milk and Jones/Peoples Temple are already in the re-written article; in fact they were there before it was rewritten because I added them. Mosedschurte seems only interested in having this content be blighted onto the article and I feel way too much time and energy has been spent trying to reason with them. If they won't desist then likely some administrative action should intervene so those interested in improving the article using policies to guide them can do so without this added drama. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A sources summary:
    • "Another Day of Death." Time Magazine. 11 December 1978.
      • This source only states that Milk attended rallies, it is likely mentioned as it's below an article about the Peoples Temple mass murder/suicide.
    • Reiterman, Tim and John Jacobs. Raven: The Untold Story of Reverend Jim Jones and His People
      • Summary of relevant text from above - Milk was at a July 31 rally
    • VanDeCarr, Paul "Death of dreams: in November 1978, Harvey Milk's murder and the mass suicides at Jonestown nearly broke San Francisco's spirit."
      • Summary of relevant text from above - Milk spoke at a [Peoples Temple] service in October 1978, he had spoken there prior, they liked him.
    • Coleman, Loren, "The Copycat Effect", Simon & Schuster, 2004, page 68
      • "In a letter to President Jimmy Carter, San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk defended Jones as a friend to minority communities."
    • Milk, Harvey Letter Addressed to President Jimmy Carter, Dated February 19, 1978
      • This is a primary source, and a good example of how they are misused. The document, assuming it's real, is hosted by a site specializing in conspiracy theories and scandals as part of their "San Francisco: America's Digital Age Banana Republic". I have detailed the mischaracterizing of this particular source before directly to Mosedschurte on the article's talkpage.
      • The first half of the letter describes how Jones is widely respected and has been honored by the full board of San Francisco supervisors and the California Senate for his church's work. The second half concerns Timothy and Grace Stoen, former Peoples Temple members/employees who apparently supplied Grace so Jones could father a child, John through her, Milk states, and gives references, that the Stoens are discredited by the local media and is concerned about diplomatic relations with Guyana. The source states nothing that the Stoens are "leader of those attempting to extricate relatives " only that they have been widely discredited in the case of custody over one child who the Stoens, according to this same source admit is Jones'. Instead it's been used to imply that Milk was aligned with Jones whereas it seems more like Milk, yet again, writing to the president as part of his job.
  • I've detailed all these points out before but nothing has convinced Mosedschurte to desist. Milk as either a politician or a candidate to become one would speak in front of all sorts of groups. Speaking at churches is not noteworthy and is fully in keeping with a politician's work. The only thing remarkable in all this is how little to tie together the two there actually is. The internet is full of site that link famous people to conspiracies and fringe theories including that Milk's death was related to the Peoples Temple in some way. Luckily we have policies in place to keep Wikipedia free of all that. -- Banjeboi 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Sandy: "original research, synthesis and undue weight in a biography". Agree with Itsmejudith that it's not so much a FRINGE issue. Perhaps Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard is our next stop? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The fringe concerns have to do with NPOV and using this content to further a fringe idea that Milk's murder was connected to the Peoples Temple thus the need to connect Milk to them. I think it's clear these sentences should be removed as that's what consensus is clearly supporting. If Mosedschurte persists in again edit warring then they will earn a block for such. This shouldn't be perpetuated simply so they can rehash in yet another forum. -- Banjeboi 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason to come to any noticeboard is so that the regulars can weigh in. Itsmejudith, who is as regular as they come, has said she doesn't believe it's FRINGE, so I thank her for her time. I think this is SYNTH, but I'd really kind of like to find out from the "professionals" if they agree. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: "I've detailed all these points out before but nothing has convinced Mosedschurte to desist."

This is simply false and the sniping really needs to stop.

The sources as discussed above, by the way, say EXACTLY what the text in the article states (note that the new explanatory language, including the "well fuck him" quote was included by moni):

While serving on the Board of Supervisors, like some other politicians in Northern California, Milk spoke at at the controversial Peoples Temple, including while it was being investigated by newspapers and the San Francisco District Attorney's office for alleged criminal wrongdoing. [6][7][3][note 1] Although Milk defended Temple leader Jim Jones in a letter to President Jimmy Carter in 1978[8], he and his aides deeply distrusted Jones. When Milk learned Jones was backing both him and Art Agnos in 1976, he told friend Michael Wong, "Well fuck him. I'll take his workers, but, that's the game Jim Jones plays."[9]
Note that:

(1) Moni's new language is included (including the "well fuck him" quote moni added)
(2) Moni's note is included
(3) The source containing the actual image of Milk's letter is goneMosedschurte (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Is this a bad dream of mine? Or a well-known editor who's trying to get me to care about content oversight? Because this is a really awful way to go about it. Milk said fuck. I'm saying fuck a lot now. There's even an article on fuck. It was a direct quote from Milk about Jim Jones, and you removed it. Holy God. Unfreakingbelievable. Wikipedia is not censored. What a waste of effort that link is. Fuck. --Moni3 (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)"

I didn't remove it. In fact, I cut and pasted exactly what you wrote word-for-word in the article now.

Trust me, I have zero problem with you or Milk or me saying "fuck", or including the quote. In fact, I included the same quote in the Political_alliances_of_Peoples_Temple article long ago. I would have added it myself, along with Milk's other quote calling the Temple "dangerous", but there was already yelping of "undue weight" concerns I was fearful to add any additional text at all.

I merely pointed out that you added that quote to the Wikipedia article because it was not clear on this board.

I thought the quote was both helpful (explained Milk's motives--distrusted Jones) and interesting, and I kept it in the article. Mosedschurte (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, fair enough, I'm concerned that all reasonable dialog will, yet again, be drowned out by Mosedschurte ongoing red herring sidepoints, parroting back what has been written by others and verbosity which fails to address the core issues. That they do so while, again, accusing others of lying and "sniping" seems to suggest they have no interest in following the spirit and intent of policies and prefer arguing. What are the next steps so we can at least clear this mess off the Milk article? -- Banjeboi 20:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


More Iranian historical nationalism

This time on Battle of Opis, an article related to Cyrus cylinder (discussed above). Larno Man (talk · contribs) disagrees with a widely cited translation of a Babylonian text quoted in the article and the interpretations that have arisen from it, and is demanding that it must be discarded (along with said interpretations) in favour of a very new translation. I've pointed out that we can't unilaterally declare a brand new translation to be "the truth", particularly as I've been unable to find any reputable corroborations or citations of the new translation. Although it's being pushed heavily by Iranian nationalists, it comes from a respectable source; I've tried to compromise by including it as a footnote [1]. Unfortunately this hasn't satisfied Larno Man or his colleague Ariobarza (talk · contribs), who has taken to deleting without comment material that he doesn't like, adding his own personal commentary [2] and falsifying quotations from sources [3]. Input would be appreciated... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've chimed in, you are right. Lambert in the footnote is fine, commenting on it or giving it more weight is not. Doug Weller (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
my attitude towards Greek and Iranian nationalists "contributing" to topics of ancient Macedonia and Persia (respectively) - etc. - is increasingly: "not one inch". Nothing good, and certainly nothing sanely encyclopedic, comes of any other approach. --dab (𒁳) 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep. One of the most depressing aspects of Wikipedia is the Greek and Macedonian nationalist obsession with fighting over Alexander the Great and Macedon, without their realising that modern politics is absolutely irrelevant to ancient history. Feuding over Iranian history is generally confined to more recent times and tends to have an Iranic vs. Turkic flavour. The main generator of conflict here is the current argument between Iranian "Persians" and the country's large Azeri (Turkic) minority. Try editing anything related to the Safavids if you want a headache. I suppose the ancient history brawling is wrapped up with the controversy over 300 (film) and some wider "clash of the civilisations" argie-bargie between Iran and the US (or Iran and the West generally). --Folantin (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The sourced text was removed 4 times. The 4th time User:DragonflySixtyseven decided to protect the page, thereby endorsing the complete removal of a well-sourced version and leaving an illiterate stub. Obviously I'm not going to unprotect the page as I'm involved, but what do we do about Admins who do this sort of thing? ANI? Doug Weller (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

they will just tell you "it is always somebody's wrong version that gets protected, son". Of course without even having looked at the case. The problem with our "new model admins" is that they firmly believe that they do not need to understand the dispute: heavens, if they did, wouldn't that make them "involved"? The article will be fine, the pov-pushers always get tired sooner or later, and swarm to the latest hotspot, and the encyclopedists can then go in and clean up after them. It will take a couple of months. It is just sad to see that "admin intervention" actually delays the process instead of facilitating it. --dab (𒁳) 06:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. The Admin doesn't seem to have looked at all at what was happening or care about editors deleting sourced text. How does he think that protection will solve the problem, when he's left an illiterate stub? Doug Weller (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this is going to need an arbitration, unfortunately. Creazy Suit, Larno Man and Ariobarza have made it abundantly clear that they're pushing their own personal POVs for nationalist reasons. The fundamental problem here is a user conduct issue, specifically violations of NPOV, V and NOR, plus we know from Ariobarza that Larno Man has been canvassing off-wiki as well. I'll get a user conduct RfC started on the three of them and post the link here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Creazy Suit wants to bring Lambert to testify to ArbCom! Doug Weller (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"Creazy" indeed... The RfC is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man‎ - it needs one more signature to certify it. Feel free to add to it if you are aware of other issues with these editors (Doug, your recent comments on my talk page suggested that you'd run into them before?). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Various anonymous IP addresses are now turning up at Cyrus cylinder and are blanking sections of the article (now reverted). No doubt someone has put the word out to the nationalist grapevine. Any chance someone uninvolved could semi-protect the article? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See here for a couple of more examples of disruptive editing by Larno Man (for collecting them, however, I received a warning from Khoikhoi for stalking). -- Ankimai (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial real estate

I have just cleaned up Extraterrestrial real estate,[4] an article that has been cleanup tagged for a long time. It was suffering from lots of fringe material, linkspam and apparent self-promotion by those selling such real estate.

I suspect that the people who created the problem with this article will attempt to restore their content. Can noticeboard participants please watch the article and help make sure that it stays clean. If any tendentious editors attempt to damage the article, please find an administrator to dispense clues as needed.

If any aspect of my cleanup removed valid content, editors are welcome to restore material supported by reliable sources. Thank you! Jehochman Talk 10:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put it on my watch list. Doug Weller (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Could this be the true source of the subprime mortgage crisis? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon questioning definition of "fringe science"

Long story short, the anon insists that the source used for the lead in fringe science is itself fringe because it appears that no one cites the article used to reference the definition("Fringe concepts are considered highly speculative or weakly confirmed by mainstream scientists"). The problem is that almost all the works I can find on google scholar take a definition of fringe for granted and do not bother defining it. I have asked the anon to source their claim that this is a fringe definition, but they evade. Anyone got a better idea than ignoring this person? Discussion here. NJGW (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd ignore him, he's basically trolling. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Input appreciated

Can someone please provide additional outsider input in Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China about a possible merger. In my opinion I feel this whole article is a fringe theory, providing no evidence of exclusivity and most sources better used in a neutral article like Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China. Current editing base is 2 plus a very disruptive third editor, so discussions become very polarised and lead to nothing at the end, so I seek to expand the editing base so that there's a wider range of editors maintaining the article. --antilivedT | C | G 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be an idea to propose merging the article into the Organ harvesting in the PRC article. After all, if it is happening, it is happening in China. Actually, I wonder whether all of this shouldn't be in Organ harvesting, so that we explain the concept first before going on to the location of the reports and controversy. See for example force feeding, which describes all aspects of the practice, even though there has been recent massive public attention paid to one particular set of allegations. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Barry Long

I just came across Barry Long, which claims that he was "was an Australian spiritual teacher and writer", but which does not seem to establish his notability, and which has only primary sources. Does anyone know if he is actually notable? There are a number of books listed, but they seem to be self published. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Although the article has been around since February 2006, I don't see anything that establishes notability. All the references are Long's self-published books, the Barry Long website, and a couple of other fringe websites. There's no coverage in reliable third-party sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, this and this should be enough to establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Looie496, in this case, I disagree with you. The books seem to have been self-published. The newspaper article establishes little. (My grandfather, who for over forty years repaired shoes, had a very nice article written about him in the most important newspaper of the large city in which he lived; but, wonderful person thought he was, I do not think that would establish notability for Wikipedia.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't think an obit alone establishes notability. Anyone want to be the bad guy and start an AfD? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It completely escapes me why people waste so much time on things like this when five minutes of Googling will tell you that an AfD would turn into an easy keep. Did you not look at the Amazon link I provided? Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Looie496, That is a self published book. It does not establish notability.
Steven J. Anderson, I left a message on the article talk page[5]; and, since someone there seems serious about solving the problem, it would be fair to wait rather than starting an AfD. If you, or anyone, has suggestions to help the user to establish notability, then please do. It is an IP user who may not understand WP guidelines. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Peoples Temple and Harvey Milk again

I responded to the original enquiry on this noticeboard and have engaged with the issue a bit. I would appreciate a few more people passing by. At first I didn't think it was a fringe issue, but now I think it might be. There are reliable sources that show that the Peoples Temple canvassed links with a number of Democratic Party politicians, but the question is what weight to attach and whether it is our role to expose every single minor connection. A series of inter-related pages need checking out for POV-forking and coatracking. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've come across a bit of information about this issue while doing research for Harvey Milk. It is inevitable that other names of politicians are mentioned, as well as that of Jones. I am, however, not enthusiastic to re-engage Mosedschurte, so I have been concentrating on the Milk article, preparing it for GA and FA. I agree that fringe and conspiracy seem to be coming to the fore with this issue. There is much value in describing how Jones was able to inflate his political persona in San Francisco, manipulate politicians (since they used him as well), and recall favors when he needed help with serious matters. These articles should be constructed based on the best available information about Jones and each politician, and should tell a cohesive story about how Jones rose to power and became more paranoid while masking his paranoia. I think it's a fallacy to write the articles retrospectively, assuming that Temple members and San Franciscans should have known the things Jones was doing all along, and listing each politician's involvement with the Temple without the greater context of the positive press it was getting. It would be completely POV to state outright, or give the impression that politicians were working with Jones, and admired or condoned what he was doing unless that information has been explicitly stated by a reliable historian or journalist. It's my impression that San Franciscans were completely and utterly astonished at how bad things had gotten in Jonestown, and very confused as to how they got that way, regardless of the blips of news coming out that described individuals' experiences. I would be concerned that a fraction of the information is being used instead of more thorough readings about each politician, and what they knew at what stage. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian pyramid construction techniques and Great pyramid of Giza

We've got a POV pusher back trying to insert some nonsense in the construction techniques article about a fringe writer named Noone, whose material virtually only shows up on the web through our article. See my edit on Talk:Egyptian pyramid construction techniques (the guy's called me a liar also, but I don't know if it's worth taking to WP:CIVIL. He's active on both articles. I'm not around much tonight, not sure about tomorrow, so if anyone can keep an eye on them and explain to him why the Noone stuff is too insignificant for Wikipedia, I'd appreciate it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet's DJ Idea

User:Binksternet, has repeatedly abused his rollback privleges on the disk jockey page to enforce a fringe phenomenon and defy editor consensus. Since August, the editors have debated endlessly about the importance and prevalance of topless DJing, and therefore the nessecity of a picture about it on the article. All the editors have agreed that topless female DJs have only been found with accurate citations in ONE mainstream nightclub, which has since shut down. Therefore everyone but Binksternet has agreed the picture should be removed due to irrellavance. But Binksternet has defied this near-consensus and now on some days has been going over the three-revert rule. He claims that the picture "shows how experementation is part of DJing" which is the lamest excuse I have ever heard of. he should be blocked from editing the DJ article for his repeated attempts to give undue weight to an extremly minor phenomenon. --Ipatrol (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

There are two editors who are sometimes active on this noticeboard, Orangemarlin and ScienceApologist, who I believe are edit warring on the New Thought article and trying to make unsourced changes. I would appreciate hearing the views of other editors here, who I am sure will let me know if they think I am I am mistaken. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You and SA need to have a discussion on each other's talk pages about sources for the article. The section on therapeutic ideas isn't properly sourced yet. You should regard the churches' own websites as primary sources. There are two books from academic presses already referenced. Don't either of these have anything on the views about health and healing? If not, then we must question whether it is a notable aspect of this belief system. If you could find something that explained how these views grew up in opposition to mainstream medical thinking, then that would be really interesting, and could quite easily be written up in a completely neutral way. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I discussion re Iranian nationalist editors

The recent problems with Iranian nationalists pushing fringe theories are currently being discussed at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza, User:CreazySuit and User:Larno Man. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Morya

Not long ago I deleted a lot of material from this Theosophical Society related article because of, what seems to me, synthesis and original research, and lack of secondary sources. All that was just reverted, and I would appreciate it if some other editors would take a look. There is no point in arguing if it turns out I am in the wrong. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just at a glance I can see that these are huge problems on the article. There are some books listed under "Further reading" that from their titles and publishers are good secondary sources, yet the article is written up instead entirely from primary sources. I suggest stubbing it and starting it again using the university press books, and keeping it as short as you possibly can. Right at the beginning it is essential that the reader knows whether this is a supernatural being, a real human being (dates of birth and death?), or a kind of supposition that may or may not have been a real person. The lead should be comprehensible by someone who has never heard of Theosophy. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I know I've brought this here before, but I'm starting another drive to improve the articlce. It seems to be going quite well, but it keeps getting hung up on "quackery" appearing in the lead. Personally I'm not bothered either way, but I have a suspicion that removing quackery will lead to calls for pseudoscience to be removed, then for most of the rest of the science and criticism to be removed... Anyway, suggestions for improvement, highlighting of problem areas, and present more reasoned and knowledgeable opinions re quackery etc than I can. Many thanks. Verbal chat 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not had the time to read the entire article, but I did do a few word searches in it, and I am surprised that there is no mention of Rudolf Steiner, his movement called Anthroposophy (an outgrowth of the Theosophical Society), or the healing branch of Anthroposophy called Weleda which is based largly on homeopathy. I can not recall an occasion, when Homeopathy came up in conversation, that there was not some connection to Anthroposophy. Steiner had big ideas, and developed within his movement an approach to virtually any important subject you can think of:

Anthroposophy has spawned a number of closely related organizations and/or concepts. The Waldorf schools and system of education that Steiner created teach children based on three different seven-year long stages that they pass through. Biodynamic farming owes its origin to Steiner and, in the simplest of terms, involves knowing the relationship between plants, animals, and the soil. Eurythmy, a Steiner-created performance movement art known as the "art of visible speech and visible song," is meditative in its process. Anthroposophical medicine, which generally refers to Weleda homeopathic preparations, was also developed by Rudolph Steiner. [6]

At one time I was fascinated by Anthroposophy, but have now come to regard it as a highly problematic cult. It seems to appeal particularly to people with good intelligence and high educational level (which is perhaps the reason I lost interest in it). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that anthroposophy is sufficiently prominent outside Germany to warrant mentioning it in the homeopathy article. I mean this literally: I am not sure. In the UK there are Steiner schools in many cities, but I think they are generally less dogmatic, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that anthroposophic medicine is very marginal here. On the other hand, the EU regulations on medicine mention anthroposophic medicine explicitly and say that the rules for homeopathy apply. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Verbal, I was in fact going to bring this up as one other thing that needs resolving or an NPOV tag (although I don't know how to tag a category inclusion). I think we all agree that in the arbcom ruling described at WP:PSCI homeopathy fits somewhere between astrology and psychoanalysis. In my opinion it's obvious that it's much closer to psychoanalysis (which is also often called quackery) than to astrology. E.g. articles by psychoanalysts and homeopaths, but not by astrologers, do get published in mainstream peer reviewed journals, occasionally. Psychoanalysis and homeopathy both are both still much closer to their protoscientific origins and a lot more plausible (I am not saying they are plausible) than astrology. Homeopathy and psychoanalysis are payed by public health systems in some countries; I don't think that's the case for astrology. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there is an article: Anthroposophical medicine. It has an external link (Physician's Association for Anthroposophical Medicine (North America)), and claims 60 North American members [7], which is perhaps not so large a number for a continent. It seems to me that a mention might be justified because of its importance in Europe...particularly in Germany and Austria. But my main point (based only on my personal experience) is that those who practice homeopathy, and those who seek it for treatment of illnesses, almost always seem to have some connection to -- or at least interest in -- Anthroposophy. I have no experience with vendors, or manufacturers, of homeopathic cures, but my guess is that many of those also are connected to Anthroposophical Medicine. I have found this [8], which lists "Therapeutic and Medical" initiatives (not necessarily homeopathic) in America, and a lot of other stuff too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has caused enough problems without expanding the scope to include related movements such as anthroposophy, which, properly, has its own article. We are not going to resolve the pseudoscience category problem. Perhaps we should eliminate the category. DGG (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think 'quackery' is unnecessary and prejudicial, and certainly doesn't even have the limited value of the pseudoscience label. I'd go ahead and remove it - I don't see that it will led to a cascade of criticism removal, and if it does it would certainly be easy enough to combat that kind of silliness. if you prefer, I'll remove it myself, and keep an eye out for anyone who tries to capitalize on it. --Ludwigs2 05:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your first sentence, but I recommand that you don't remove the word "quackery". It would probably not get you blocked immediately, but only because nobody has given you the homeopathy article probation warning yet. If you don't believe me, you can find earlier discussions about the word in the homeopathy talk page archive. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG, Anthroposophy seems to be the main group promoting Homeopathy. It seems strange not to even mention them in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a strong link from anthroposophy to homeopathy. It's probably quite a bit weaker the other way round. In all my literature research for the homeopathy the only place where I found anthroposophy mentioned was an EU directive that treats anthroposophic medicine in the same way as homeopathic remedies. Of course this could be because many of my sources were old books (from before Steiner), but still... --Hans Adler (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure they are the "main group". In the US, HeadOn is probably the "main group". ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
So is it now official that you identify homeopathy with quacks who sell some of their products exploiting an exception for homeopathy? This kind of attitude would explain the insistence to use the word "quackery" in the homeopathy article. (I mean this literally, not ironically. I also don't remember whether you were among those who insisted.) Apparently the same company has also produced an itch remedy with 1 % hydrocortisone. From a homeopathic POV that's probably one of the worst things you can do. It's common but unfair to judge a country by its president, or an ideology by its most extreme proponents etc. But its even worse to judge a group by their black sheep, e.g. judge Belgium by its most famous pedophile serial killer. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how homeopathy as an idea in the age of atomic theory defies the simplest logical arguments, I fail to be able to see a distinction between some homeopathic "doctor" who shakes and dilutes to ridiculous proportions and some company that applies its shaken and dissolved idiocy directly to the forehead. This is just my opinion, mind you, but it isn't one that is solely mine. Wikipedia is under no obligation to distinguish between "black sheep" companies and those whom you or anyone else think hold the "legitimacy sceptre" of this nonsense we call "homeopathy". What is of the utmost importance is for us to describe, characterize, paraphrase, and mirror what independent sources say are the most prominently notable aspects of any given topic. That's the sense in which Wikipedia deals with topics ranging from the mundane to the sublime. That's how we are entrusted to treat homeopathy. I'm sorry if the fabulous Head-On campaign has commandeered and maligned your your pet pseudoscience, but we aren't here to right great wrongs. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I take this as a "yes". --Hans Adler (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cryptovirus

I'd like to draw a bit of attention to this article, and to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptovirus. Looie496 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Polytheistic reconstructionism

Outside input required here. I used to think this was a bona fide topic under Category:Neopaganism, but recent anon activity has led me to review the case, and I find that this has the typical hallmarks of pure WP:SYN.

  • there is no independent third party source indicating this satisfies WP:NOTE
  • the "insider" sources we cite to define the topic (essentially [9]) are online essays written by random individuals

I am not sure whether the article can stand as a topic on its own. Perhaps this will need to become a note at the Neopaganism article that "some proponents have advanced 'reconstructionism'" or similar.

These are my concerns. I haven't made up my mind and I am genuinely looking for third opinions. --dab (𒁳) 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not understanding Dbachmann's reasoning initially, and would hate to see the article Polytheistic reconstructionism deleted, but the assertion Polytheistic reconstructionism is not a bona fide topic under Category:Neopaganism is one I agree with. In fact, along the same line of thinking, the Neopaganism article would also need to be completely reworked. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The terms seems to have been invented by Timothy J. Alexander, in his book "A Beginner's Guide to Hellenismos", which is vanity-published by lulu.com. He seems to use it mainly to describe attempts to revive the religion of the ancient Greeks. Note that we have the related article Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. In any case, the lengthy history of this article seems to indicate some level of notability even if it is hard to find good sources. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that if these are notable it is in the same sense that the Rainbow Gathering is notable. There are certainly people committed to it, and there are events; but it is impossible to define intellectual content, or even any obvious shared intent. It is a very loosely defined group that has events. That would, perhaps, put it more in the category with such things as American Civil War reenactments. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The article Polytheistic reconstructionism was started more that a year before Timothy J. Alexander's book. There is no way to link him to the original coining. Nova Roma calls what they do Roman Reconstructionism. CR means Celtic Reconstructionism. It is not an issue specific to Hellenic Reconstructionism. The real issue is if these groups fall under Neopaganism. They may conform to the common definition of neopagan, but they all seem to reject being part of the larger Neopagan movement. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The term was coined by Isaac Bonewits long before anyone actually embraced it as a self-description. The question isn't whether the term exists, but whether we need, or can justify, a standalone article about it. --dab (𒁳) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the term Isaac Bonewits coined was Eclectic Neopagan Reconstructionism, and his concept does not conform to the standards of Polytheistic reconstructionism. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
dear anon, the entire point is that there are no "standards", because we don't have any quotable sources to base them on. Where do you, personally, derive your knowledge of "Polytheistic reconstructionism"? The Web? Your own musings? Anything that may help us build an encyclopedic article? If you just stick to your opinion but won't tell us what it is based on, this isn't going anywhere. Bonewits at least is a published author. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Reconstructionism has been written about and discussed in works by authors such as Michael Strmiska, Christopher Penczak, Barbara Jane Davy, Michael York, Chas Clifton, Graham Harvey, Deborah Lipp, Shelley Rabinovitch, James Lewis, Douglas E. Cowan, Selene Silverwind, Janet Farrar, Gavin Bone, Lauren Manoy, Dana D. Eilers, Jennifer Hunter, and many others. Besides these, as I understand it, and maybe I'm wrong, but 1st party sources are considered "quotable sources". It is only notability that requires 3rd party sources. If that were not the case, then Catholic sources could not be used to write articles about Catholicism, Jewish sources could not be used for Jewish articles, and Wiccan sources could not be used for Wiccan articles. If that is not the case, I hope you are prepared to expand your campaign. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
well, great, I'll be happy to discuss the topic in terms of the publications of the authors you mention. I am not saying there are no sources, just that the article so far isn't aware of them (this has improved with the Linzie papers, too, so I am confident we are getting somewhere). --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Opis redux

Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs) has jumped right back in where CreazySuit (talk · contribs) left off on Battle of Opis, making exactly the same ridiculous arguments (latest translation is the most authoritative, the author is "superior" to any other authors, the author of another translation can't have translated it herself because her personal web page doesn't say she reads ancient Akkadian). See my comments at Talk:Battle of Opis#A plea for sanity. Is anyone going to help out on this article or is it going to be abandoned to POV-pushers and original research nonsense? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I know Napaheshar as a reasonable and knowledgeable wikipedian and I do not think it is constructive to dismiss his opinions as "nonsense". It does not mean that he is absolutely correct but we should not dismiss his opinions. I am not an expert on the matter but after reading Talk:Battle_of_Opis#Grayson_and_Lambert it appears to me that Nepaheshgar's idea is to present all four available (or whatever are present) translations of the original ancient text giving the maximal weight to the latest (2007 Lambert's). It sounds reasonable. I have also noticed that Nepaheshgar proposed arranging a contact with some authors of earlier research to ask if they change their position after Lambert's work. I think if it can be done it might be valuable. Only the mainspace texts should follow WP:V. If we can arrange a consultation with an expert it might not go to the mainspace unless published but certainly can influence the weight we give to different translations Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My expert says Lambert's opinion is "based on context, essentially a reconstruction of the entire historical situation. So let the historians decide whether there was a slaughter or not. Lambert is a leading assyriolo