Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 29

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Repeat report - not what this noticeboard is about
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yep. Still problems. Current ones are: Denying that policy saying that POV-pushing quotes shouldn't be used without careful contextualization (Wikipedia:FRINGE#Quotations) means that the list of POV-pushing quotes needs to be contextualised. Claiming that there's no need to tag it as unbalanced, because it's being actively discussed on the talk page. (WMC is such a troll sometimes. He can't really believe some of the stuff he says.) Asking for points to be explained, then, when they are, starting new sections, and claiming that the point was never explained. Such arguments will never get any discussion. Ridiculous article, talk page is basically nothing but trolling. How long before this goes to AfD again? 86.** IP (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

List of UFO sightings

List has become infected with a number of badly sourced claims, or claims flatly described as fact, e.g. "Guy Hottel investigated for the Air Force the recovery of three flying saucers" and "Alien abduction of victims who were fishing on the Pascagoula River." Needs trimming. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone delete the sightings for which there is no Wikipedia article. For example, the Guy Hottel claim mentioned above doesn't even have a wiki article about it - there is no "Guy Hottel" article. It seems that a number of the badly-sourced claims/sightings are the ones with no wiki article about them. It looks as if someone has just added in random UFO claims/sightings to the UFO sightings list, regardless of whether there is a Wikipedia article about them or not. If the stated incident doesn't have a link to a wiki article, then it probably shouldn't be listed. Just my suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2011‎

I fail to see why not having a wiki articel makes one iota of differance. But its does seem unsourced, this needs changing.

Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the List of UFO Sightings was set up to provide wiki users who are interested in UFOs with a list of links to UFO-related Wiki articles. Looking over the list, it seems as if some people have randomly added in UFO incidents for which there are no wiki articles. Thus, if there's no wiki article on the sighting, it shouldn't be listed, as there is no way for the user to get further information on the sighting on Wikipedia. Also, if every UFO sighting/incident random posters considered important was listed, then the list would be so long as to be virtually worthless, IMO.

Trying to fix things results in insults like this: [1]. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The list has been trimmed down of non-notable events and seems a lot better now for it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I started checking the text against the sources cited. Why was I not surprised to find exaggerations and fabrications not contained in the sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

CETI Patterson Power Cell

More 'cold fusion' shenanigans at the CETI Patterson Power Cell article. Wild claims based as usual on fringe sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#George_H._Miley_and_the_Patterson_Power_Cell for part of the discussion, but we also have an anon SPA IP reverting crap back in, with no edit summary. Needs help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous IP is still trying to revert crap back in. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No scientific consensus on UFOs?

Apparently there is "no scientific consensus" on UFOs. I was surprised to learn this, but it is, in fact, the name of a section of our UFO article: UFO#No_scientific_consensus.

69.86.225.27 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is true - there is no scientific consensus on UFOs. Because UFOs aren't science. There is likewise no scientific consensus on Fairies, on the relative merits of Bob Dylan vs Wordsworth, or on which end of a boiled egg one should cut open either. The section title is misleading, because the premise is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could change the section title then? As an anon IP, I cannot. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think most of this section could simply be refactored upward into the lede on the investigations section, but the section as a whole is such a disorganized mess that it's going to take more than that. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For now I've renamed the section as 'Scientific studies', which is at least less misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, aren't UFOs, by definition unexplained objects? Which means it's a catch-all for all aerial phenomena, whether actually extraterrestrial in origin, natural phenomena which has not been identified, or simply vague reports of something no one can usefully identitify? So UFOs do exist & are routinely studied by scientists & academics; it's the UFOs-as-flying-saucers which scientists offer no opinion on. The article does make this distinction, but it should be in the lead followed by a comment stating something along the lines of "In the rest of this article, 'UFO' is used in its more limited meaning of a flying saucer." (This would then allow a section about the difficulty of visual identifications, or maybe link to eyewitness memory & unusual natural phenomena like the green flash.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. UFO's are by definition unidentified flying objects... not unexplained ones. Indeed, UFO sightings are rarely unexplained (and, in fact, they are usually explained in several different ways, depending on who is doing the explaining. Some will explain them as being visiting space aliens, others will explain them as top secret government test flights, yet others will explain them as being hoaxes and/or delusions, etc. etc. etc.) Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"it's the UFOs-as-flying-saucers which scientists offer no opinion on" -- In almost every undergraduate non-major astronomy text, the authors (normally bona fide scientists) offer their opinions that UFOs are NOT flying saucers piloted by aliens. That is pretty much the consensus of the vast majority of the scientists who comment on this nonsense. Shouldn't Wikipedia at least acknowledge this? I see that mention of this fact has been routinely deleted from the page as has most of the mainstream astronomer commentaries on the subject. Seriously, folks, at almost every single public lecture relating to anything vaguely astrophyiscal we get some nutjob asking us about UFOs. You don't have to look very far for sources that show how we respond to these types of inquiries. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Scientists do not use the term "unidentified flying object". TFD (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If we look at this Google scholar search for the term... at least some scientists do seem to use the term. They may do so in the context of debunking fringe theories, but they use the term. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that science has complete consensus on the question of UFOs. The consensus is this. Sometimes people report seeing things in the sky (or in the air), and they say they don't know what those things are. Those reports might then be called "unidentified flying objects". If the report is investigated an object might be identified, usually a bird, bat, aircraft or cloud. The UFO then becomes an identified flying object. This doesn't always happen. It might not be worth investigating the report. Or there might not be enough evidence to go on for the object to be identified. Some aircraft flights, especially military flights, are kept secret. Or perhaps there was never any object and the person making the report was hallucinating or lying. Then the UFO remains a UFO and is of no interest. That's the consensus, and it's not only held by scientists; it's held by all sensible journalists and lots of other people too. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean, is anyone with half-a-brain even reading the UFO article or checking the sources? It is absolutely a mess. It makes wild, claims and tags obvious statements with "citation needed" to make it seem like there isn't any evidence for basic facts like the ones Itmejudith are outlining. It relies almost exclusively on UFO-proponent literature as the best sources and has totally shunted or eliminated all sane commentary. The article is almost absolute garbage and, looking back through the history, has been garbage since the beginning. Why don't you guys stub it and start over? It needs to be trashed. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerald Hawkins

Biography of an astronomer, whose work on palaeoastronomy is described with what may be a fair representation of its acceptance. People might want to have a look at that. But it's the material on crop circles that really needs urgent attention, doesn't make explicit that these are hoaxes. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I just boldly deleted the last five paragraphs, which was added a little over a month ago in a single edit. We'll see what happens next. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Racist fringe

An editor appears to be inserting racist fringe into the article Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology. Diff: [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What a hopeless article. Completely unsourced and full of OR and POV. After reading this article unsuspecting readers would be left with the impression that this racist nonsense is still scientifically valid. It seems to me the best solution would be to turn it into a stub and then watch every piece of information that is inserted to see if it complies with the Wikipedia neutrality and verifiability standards. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Boldly redirected to William Herbert Sheldon, which is where this belongs. If that article gets too long (at present, it's minimal in both length and sourcing), we could consider spinning this back out. More eyes would be helpful, as always when it comes to race/intelligence/eugenics material, given the small fringe of dedicated POV-pushers active in this area. MastCell ^Talk 00:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous ip reverted it without providing any reasoning. I've reverted it back to the redirect. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor75439 has reverted the redirect without providing any reasoning. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's a notable enough theory (very popular in its day), so I'm not sure a redirect is appropriate. it needs some revisions, not deletion. --Ludwigs2 14:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Any removal of racist material has been reverted. What exactly is salvageable? The article currently appears to state that Mongoloids have addiction to alcohol, are prone to sucking up to each other and that the jews love solitude and are unattractive. This seems extremely racist to me. It is not currently stated as opinion but as fact. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Also it appears to have an entry in Biological_anthropology#Somatotypes already. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty bad. but that's the way the theory was crafted (back in the 40's it was nowhere near as outrageous as it sounds today). it just needs to be contextualized properly in its own time frame.

However, at the moment it seems it's more a question of whether that particular editor is up to collaborative editing. fingers crossed. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert O. Becker and The Body Electric

Looks like these need some attention, I don't even know where to start on The Body Electric or even if it needs its own article. I'm not sure about the author either, he seems to be a somewhat prolific researcher but I don't know if he's notable enough for an article. Some googling made me think he has some definitely fringe ideas.

I made the article into a stub as a starting point for future work. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The article The Body Electric should probably just be merged into the Becker article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone familar with merging merge these two articles? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged them. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Scorpio (astrology)

Articles like this are just embarassing. Maybe we need a working group to clean them up. Sadly I've decided to take a Wikibreak now. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What? You don't think that scorpios are strong-willed, sensitive, passionate, and can achieve anything in life? You must be a Sagittarius. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I took the scissors to it, see what you think. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Leo (astrology), Gemini (astrology) and most of the other zodiac signs have similar issues. Yobol (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: I'm not sure that was the right approach.[3] I think a lot of this content should have remained, but rewritten so it's not in Wikipedia's voice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But no good source, not even a source that would tell us about Scorpio in traditional astrology. Even for magazine astrology the sourcing was poor. Add more if you can find anything to go on. Scorpio in medieval thought, that would be really interesting. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Itsmejudith here. I've been trying to find reliable sources on astrology for two months now, and, surprisingly, there is precious little out there. The topic is almost completely ignored by mainstream scholars, and there are only a handfull of fringe scholars that have published anything reliable, and they have published very little indeed. That leaves a vast mess of in-universe sourcing, most of which is self-contradictory. Publications by the largest astrological societies can't be considered representative because they emphatically state that they don't want to have anything to do with the most commonly practiced forms of astrology. I'm loathe to accept them as sources anyway because they are published in sham "academic journals". If the source has deliberately misrepresented itself, how can it be trusted for any information? They also seem to want to create a "new form" of astrology that doesn't yet exist except in their dreams, so what they write about bears no resemblance to reality.

I'm loathe to leave unsourced material in the articles with just a citation tag. At this point, I've come to the conclusion that it is unlikely that acceptable sourcing will ever be found. So I endorse Ismejudith's approach. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a few months ago Dieter Bachmann and I agreed that astrology magazines were acceptable sources for the article on astrology software. That was on the basis that those magazines were where you would expect to see reviews of the software; for comparison you would expect to see reviews of manga in manga magazines. Just thought I would get that off my chest. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I probably would agree with you on the software, PROVIDED that extreme care was taken to avoid any promotional slant. I wouldn't rely on Manga fanzines for encyclopedic-grade information on the philosophy or history of Manga without further verification, though, unless the author were a clearly recognized expert, as confirmed by reliable independent sources.

However, I can't agree that any of the in-universe astrology sources can be used to provide encyclopedic-grade information on astrology in general, only on the kind of astrology that each clique or each author believes in. And that's where we run into the relevance problem. There are plenty of people who claim to be "experts" in "astrology" (implying astrology sensu lato), but are only "experts" in their own "brand" of astrology. It's really difficult or impossible to determine how many other astrologists they speak for, if any. Self-promotion and misrepresentation are rife as well, reducing the credibility of many sources.

Like I said, the largest organizations are very "elitist" and exclusive, and they state themselves that they are not representative. For example, the chairman of the largest astrological club in the UK, the Astrological Association, posted on the talk page a couple of months back that here organization wanted nothing to do with sun sign astrology, the most common form, and that the wikipedia article be rewritten to reflect "real" astrology, namely her own brand. The academics at the Sophia centre are even more elitest, and don't even speak for each other; there are major differences in astrology as imagined by Nicholas Campion, and that imagined by Patrick Curry, for instance. If their centre weren't so small and endangered that they had to cling to each other for dear life, they would be at each others throats.

Another thing is that the various personalities at these larger societies and the Sophia center describe astrology as they think it ought to be (sometime in the distant future, perhaps), rather than how it is generally practiced today. Their visions are likewise inconsistent and conflicting.

So which sources should we pick from the myriad swarm of self-published popular books and fanzines? How do we tell what is representative, reliable, credible, disinterested, scholarly and trustworthy, and what not? The problem that always will return is the dearth of reliable independent sources with which we can assess in-universe claims. Without that, I'm afraid we're stuck.

Last, but not least, is the problem that no reliable sources I've seen discuss astrolgy in the widest sense of the word, inclusive of Western, Vedic and Chinese astrology and the other variants. Maybe they are so different that they cannot be treated together. Which brings us to the question of whether the Astrology article should really exist, and how much material from it should be moved to the daughter articles. I share your concern that the article is still too Western-centric. I myself have problems remembering that it is not an article on Western astrology alone.

By the way, did you see the external link to CURA that Zac added? It might be helpful locating sources. Unfortunately, what would be the best source for Chinese astrology is designated as having "just a few unhelpful pages on astrology". Yes, it's frustrating. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have also to admit to accepting in relation to History of astrology the reliability of Campion. He has an academic affiliation, but I would rethink that now. I would like to see us continue to keep all the astrology together. It remains to be seen when and how the divergences between traditions occured. I was just looking at zodiac, and will try and add the Chinese 12 stems, which are often called "zodiac"; whether there is any connection with the Western zodiac is a fascinating question for the history of ideas that may be addressed one day. I am coming to think that we are seeing one group of people trying to impose their own quite limited view as the sole kind of "astrology". That is the new "computational" group, with their pseudo-academic publications. Naturally they loathe the sun-sign magazine astrology that is actually dominant. And they go loopy when presented with the sheer scale of practice of Indian and Chinese astrology. They present themselves as the natural inheritors of medieval and early modern Western astrology, but actually it is a reinvention, just as modern Wicca lays claim to continuity with medieval and early modern witchcraft. We will unpick it all, but it takes time. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Yes, but we don't delete material simply because it's unsourced unless it's a quotation or it's something that is challenged or likely to be challenged. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: We have to go with the best sources we can find. If scholarly sources don't exist on this topic, then we should try looking at journalistic and popular press. It's difficult to Google newspaper sites because they all have damn horoscope sections, but perhaps one of these books would be acceptable?[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Campion's history is the main problem I'm thinking about right now, too. Yes, he's a genuine academic, but he's teetering on the very edge. He's patently very partisan, and I'm reluctant to trust him for the history without a reliable backup. Another problem is that he's not only fringe within the academic community, he's also fringe within the astrological community. You're right about the article being to highly influenced by the "computational group" from AAGB and Sophia. That's because there were a lot of SPA shills from there before you and I arrived. They were eventually blocked en masse, but a lot of the problems remain. The pro-astrology editors seem to rely exclusively on their material, too. Gauquelin, Eysenck, Ertel, Campion and Curry are all part of this movement. The Journal of Astrology, Correlations, Culture and Cosmos, and Astropsychological Problems are all associated with this group. It does seem like a small, unrepresentative and very incestuous group of Western "neo-astrologers" is being over-emphasized out of all proportion here, and their disdain for other types of astrology is palpable in the fact that the other types are de-emphasized or ignored. Yes, like Wicca, modern astrology is also a reinvention going back to about 1900. Medieval astrology was moribund in the 1700s, and after a brief revival during the Romantic era, died out for good. Medieval astrology was also a reinvention from the late tenth/early eleventh century based on Arabic and Greek scholarship brought back to the West by Western scholars who had studied in Islamic or Byzantine centers like Cordoba or Constantinople. The "unbroken chain" myth was a problem we had to deal with in the articles related to creationism, too. Modern creationism was invented only in the 1920s. I guess it's just part of the human tendency to trace one's ancestry back to Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, William the Conquerer, etc. Good luck with finding better sources! You have a tough row to hoe! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Quest: I'm afraid that you will find that the popular books you linked to will rarely agree with each other about anything at all, and it's impossible to determine whether anything is "authoratative" or "widely held", as there are no widely recognized experts in astrology. This isn't like creationism where we have clearly identifiable leaders and spokesmen. Astrology really is a free-for-all. Books like that are written and published for entertainment purposes only, and have precious little scholarly value for things like history or philosophy. There is zero fact-checking, and edotorial policies are geared exclusively to maximizing sales. I'd have to say the same for newpaper articles and the mass media. They rarely, if ever, treat the subject seriously enough to serve as reliable sources for WP. They usually write to entertain, as well. In short, there isn't very much there that's any more reliable than the in-universe fanzines. As for deletion, it seems to be the only way to eliminate extremely dubious material sourced with completely unreliable sources. Deletion is the best option when it is reasonable to expect that adequate sourcing will never be found. For example, the "Core Principles" section [[5]] of the astrology article is OR or SYNTH based on primary or extremely unreliable sources, or misused sources. There is no reasonable expectation that any adequate sourcing will be found to support any of it, or that it could ever be improved. There just ain't no baby in the bathwater. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread is full of ignorance and inaccuracies, unfounded speculation, distortion of facts and groundless slanderous remarks. I don't want to take it anymore seriously than it deserves, so please bring it to an end, and stop using this discussion page as a soapbox for predjudical remarks about the subject, other editors and a named person who is a subject of a WP:BLP. This is contentious material that is not sourced because it is not true, so it doesn't have a place here.

@Dougweller. I think you had a point, but I have taken most of the unsourced info off the page, and added a number of references to well respected works. I'll try to contribute more later as I believe the pages have a good potential for development.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: Well, we can't delete these articles because astrology is clearly a notable topic. Nor can have empty articles. Can you please take another look at this list of sources[6] to see if any are acceptable? At the very least, this book[7] would meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements of reliability. Obviously, these aren't scholarly books, but the publisher does produce many excellent - if beginner - books on many different topics. Keep in mind that astrology is much like religion. For example, we don't need to have fact-checking on whether Jesus was the son of god. We only need fact-checking that Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god. This isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed most of the mythology section, it had no connection to Scorpio and seemed to be general mythology about scorpions in general. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a sort of connection, just not well explained - the Babylonian constellations and astrology were partial predecessors to te Greek. 86.** IP (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Current issue whether Manilius and William Lilly are RS for the article. I've said they are primary but this is disputed. An interesting fact emerging is that a 20th century astrologer, Olivia Barclay, discovered and promoted Lilly's work. Astrology for Dummies is one thing. Ideology in the English Revolution for Dummies is quite another... Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Zodsign1 seems highly problematic. It is the use of this template that ensures that each article on a star sign repeats off-topic material on tropical zodiac and sidereal zodiac in general. I am all for an infobox that tells us the characteristics of the sign in astrology. The dates in the tropical and sidereal zodiacs should definitely be in each article. But definitely not in this way. My removal of similar off-topic information has been reverted. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggested that the template should be discussed at WikiProject Astrology, and this is happening. Currently some editors have weighed in in favour of keeping the template on the star sign articles. Not sure if a WikiProject can make such decisions that are against normal practice. Some more eyes would be very useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there really enough reliably-sourced material specifically on the signs to justify spin-off articles? Couldn't they all just be merged to Astrology? 86.** IP (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that is an idea. Maybe not with Astrology but with Zodiac. Yes. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Zodiac is actually a fairly decent article, balancing a lot of history, and straddling the astronomy/astrology divide. We shouldn't overload it with too much woolly astrology, particularly as the astrological star sign ones are pretty crap. How about Astrological sign? 86.** IP (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)To Astrological sign, I think. I will post on WikiProject Astronomy to see what they want to do about Zodiac, e.g. take it over completely and remove all the astrological content, split the astrology off into Zodiac (astrology) or take out the astronomy so it is all astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm surprised, but there is a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard where my suggestion that the claim that Scorpios are dark and sexy should be supported by evidence that Scorpios are darker and sexier than the other 11/12 of humanity, rather than just that astrologers claim them to be, was met with the accusation of scientistic bias[8] and the suggestion that such a claim need not actually be true, since it isn't on a science page. Agricolae (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Yup, the same old 'ownership' arguments. I'm thinking of applying this to the Trepanning article, and insisting that nobody can edit it until they have a hole drilled in their head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The more I write articles for Wikipedia, the more I am convinced that the vast majority of statements should be presented in the form "According to X, A is so", rather than "A is so"<add link here indicating X is the source>. Even in the relatively mainstream world of history, there is a surprising amount of disagreement between the experts: while not all of it approaches the level of "Was there a historic King Arthur?" -- or the real date St. Patrick lived -- when one starts writing articles at the fine granularity that our history articles are at on an increasing basis, expert disagreements become more & more obvious. (And then there are the POV issues wriggling out of each newly opened can.) Speaking for myself, I'd have no problem if the assigned values of astrological signs were explained as Agricolae suggests they should be above viz., "this astrologer claims that Scorpios have these qualities, while that astrologer claims they have that one". -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, what I was actually asking about was what sources would be considered adequate to show that Western astrology held that belief as an 'astrological commonplace'. For, in fact, this is what the majority tradition of Western sun sign astrology claims. The idea that it cannot be added to an article on the astrological meaning of Scorpio unless it has been scientifically proven continues to strike me as unhelpful. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In-universe sources, of course, are flat out, unless the source and and material it is used to support are discussed in high-quality real-world reliable sources. If an author, a source or a topic has not received significant serious coverage outside of the "astrological community", they don't exist at all as far as WP is concerned. Mention in book reviews, opinion pieces, blog entries, astrological websites, and less serious "for-entertainment-purposes-only" parts of news sorces like "variety", "life", "people" or "society" sections of otherwise serious newspapers do very little to bolster claims of notability or noteworthness for inclusion in WP.

The basic problem we're facing is that the real world seldom takes serious notice of astrology. This is especially true for the scholarly community, which almost entirely ignores modern astrology. This isn't simply because they consider astrology of little use, but because they consider knowledge about astrology of little use. The distinction is important. The scholarly community also considers creationism of little use, but nevertheless considers knowledge about creationism as very useful in understanding the political aspects of the topic. The debate about astrology is essentially resolved and not all that interesting from a scholarly point of view, and hardly so from a serious journalistic point of view. That is why there are abundant scholarly sources for what creationists believe, and very few for what astrologers believe.

Read my answers above for more reasons why in-universe sources are unacceptable, including their self-promotional character and propensity for authors to misrepresent themselves and their beliefs, as well as it being nigh impossible to determine how widespread any belief or practice is within the astrolgical community. There are no widely acknowledged authority figures or "canonical" books, and the few scholars in that community, like Campion and Curry, adamantly state that they are not representative of the astrological community at large. In fact, they describe astrology as they think it should be in the future, rather than as it actually is.

What astrology actually is is therefore extremely difficult to do because of the lack of serious reliable sources on the modern astrological community. Forming a picture based on in-universe sources would be OR and SYNTH, and in violation of WP policies. If material can be supported relying solely on in-universe sources, that's a good sign that the material does not belong in WP at all. In short, a lot of the material in the astrology-related articles is simply WP:CRUFT of little or no encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

For info, Tetrabiblos has been put up for FA. I and some others have commented. And the template Zodsign1 is at templates for discussion, likely to be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu - The notion that astrological texts are "in universe" and therefore unusable as references does not seem to be supported by the actual WP:FRINGE#Reliable sources content guideline, which says:

Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia. They are needed in order to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it; and for a fringe theory to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter.

Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.

Astrology texts have been published by reputable mainstream publishers. Academic sources are not required. The guideline also suggests that the level of detail in coverage should be guided by the amount of available material. This too supports the idea that detailed coverage of the substance of astrological belief about signs, houses, and planets is appropriate and desirable: there is quite simply a lot of material available.

The notion that astrological ideas are somehow random, idiosyncratic to every astrologer, or made up on the spot for commercial gain is simply not true. Our article on pseudoscience helpfully points out that "Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia." Western astrology has a traditional core in which some elements are remarkably consistent over time. It is in fact possible to speak of a mainstream astrology as well as a fringe astrology.

I know @itsmejudith was talking about opening some kind of RfC on the subject. I suspect the way forward here might be to move for clarification of the several ArbCom rulings on fringe theories and pseudoscience. (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases). I really don't see anything in the text of the prior rulings that goes as far as some have gone: specifically the claim that all texts made by astrologers for astrologers are inherently unreliable, or that we should minimize our coverage of this fairly extensive subject as "cruft". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your reading of the policies is in gross error. Read them again, this time paying very careful attention to the word "independent", which excludes in-universe sources. There is nothing to discuss in an RfC or at ArbCom. The policies are very clear. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Should we start removing material on physics that's written by physicists for physicists on the same ground of lack of independence? After all, C. S. Lewis, a non-physicist but a respected academic, summarized everything worth knowing about physics in The Discarded Image. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The RfC would have been on the template question, and that is on its way to resolution through Templates for discussion. Personally, I think we have to keep two issues of sourcing separate. One is history of astrology, when sources should meet WP:HISTRS (as it evolves, in any case, should be of academic quality). I think we all agree on that. The other is what astrologers today say. That's where there's still disagreement, and I find myself swayed by arguments on both sides. However fringe we think astrology is, it is notable fringe belief and should be described using those writers who describe it best. There is an academic field to which that question belongs, which is sociology of science (of ideology, of religion even). Texts from that academic field should be prioritised as sources, if they are available. Surveys of opinion are also relevant and reliability can be judged according to usual criteria for surveys. "Cruft" applies to detail that isn't even notable belief. We don't cover every single urban myth, for example, only the ones that have received lots of attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems a fair statement to me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

But an incorrect one. We as WP editors are not allowed to evaluate in-universe sources and the material they contain, to decide what is representative and widely held, and what is not. To do so would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. All of our information about astrology must come from reliable INDEPENDENT sources. In-universe sources can only be used to illustrate what the independent sources have to say, and only then if the in-universe source and the material it contains is specifically mentioned in reliable independent sources. I'm puzzled why Judith draws a distinction between history and sociology, if that is in fact what she meant to do. There is no reason to set the bar lower for sociological material than for historical material. Yes, that means that vast tracts of astrology cannot be covered in WP because no reliable independent sources exist. The omission, however, does WP readers no diservice. Quite the opposite, in fact. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea though I don't know how helpful it will be: my reading of the situation (between studying for finals) is that there are few, if any, reliable sources that talk about modern astrology. However, I'm guessing that there are plenty of sources on historical astrology, yes? Well, if this is the case, then why not focus our astrological articles mostly on the historical aspects and then focus very narrowly on modern astrology. Pretty much stating that astrology has been taken increasingly less seriously since the split of astronomy and astrology, and that it is no longer dealt with in academia but has a large number of people who engage in it casually (via horoscopes and the like). I don't think we'll ever be able to find RSs for modern astrology because there is nothing to study; if there was something to study then it would have been studied, published and would stand on its merits if there was good evidence that it accurately reflected reality. Since it doesn't, there isn't much we can talk about as far as modern astrology goes except for the casual aspects of it. The people that actually take it seriously aren't especially qualified to do so (one cannot attain a doctorate in research of astrology, for instance) so what possible source could we find? N^oformation ^Talk 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Noformation: Why do you say that there are few, if any, reliable sources about modern astrology? Did no one follow through with my suggestion here?[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I clarify my argument. I am just trying to cut the problem down to size. 1) On historical issues, there seems to be no argument. "Kepler's writing on astrology" isn't a fringe topic. It's a mainstream topic that historians of science and other historians have written on, perhaps not as much as we might wish. We use history sources to explain this topic. 2) What astrologers argue today is a fringe topic. The main criterion is notability. We cover what people believe about astrology, whether their beliefs are true or not, but only to the extent that their beliefs are notable. In our coverage of those, we use the best sources available, prioritising academic sources but not necessarily ruling out non-academic sources so long as we attribute carefully and never report fringe ideas in Wikipedia's voice. We don't cover non-notable fringe beliefs at all. We make sure we aren't an astrological compendium (WP:NOT). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I checked those sources, and they are all pretty much in-universe. The Astrology for Dummies book had caught my attention before. Yes, it's true that the publisher does publish reliable books in technical and academic subjects. However, it would be a stretch to say that they conducted any serious review or fact checking for a non-academic woo hobby like astrology. It's difficult for me to see this as anything but yet another "for entertainment purposes only" pop-lit book rather than a serious attempt at reliable reporting or scholarship, based on the marketing material [[10]]. But of the lot, this is probably the best we have. For now, though, I'd treat it as in-universe fluff. The author has no qualifications to write authoratively on the subject except for entertainment purposes. There is no indication that her treatment of the subject is representative, or even intended to be so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to get at in my post: who could speak with authority? Any random person can write a pop book and get it published so long as a publisher thinks it will sell, but those books can only be notable for their sales figures. Anyone with enough skill in cold reading can pretend to predict the future or ascribe personality profiles to consumers, but that's not a reliable source either. Astrology is conjecture, non-scientific and thus has nothing to study. There is no "bible" of which to speak, just a vague idea with a lot of people who have their own ideas about it. If there was, perhaps, an organized body of some sort then we could use them, but as it stands all we have are opinions from multiple people, none of whom are notable "out"-universe.

Further, we have two types of people interested in astrology today: those who read horoscopes, and those in the fringe. What's interesting in the case of astrology is that while it is hugely popular casually, the fringe aspect of it is probably even more fringe than something like creationism (in the sense that those who read horoscopes aren't interested in the merit of astrology, they're just uneducated about physics, et al). We've been debating how to include fringe views of modern astrology, but perhaps the answer is actually that modern astrology (not popular, but the serious folk) is so fringe that it doesn't even warrant mention. Perhaps the popular aspect is the only thing that should be talked about in the modern sense, with maybe an ancillary mention that a very small, unconnected fringe still takes it seriously, in which case we can use substandard sources to substantiate the claim that "there are a few people who take astrology very seriously." A claim like that doesn't need anything close to academic as the simple existence of, say, Robert Curry's website is enough to just state the fact that some people actually do take this seriously. Thoughts? N^oformation ^Talk 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't get blood from a turnip. If there are no scholarly sources, then there are no scholarly sources. A "for entertainment purposes only" pop-lit book was pretty much all I was expecting. All we can hope for is that the publisher at least selected someone who knows about astrology and who's take on astrology is somewhat representative or somewhat popular amoung people who follow astrology. According to the back of the book, Rae Orion has been a professional astrologer since 1973 and has been writing the astrology column for New Woman magazine since 1996. So, it looks like they did their homework and didn't select someone at random. The other way to find sources is to find out who writes the astrology column for the New York Times or the Washington Post (or whatever major newspapers you want) and see if they've ever published a book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The ONLY reason there are astrology columns in newspapers or magazines is to entertain. It's on the same level as the funnies section or the crossword puzzle. To give the reader something to do when taking a break from serious reading so they don't put the newspaper down. The ONLY reason they take into consideration when employing an astrologer is their qualifications as an entertainer. That's the same reason why the editors of the For Idiots series chose Rae Orion, and why they decided to publish the book as well. For shits and giggles. WP strives to be a serious encyclopedia, and there's no room in it for shits and giggles. Last of all, being a self-described or in-universe expert does not translate into being a real world expert. Astrologers do not have any special insight into the topic simply because they are astrolgers, even professional astrologers. Their expertise means little here on WP, or anywhere else except perhaps in-universe. Unless published in a serious outlet, their books are worthless as sources here on WP. Even a real academic expert on astrology like Nicholas Campion turns into a blithering idiot when not subject to the scrutiny of peer-review. Like Judith said, we are looking for experts that can furnish reliable knowledge about the topic, like real sociologists and historians, and serious journalists, publishing in serious outlets. Pop lit, self-published books and pseudoacademic "journals" need not apply. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This "in universe" business only has meaning here in the context of writing about fiction. Like it or not, you share the planet with people who believe in astrology. "In universe" doesn't even mean anything in this context. It's only purpose is to make it practically impossible to develop content describing the tenets of astrology. Ultimately, if you accept this line, it doesn't matter how many degrees the author of a source has: if he's writing about astrology for astrologers in a way that takes the notional content of astrology seriously, that's always going to be "in universe". That's just bias talking. Removing astrology content, you've already told us, is doing the encyclopedia a service. If we allow people to read content that says, "hey, I'm a Scorpio, and that's me," they might be tempted to believe in astrology, and that's unacceptable. They might even be tempted to move on to harder stuff like.... say, believing in God. St. Richard Dawkins, defend us!

The whole point of this exercise is to lawyer up some rules that make it impossible to say anything about astrology other than "Science has discarded astrology. This is all you need to know about it." And obviously, there is a lot more to be said about the subject than that. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: I think you give newspapers too much credit. They publish horoscopes to make money. No more; no less. And they do so knowing full-well that some segment of the people who read them do so because they actually believe they are (or might be) true.

Please, please, please, please, for the love of god(s), stop asking for experts when by your own admission, there don't seem to be any.

Sure, Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia, but we cover lots of topics where there is no scholarly research. Tell me, what peer-reviewed, academic journals exist for South Park (season 13) or Fuck the Millennium? The fact is that Wikipedia covers lots of topics where there is no scholarly research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely they're in it for the money. It's a business, after all. WP does take articles on non-academic subjects quite seriously, and the sourcing policy for them is a lot more rigorous than you might think. Everything in an article on, say, South Park, is, or at least should be, supported with reliable and authoratative sources. In-universe fancruft is not allowed, nor is OR or SYNTH. Arguments over sourcing on those articles can get quite heated at times. Bottom line: if it hasn't been seriously discussed in reliable independent sources, it doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned. Spend some time at AfD, and you'll learn a lot about sourcing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: So, nominate Astrology and every other astrology-related article for deletion. According to you, "Bottom line: if it hasn't been seriously discussed in reliable independent sources, it doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned." Let's see how far it gets. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is enough material on astrology in reliable sources to justify an article. Even so, huge parts of the Astrology article were removed about two months ago because of bad sourcing. As for the sign of the zodiac articles, that is being seriously debated. It has already been suggested by other editors to delete them and merge what little reliable information we have on them into a higher order article like Zodiac. I'm on the line on that one, basically because the mythology sections are big enough to justify a seperate article for each sign. But a lot of the cruft and OR still has to be cut out. Some other astrology-related articles are eventually going to be nominated for deletion, namely those based solely on poor-quality, in-universe sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Quest, re: south park. Two things: The South Park article doesn't make ridiculous claims about biology, astronomy or physics so it's not covered by WP:FRINGE. Secondly, if we had the kind of non-academic sources for astrology that we do for south park then we could use them. The problem is, as I wrote above, that no one aside from a very small fringe takes astrology seriously. Most people "into" astrology don't know two shits about it or physics, they just like to read horoscopes. So no one writes about it, not in academia, not in popular print, not in notable books, just nothing but in-universe, not notable, never talked about, laughed at fringe "journals." This ties our hands. It's not an anti-astrology thing, believe me, I think there are dumber beliefs than astrology, like creationism for instance, but creationism has plenty of RSes so things like this just don't come up (except when the brigade wants to use creationism sources to debunk science, but that's a totally differnt beast). N^oformation ^Talk 04:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: If we're citing a source, then it's not WP:OR. This doesn't have to be as difficult as you make it out to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Evaluating non-independent sources to decide whether they are reliable/representative or not is indeed OR. It really is a lot more complicated than you think. Unless a non-independent source and the material it is used to support are discussed in serious reliable sources, we have no way of judging the value of the non-independent source. We can't make that judgement for ourselves, and we can't use other non-independent sources to do so, either. It has to come from reliable independent experts.

Note that this thread is primarily about the interpretation of the signs, specifically the material in the "Characteristics" and "Compatabilities" sections of the article: WP:Scorpio (astrology. These sections are sourced with non-independent or primary sources that are not recognized as reliable or authoratative or serious by anyone outside of the astrological community. A lot of these sections is OR and Synth, including the choice of sources. This is what I mean by cruft. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: If by OR, you mean our policy on WP:OR, it's only a violation if we say something that's not supported by a source. As long as it's supported by a source, we're fine. Unless you're claiming that John Wiley & Sons[11] is somehow affiliated with astrology, please stop saying that there are no independent sources. All you have to do is summarize what the source is saying and use in-text attribution. Period. Why are we still discussing this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Quest, I do not think that is so. The issue here is synthesis, which is right smack in the middle of WP:NOR. The issue that has been raised here, as I understand it, is that there isn't one set of meanings to the astrological signs that can be picked up from a single, mostly consistent set of reliable sources; instead, we are determining what the signs mean in our attempts to assemble the various sources into a coherent whole. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Mangoe: It's only WP:SYNTH if you state a conclusion not stated by two (or more) sources. Aggregating multiple sources in determining WP:WEIGHT is, unfortunately, a normal part of Wikipedia editing. Yes, it sucks, and it's the source of a lot of POV disputes, but it happens all the time on Wikipedia. It's an imperfect system. I'm not sure what more I can say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Noformation: I don't think that most horoscopes make ridiculous claims about biology, astronomy or physics. IIRC, most just give benign advice. I haven't read my horoscope in probably 10-15 years, but I will make an exception for this discussion. According to this,[12] "Don’t retaliate. Instead, do your best and let your actions be your voice." That's good advice regardless of which day someone was born on. The fact is that we're trying to write an article about what astrology claims about scorpios. Just find some sources and write what they claim with in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, your claim that "So no one writes about it, not in academia, not in popular print, not in notable books, just nothing but in-universe, not notable, never talked about, laughed at fringe "journals." " (emphasis mine) is blatently false as I already proved a couple weeks ago.[13] Please don't insult my intelligence. I am not an idiot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Template troubles

There seems to have been quite a large volume of text in Template:Zodsign1 which is consequently included in the articles on individual signs.

• This is silly, as the text is about the Zodiac in general and rightly belongs in that article, not replicated across a dozen others.
• Also, the text had a whiff of synthesis and cherrypicking of sources; it gives some historical background but it's definitely not neutral.

So, I trimmed most of the text and left the initial paragraph, although tbh I think the whole template should be removed from articles on individual zodiac signs. All comments / criticisms welcome... bobrayner (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

...and it was reverted. I firmly feel that this stuff doesn't belong in such a template and have removed it again, but have no doubt that this will be temporary as another astrology editor will come along sooner or later. bobrayner (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup reverted Attempts to prune {{zodsign1}} (which is absurdly duplicated in multiple articles) have been reverted, and removal of the template from articles like Scorpio (astrology) has also been reverted. An Astrology WikiProject discussion is the justification, and there are more astrological enthusiasts than editors with wider experience who are prepared to engage. Many enthusiasts are accustomed to using Wikipedia to elevate their chosen topic, and are padding numerous articles with in-universe devotion. It's going to take quite an effort to shift them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on WikiProject Astrology has been blatantly vote-stacked by canvassing. I am posting on WP:ANI about this. In fact, it was I who suggested discussing the template on the WikiProject, in the expectation that some normal discussion would ensue. The result is extremely disappointing. It reminds me of the way WikiProject World's Oldest People was used by a group of editors, most of whom were eventually banned after a protracted ArbCom hearing. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Compatibility

Astrological compatibility looks pretty bad too. Any others? bobrayner (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Reboot

What is the point of this discussion? Are we trying to find a way forward, or just complain about how astrology is stupid and that there are no expert sources to cite? If the former, I and I'm sure many other editors are willing to help, but if the latter, this thread is a waste of this board's time and resources and should be closed. Maybe try informal mediation or formal mediation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Quest: We're having this discussion because you still don't understand the policy. It very clearly says that RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT sources are to be used, not just any old sources, as you seem to believe.

The source for the Dummies book is not Wiley and Sons, but the author, Rae Orion, who is an astrologer, and thus not independent. There is no evidence, either, that she is RELIABLE. She has no demonstrated qualifications or expertise to deliver information that we as WP editors can use.

Yes, Wiley and Sons does publish books that are meant to be used as serious sources of factual information. However, there is no evidence that the book in question belongs to this class. Quite the opposite, their own marketing material indicates that it was published for entertainment purposes only, and is not to be taken seriously. There is no reason to believe that they conducted any in-house fact checking or external review in any meaningful sense of the word. They certainly do not assume any editorial responsibility for any of the information in the book as they would, for example, in the case of "Biology for Dummies" or "The French Revolution for Dummies", "Freud for Dummies" or "Stamp Collecting for Dummies", or even "Stage Magic for Dummies" or "Manga for Dummies".

In short, the purpose of the book is to entertain, and not to provide reliable information. It cannot be used for any other purposes, including as a source for factual information on WP.

Second of all, attribution is not a viable solution to this problem. Regardless of whether what Rae writes is attributed or not, it still cannot be used, even as an example, unless the material cited has been specifically discussed in RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT sources.

Lastly, Noformation clearly had RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT sources in mind when he wrote what he did. He clearly excluded books written by the "very small fringe takes astrology seriously". None of the sources you've linked to are RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT, having been written by the very small fringe that Noformation mentioned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: Clearly, the latter. I'm done helping. Goodbye. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a request for clarification on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases, myself; that process exists already, was recently reopened once this year, and the dispute probably already belongs on that level. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I have gone ahead and filed a request for clarification of the fringe material guidelines with respect to astrology at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. At some point, the committee and its clerks will decide to take it up or not. You are invited to comment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To Dominus Vobisdu; You have misquoted me in this discussion and I ask that you retract your malicious statement immediately. I understand of course if it were true it could serve your argument in arbitration. I would also ask those who are arbitrating this page to view this misrepresentation as not only manipulative and slanderous but an example of endless discussions with someone who has now exposed himself as highly prejudiced to this dialogue and in breach of WP editorial policy. Wendy Stacey (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Or you could WP:AGF and assume it was oversight as opposed to malice. N^oformation ^Talk 01:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I will assume good faith when the slanderous comments made by DV have been removed. The comments made against named persons are maliciously misrepresented and comments made against organisations cannot be verified by anything that has been posted on WP or anywhere else. Unless these untrue comments are removed immediately DV should be topic banned from editing on this subject as he clearly has a personal prejudice against it and this level of discrimination is detrimental in moving this discussion forward. Wendy Stacey (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be precise when using noticeboards: quote a few words of the post with which you disagree (its time/date is often helpful), and note the page on which the post is made. Briefly say what the problem is (what statement is untrue? how do we know it is untrue?). Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I second this. You're really not being clear or going about this in the best way at all, Ms. Stacey. I spent some time looking at this thread and can't see where Dominus has quoted you at all, let alone possibly misquoted you. I also can't see any statements of his that seem possibly libelous. I'd advise you to clarify what it is you're talking about, but I think better advice would be to spend a little time learning what Wikipedia is and how it works. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is she to whom Dominus referred as "the chairman of the largest astrological club in the UK, the Astrological Association," (diff [14]) and went on to say the material she finds so offensive. As to whether it is "malicious", "manipulative" and/or "slanderous", that is a matter for an ethicist, a psychologist, and a lawyer, respectively. Agricolae (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the diff linked above illustrates precisely why this article is so problematic, and that DV is entirely correct. The simple fact is that several contributors to this article have both a conflict of interest (being professionally involved with astrology), and a complete disregard for any concerns over maintaining a neutral POV regarding how astrology is described. Not only do they attempt to portray the 'western' form as the only authentic one, but then go out of their way to exclude the most popular form of this (Sun sign astrology, as represented in the mainstream media) in spite of the fact that it is by far the most economically and culturally significant. I think that what is actually needed is a fundamentally new approach to how we describe the topic: as a varying system of beliefs within its core practitioners, with little in the way of an agreed common core even within the single 'western' tradition, overlain on a more diffuse and general cultural acceptance by a subset of the population that 'there is something to it', and by a somewhat cynical mass-media 'marketing' effort that is much more 'real' to the vast majority of people than the esoteric forms advocated by some regarding this article. Any balanced article on the subject of western astrology would devote the majority of its coverage to the mass-market form that most people are familiar with, and treat the esoteric fringe as what it is: a fringe. Wikipedia isn't here to portray one form of astrology as more 'authentic' than any other, and must instead describe all its forms in a proportional manner. To do otherwise is to do a gross disservice to our readership. AndyTheGrump (talk)

@ Andy: The insurmountable problem of reliable sourcing remains, though. Modern astrology has received next to no attention from the modern mainstream scholarly or journalistic communities, and few reliable sources exist, none of which enables us to get a comprehensive overview of modern astrology. All we have to base our assessment on is a vast assortment of extremely low quality in-universe sources, few of which are known outside of the "astrolgical communty". Agree with your points on POV pushing and COI. There are also major problems with ownership. This has gotten completely out of hand. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that diff illustrates precisely, is why discussions like this are so twisted with bias, full of false criticisms presented in alarmist terms, without even any expectation that nasty gossipy-type speculative accusations made against professionals with good reputations should be reliable and well founded. Because what I can tell you, is that nearly everything he claims in that post is false. This is why the complainer is aggrieved, because what he said was this:

"the chairman of the largest astrological club in the UK, the Astrological Association, posted on the talk page a couple of months back that here organization wanted nothing to do with sun sign astrology, the most common form, and that the wikipedia article be rewritten to reflect "real" astrology, namely her own brand."

But what she actually said was this, and this:

"Perhaps it would be best stated that 'the practice of sun sign astrology is a very small part and recent phenomenon of the history and full body of knowledge on western astrology' and have a link through to the sun sign astrology page? Thank you for guiding me to the COI page. As you have read, I am the Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain but the views expressed here are my own and not representative of the organisation’s members."

Andy – you should remember since she was actually corresponding with you at the time.

But I agree with you that what is needed is a fundamentally different approach. One that stops trying to prevent objective reports for whatever a subject is in its own terms, and stops assuming that WP has a policy whereby alternative topics must be presented with an underlying tone of ridicule or disapproval. Every edit page reminds editors "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view". That means treating a subject with a sense of emotional detachment. Advocates are not the only ones who have to stand back from their personal convictions to get the tone of encyclopaedic coverage right. Some editors are claiming to serve the interests of WP but not realising what a disservice they are doing by not only discrediting the subject they hate, but the reputation that WP aims to establish in being open to all subjects and presenting balanced reports of them.

How about we balance the use of buzz-words like CRUFT with new ones like FAFF - the abuse of WP to serve the interests of fundamentalist anti-fringe fanaticism. It's a real problem and the reason why threads like this go on and on and on. It polarises editors, and creates an unnecessary tension which generates mistrust, even between quite rational editors, who otherwise would be able to work collaboratively and effectively.

Extremism on both sides needs tempering, and DV should be pulled to account for making outrageous unsubstantiated reports like he did, and showing no willingness to correct himself when asked. He didn't just misquote Wendy Stacey here - he has quoted her comments falsely in the RS noticeboard and an Arbcom request for clarification. He does this to justify his argument that the Astrological Association of Great Britain "ardently assert that they don't endorse the most popular varieties of astrology... Furthermore, their writing are more concerned about astrology as they think it should be rather than about astrology as it really is at the present time". Utter drivel -and the real hypocrisy is that he makes invented arguments like this, in order to fuel a belief that editors working on astrology-related content are not capable of making accurate summaries of what their sources say. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

When attempting to bring NPOV to an article on a fringe topic, we need to note the difference between our neutrality as editors, and the neutrality (or lack thereof) of the rest of the world (ie the sources). We need to approach the subject with neutrally... however, the rest of the world does not. Our job is to neutrally present what the rest of the world says. Neutrality includes presenting all significant viewpoints, but not every viewpoint is significant. This is especially true when dealing with fringe topics. Adherents of a fringe viewpoint will, of course, insist that their viewpoint is highly significant. Toss in the fact that we often find adherents sub-divided into sub-fringe (fringe of fringe) viewpoints... each crying "heresy" at the other, and it often becomes hard for the rest of us to determine whether a specific viewpoint is significant or not. What is needed is some evidence that the viewpoint is, in fact, considered significant by those who are not adherents to the theory. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I accept what you say Blueboar, with the proviso that the sub-divisions are far less than has been suggested by the false reports in this thread. It is not a case of screaming 'heresey' at each other - astrologers have always, throughout the whole history of the subject, enagaged in internal debate about approaches and the details of techniques. This is not a modern phenomenon or any reason to suggest that the basic principles of astrology are not well established.

The problems occur here when the applicable policies are not applied with common sense and consistency. So we get editors who argue against a well substantiated report on a notable astrologer, but then see that some individial who is unknown, who has self-published a book that no one has reviewed or commented on, is given wikipedia coverage for the fact that he thinks traditional astrology is all wrong and has a new astrological theory to prove it. We get insistence that well known books, written by notable astrologers and published by credible publishers cannot be used in reference to support content that was previously referenced to an insignificant anonymous skeptic blog, which has no references, details of authorship, or qualification for its content (and it's usually a pretty dire website too). The same attitude has been seen in this thread - of not requiring due verification so long as the text says what some editors want to read.

Why should the subjects sub-divisions be a problem anyway? If we keep a sensible attitude, and don't slip into either CRUFT or FAFF, then there should be no difficulty reporting who the notable practitioners are, and how they have influenced alternative views in the subject. Liz Greene comes to mind as someone who can be identified by the fact that her work is not just approved by her adherents, but used as a focus for criticism by astrologers who feel her approach is too psychological. If there are divisions within the modern applications of astrology, then the only time I want to spend discussing this is to establish whether a division is notable enough to merit report in our articles, and if so, how to do that intelligently. For this we need to focus on identifiation of the reliable astrological sources, not the academic sources which are not involved in this level of debate. And editors need to act with the mindset of editors. This place has no entry standards, so there are always going to be juveniles blowing raspberries across the room. When the whole debate becomes nothing more than a raspberry blowing exercise, we've all got to wonder what we're doing here-- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy

Can someone check the recent edits? I question whether homeopathy-promoting organisations are reliable sources for prevalence. 86.** IP (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust it for the 400 GPs statement. It would not be suprising if a group designed to promote anything exaggerates. I changed it to a claim that they make. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Transhumanism?

Transhumanism. Article defines the topic as an international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Appears to be based partly on science fiction writings, especially "cyberpunk" and various brain/computer interface ideas, and partly on notions of reviving eugenics. If this is a fringe idea it's a huge rat's nest of one, with long, detailed articles on postgenderism, the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies (for some, all you'd need is a small loop of piano wire) and extropianism, apparently a way to re-brand eugenics by the time tested strategy of calling it something else. There's even an outline of transhumanism.

I checked the archive; this thing has apparently only been mentioned once on this noticeboard, in the context of singularitarianism, something about the creation of a technological singularity, apparently an electronic intelligence that takes over the world, envisioned for once as a good thing. That's an original take on that bit of fiction, at any rate. This seems to be a whole nest of fringe theories, at least in my understanding of the word; and the coverage seems deep enough to invoke WP:UNDUE as well. It seems to me to be deep, deep coverage of an elaborate fantasy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the impression that I have always had. Hans Adler 10:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a kernel of respectable social science there, that is an extension of futurology. Of course it is necessary for social scientists to predict likely future developments, and even to advocate for one kind of future rather than another. Cyberpunk is a well known literary genre that has to be discussed in literary criticism and cultural studies. Eugenics is discredited science, but there are attempts to continue or revive it, not just from this quarter, and they need to be covered without either advocacy or debunking. Beyond that, all is fringe. And I think also, each of the kinds of fringe in the Arbcom definitions is represented, from minority scientific interpretations to away with the fairies. The Outline article is dreadful. I don't think the template is called for. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the most entrenched walled gardens that Wikipedia has (along with the Austrian School of Economics). It's so entrenched that I predict anyone who goes weeding there will end up in arbitration. Oddly enough, the same people who advocate for outlines are the ones advocating for transhumanism. I'm not sure what the connection is. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is anything like editing singularitarianism expect that any changes you make to be viewed as being contentious. :< outline of transhumanism appears to be a category page in disguise. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the whole outline thing is separate from fringe, even if the same people who support transhumanism support outlines. It would have to go to Village Pump, I suppose. Now, how to approach cleaning up this series of article. A good start might be to list the journals that are used as sources in the articles and sort them into a) obviously non-fringe, and b) perhaps fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The journal "Journal of Evolution and Technology" is definitely fringe. The Journal of Human Security I'm less sure on. It seems to be published by a small publishing firm just australia and new zealand; so it may just be a small journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Saw the phrase "deep, deep coverage of an elaborate fantasy" and I thought for a moment you were describing a different article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I went through the journals used in the series of articles. That is, the series in the navbox. There is also CATEGORY:Transhumanism with lots of sub-categories; there's a portal; there's the outline article. These are the journals cited somewhere in the series, with my own suggestions as to how they can be regarded:

Very good

• Nature Neuroscience
• Physiological and Biochemical Zoology
• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
• Cancer Research
• Experimental Gerontology (Elsevier)
• Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (Elsevier)

Good enough

• American Journal of Law and Medicine “the country’s leading health law journal”. Published by Boston University School of Law
• Cultural Critique. University of Minnesota Press
• Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics

Discussion needed

• Journal of American Chemical Society (citation is to a 1918 article)
• Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy. “A legal periodical run by students at the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America in Washington”.
  • Law reviews, which are the major venues of legal scholarship in the English-speaking world, are "scholarly journal[s] focusing on legal issues, normally published by an organization of students at a law school or through a bar association." StN (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This sounds to me like SOP for a law journal. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

SOP? (This one is low priority for checking, anyway.) Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Standard operating procedure. (Teach me not to use a TLA!) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Journal of Evolution and Technology. Published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Nick Bostrom and Aubrey de Grey are on the editorial board. No institutional affiliations in the editorial board listing.
• The Immortalist (Cryonics Institute)
• Cryonics (Alcor. Listing of articles rather than a journal?)
• Cryobiology (Elsevier)
• Alcor Indiana newsletter (Alcor Indiana)
• Alcor News (Alcor Life Extension Foundation)

There were also numerous references to top-quality magazines and newspapers: The Age, New York Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Wired, Slate, etc. References to the Daily Mail and Fox News. To obscure art journals/magazines/websites. To advocacy organisations. To pdfs with little identification. And last but not least, to blogs. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be easier to start with one article; Transhumanism appears to be the main article. It seems easier to bring up one article at a time to quality. Much of that article appears to go off-topic and also includes criticisms from other fringe groups such as anarcho-primitivists and neo-luddites. The section talking about Martin Rees in the controversies section for example doesn't appear to have any direct connection to transhumanism.

Journal of Evolution and Technology and The Immortalist sound in-universe. The use of fringe journals can sometimes be justified if you wish to show what this fringe believes; I assume it can't be used as a rebuttal to mainstream peer-reviewed criticisms much like it would be for science articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK to start with the Transhumanism article. I will post on the talk page about what I see as some of the problems, and point to the discussion here. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cryobiology [15] looks to be a valid scientific journal. Looking at the articles they publish, I would be more concerned that someone is synthesizing from papers not addressing what they are being cited to support, but I would have to see the specific citations to tell for sure. Agricolae (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As a philosophy, Transhumanism is notable and has academically established proponents. It also contains a large share of fringe theory and pseudoscience. This was recognized by three early editors (including myself) who, while not always agreeing on what was sound and what was fringe, added the Controversies section to interrogate POV elements and qualify ambiguous ones. This laid the basis for the long process leading to Featured Article status. StN (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming over. Your evaluation is exactly what I said in my first post in this thread. The many hours of labour that editors have put into this article is a tribute to Wikipedia collaborative editing. But Wikipedia moves on, and we need to apply a new round of collaborative editing. The Criticisms section of the article became Controversies, which is better, but it would be better still to integrate the controversial topics throughout the article. The referencing needs attention, as it doesn't meet the current criteria for FA. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Media_coverage_of_climate_change

Merged some content here; the bit about global cooling needs some better citations for global cooling, but it's one of those situations where, without grabbing some stuff from global cooling to explain the mainstream position, we'd lose a whole section of useful documentation of fringe ideas.

I don't feel too bad, though: Media coverage of climate change was poorly-cited before the merge, so the merge, as a whole, probably improved matters. 86.** IP (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Lee Carroll

Fringe article up for AfD with attempts to add presentations to a UN club for UN members and staff = presentations to a club are clearly trivial, yet when you add 'UN-Chartered' it sounds important. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Climate change alarmism

It seems the article Climate change alarmism was closed with merge but it seems some editors have decided to remove all mention of this rather than bring it to a deletion review. I reverted the deletion of the merge tags. What is the correct response now? Some diffs: [16] [17]. Talk page section: Talk:Climate_change_alarmism#Inappropriate_merge_tag_removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the relevance of raising this here? I hope you are not canvassing for support, instead of discussing? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not implicitly accuse me of canvassing. I am asking what to do in a situation where the closure of the AfD for a article was overruled without going through any of the appropriate channels. Since the article is fringe and has been mentioned here previously it is of issue here. No deletion review discussion has been brought forward in the four days since closure either. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate channel... Since i really really doubt if the concept in any way or form can be construed as fringe. (Hint: It is a sociological/political concept/claim - not a scientific one). So my question is very much relevant (as is the question about canvassing): Why are you bringing it here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If an AfD results in merge, merge away. It's appropriate to raise it here since it has been discussed here before. Thank you for updating us. In sociology and politics it is a neologism that hasn't caught on, therefore merge sounds like a good solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That it has been raised here before, doesn't make a precedence (or make canvassing Ok). As for being a neologism - that is incorrect (and as mentioned in the AfD: A strawman). The subject is alarmism (and alarmism claims) within the topic of climate change, which most certainly is a rather large concept... in fact a topic/claim that you can find mentions of each and every day in your google news updates.

What are google news updates? Are they a reliable source for sociology of science? Should I include them in the search of the scholarly literature on climate change denial that I am doing? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Google news update is a subscription service where you subscribe to news that matches search criteria, and get a mail once in a while with the news items that match. It has nothing what so ever to do with science - but it usually contains quite a lot of very reliable sources (since news usually is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My original take on this, was to let the editors on both articles figure out what to do (as the closing admin suggested[18]). But it seems that this is not an option. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If the AfD result was merge, the article should be merged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Had global warming controversy been a small article, and not an article that already has had to be split into several subarticles, and probable still needs to do so (it is at the very limit)... then that merge would probably have been uncontroversial and gone through without any problems. But it is already bloated, it is already turning into a summary article - so it is a problem to merge. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

...Yet the result of the discussion was to merge. The fact that merging seems to be a problem is not a reason to avoid the task. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Emotional Freedom Technique‎

There is currently a user who has brought up an old discussion regarding a self published source by the founder of EMT (See "Open letter," first discussion on talk). I've engaged in the discussion but it's finals week and I will not have time to continue until at least next week. So if anyone wants to head over there and help determine the reliability of the source it would be helpful. N^oformation ^Talk 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the World's Oldest Story - Mindjuicer (talk · contribs), an agenda account, has been on a mission to promote Emotional Freedom Technique and remove appropriately sourced criticism of it. He's picked up a block for edit-warring along the way but is still at it. Currently the issue is the classic fringe re-definition of "expert" to include only those people with a direct stake in the fringe topic. I've contributed off and on to this article, which I think has overall been a poor use of my time, but other eyes are welcome. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice you didn't answer the question, posed by Noformation (talk · contribs) in good faith. Could it be your sole reason for posting it is to bias anyone responding against me?

For my own part, dealing with Mastcell (talk · contribs) and most of the editors has been a remarkably frustrating experience causing me to give up on Wikipedia twice. All of them have displayed a clear POV against EFT. Not knowing the obscure rule structure of WP, you will see time and time again that many attempts have been made to improve the article which have been instantly reverted, with no explanation and no attempt to help the newbies (why would they? they like the article in its shambolic POV state). Mastcell (talk · contribs) and Bobrayner (talk · contribs) have been the worst culprits, consistently writing hostile things to newbies like his comment here. Furthermore, they frequently misinterpret rules for their own benefit and a new user doesn't know any better. The article history and talk page will validate what I'm saying.

The article is full of unreliable sources (2 & 3 in the intro) - the bias against this one is purely because it's a valid and powerful criticism of a primary source which they've interpreted to match their agenda. Indeed, one of those POV statements (that EFT is a pseudoscience) is based on something Craig said in the source in question.

There is only one other primary source and no secondary or tertiary sources.

I too welcome new eyes, preferably NPOV ones. Mindjuicer (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI Mindjuicer: A sure-sign of a POV-pusher is someone who contends that there is such a thing as a NPOV-editor (and normally that they themselves are it). Everybody has a POV and everybody is going to be biased in some way or another. It is a common misconception that WP:NPOV means "all sides get a fair hearing" when this is manifestly not the case. If the mainstream, third-party, independent sources do not give a particular idea a "fair hearing", Wikipedia will end up, by virtue of its goal to spend the most time focusing on such sources, focusing on these critiques. Editors are not supposed to have Wikipedia's text adopt any POV, but simply by spending the most space discussing the mainstream evaluations of a topic, we are going to be necessarily pushed away from "equality" or "balance" with fringe ideas. What's worse, if there are no sources that independently consider an idea, the idea is supposed to be excluded from Wikipedia entirely, which can just about feel like the worst sort of treatment to someone convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That's where cries of "CENSORSHIP!" begin. If you truly believe that your idea deserves a balanced mention in Wikipedia, you're going to find yourself frustrated. It's better to realize that the text which describes your novel idea is going to necessarily be skewed towards focusing on the mainstream critiques to the exclusion of primary sourced claims. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems somewhat unrelated to noformation's request but rather an attempt at psychic mind-reading?

It seems a straightforward consequence of the fact WP considers some pages to be NPOV that some editors can be NPOV too. Or perhaps I should have asked for pro-EFT eyes - would that have been better?

I have made many edits to many articles over the last 7+ years (no, WP doesn't show them in my history - it has a habit of logging me out more than I deemed it worth logging in). The only ones that have ever been reverted are on fringe sciences and protosciences in my field of expertise, EFT included. All of these articles are in such poor shape that it might lead one to believe WP is broken for such articles. I have a different theory - that there is far more zealotry on the side of 'protecting the poor unenlightened mites from pseudoscience' than there is on the side of the fringe theories and newbies are given hostile signals that drive them away such that a balancing consensus is never formed. WP doesn't stand a chance unless people like myself stand up to them.

As I said, you can see for yourself how newbie edits to make the article more NPOV are instantly reverted on the article. You can see some of the abuse from Mastcell without even changing page.

Anyway, this page isn't for waffling so let's get back to noformation's request OK? Mindjuicer (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done a substantial gut. There's no review articles I'm aware of, and it's based on hypothetical wishful thinking (TCM). The page shouldn't promote the theory, I think we at the FTN realize it's pseudoscience and nonsense giving undue weight to an idea that is at best speculative and not published in a whole lot of reliable journals. This theory has zero credibility in mainstream journals and shouldn't get a lot of length. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather incredible that people at the FT/N don't understand the difference between pseudoscience, fringe science and protoscience. Mindjuicer (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Falsifiability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to point out where it factually states that unfalsifiability is sufficient for claiming something is a pseudoscience? Or do you want me to point out where I explained how EFT is falsifiable, that this claim is your WP:OR because it misinterprets a magazine source that shoudn't be in your version anyway and you didn't counter?

This article desperately needs NPOV eyes. WLU and noformation are relying on consensus to push through POV edits on an article already tagged POV. Mindjuicer (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Where are the high-quality, mainstream, high-impact, respected peer-reviewed journals or statements from the APA, APA or AMA saying EFT is a quality approach that is recommended for treatment? That's what you need to demonstrate that the page isn't getting the respect it deserves. Low-impact, non-pubmed-indexed, shoddy and defunct journals publishing poorly-designed studies are not enough to demonstrate EFT "works". Essentially there is not enough mainstream attention to outweigh the Skeptical Inquirer article; as a publication specializing in the skeptical and debunking nonsense, it is an appropriate parity source to make claims like that - particularly in the absence of any real and credible research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Where are the high-quality, mainstream, high-impact, respected peer-reviewed journals or statements from the APA, APA or AMA saying EFT is a quality approach that is recommended for treatment? That's what you need to demonstrate that the page isn't getting the respect it deserves." No, this is just your POV. Thanks for showing everyone how unsuitable you are for editing fring science articles.

Low-impact, non-pubmed-indexed, shoddy and defunct journals publishing poorly-designed studies are not enough to demonstrate EFT "works". The two Pubmed sources say that it does. I'd just like to be clear that you're equating the reliableness of these with a magazine which relies on being as skeptical as possible for survival and has no forum for criticism of itself. Mindjuicer (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

E. Raymond Capt - new article

New article (one one of several created today by a new account, all relating to British Israelism about a now dead racist fringe (pyramidology etc) Christian Identity writer. Editor is restoring a claim that can't be verified as it relates to "Accademia Testina Per Le Scienze" which doesn't seem to exist except in Capt's book, and is trying to out me. Probably a sock. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talk page that your removal is fine per WP:PROVEIT and made some minor citegnomes to the page itself. Notability seems an issue to me at this point, and more sources are needed. To date, all you could say is he was his father's son and a member of the Scottish Society of Antiquaries. If outing is a concern, WP:OVERSIGHT would seem the only way to go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be the Accademia Teatina, or the Theatine Academy. The Theatines are a religious order, formally known as the Clerks Regular, but they had their heyday long ago. The academy may exist; there's an awful, broken or unfinished Italian language website for a Theatine Academy of Science, apparently a personal site.[56] I could find no mention of Mr. Capt on tiscali.it, which I think is an Italian ISP/web host. The only information about the institution is a self published source, and I have no idea why a Roman Catholic religious institution would confer any honor on a British Israelist. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if many, if not all of Capt's books are from Artisan Publishers [57] - and they only seem to publish similar texts. No evidence that either the books or the publishers are in any way significant. Fails notability requirements at the first hurdle... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of the articles this user has created look unsourced and about non-notable people. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Last night, whle I was failing to get to sleep, the editor went wild with accusations against me which he kept reinstating on his talk page. He's blocked, talk page access removed, determined to be a sock and a number of articles deleted for that reason. None of these actions were by me. Anjd although I had forgotten my review, a review of mine about Capt on Amazon got 3 votes as being helpful. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible problem in WP:PSCI

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Treatment of fringe theories about a concern I have with its phrasing which also touches on that fringe theories template above. Dmcq (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism (shorter)

Might I request some eyes and editors at paraphilic infantilism? Citing two sources by Blanchard et al, an editor warred to include the fringe theory "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."[58][59][60][61][62][63] from August to Dec 6th. The first source chose to use terms other than infantilism. The second included the text "They [Fruend and Blanchard] interpreted ... infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." This contradicts the mainstream position, that infantilism is a form of masochism (DSM 4TR pg 572) or separate, not pedophilia. When criticized at RS/N[64], he did a 180. He is now using the same sources to make nearly the opposite point, and still fighting to do so[65][66][67]. The text dedicated to Blanchard's theory or theories takes up 10% of the article and appears in three sections.

Should Blanchard's theories on autoerotic pedophiles/masochistic gynephiles/whatever be included? If so, which interpretation? Or should it be removed at least until the one who wants to cite Blanchard finds a source that wasn't written by Blanchard or Blanchard's colleagues? BitterGrey (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A fuller discussion can be found in the section above (permanent link). The current page uses Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree to verify the statements that pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are different disorders, pointing out that pedophiles desire children as sexual partners while paraphilic infantilists desire adult sexual partners who treat them as children (more accurately, they are aroused by the idea of being a child, much like a transvestic fetishist is attracted to the idea of dressing like the opposite gender). The current page does not say PI is an autoerotic form of pedophilia, it says "Another theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centred on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child." The actual source uses the term "autoerotic pedophilia" but the intent is clearly to distinguish the two and I recently edited the page to keep the intent while removing the loaded word "pedophile" (an application of WP:TECHNICAL since most people will see "pedophile" and assume child abuse; also note me expressing my discomfort with the term in August).

The theory of erotic target location errors is not a fringe theory. It was proposed in The British Journal of Psychiatry and repeated most recently in a 2008 book published by the Oxford University Press - making it at worst an alternative theoretical formulation (the kind pointed out as "not a fringe theory" in WP:FRINGE/PS) but in my mind simply a theory on a topic with minimal mainstream research (a fact pointed out in the page as well, here). The American Psychiatric Association that publishes the DSM does not have a "mainstream" view on paraphilic infantilism and the DSM does not classify paraphilic infantilism as a type of masochism; under the masochism section the DSM mentions "being treated as an infant" as a behaviour masochists will engage in for the humiliation. This has been discussed twice now on the reliable sources noticeboard [68] and [69] (and at ANI once). Paraphilic infantilism itself has a discussion where the DSM's mention of infantilism is questioned, Paraphilic infantilism#Masochism.

I have never claimed paraphilic infantilists were pedophiles, I've repeatedly pointed out the two are different and integrated several sources, including the reliable ones mentioned above, to verify the distinction. I see tremendous value in keeping these sources, published in highly respectable venues (Oxford University Press and The British Journal of Psychiatry) because they so clearly make the distinction between the illegal raping of children and perfectly legal role-playing of childlike behaviours. If we're discussing the opinions of AerobicFox, the actual discussion on his talk page might be useful. There has indeed been edit warring, for instance [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. Considering Bittergrey and I both agree paraphilic infantilism isn't pedophilia, I'm not sure why he wants to remove these sources and the accompanying text, and why he keeps tagging the idea that the two are different as a fringe theory or undue weight [76]. I think the fact that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles is a very important fact to be found in the page and it's not undue weight to note it. I believe the tags should be removed and the page should continue to distinguish between paraphilic infantilists and pedophiles. I'd really like it if I were not continually accused of being biased and unreasonable when all I have done is cite reliable sources to substantiate my points and justify my edits. It would also be nice if I were not continuously misrepresented as edit warring to conflate pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the appropiate venue to complain about another users edits (other venues exist), it is best to focus on the fringe issue; on the theory I'm not sure if the theory is fringe or not. I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality to try and attract some more attention to here. I looked at the discussions in RSN and Wikipedia_talk:MEDRS and here. From RSN, DSM mentioned by BitterGrey does not mention appear to mention the term paraphilic infantilism. It has something similar under masochism but it is possibly a different fetish. It seems possible that WLU's changes are just an alternative theory. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks IRWolfie. Paraphilic infantilism is usually just called 'infantilism.' The APA's definition (among the paraphilias, in the masochism section) is short, but even one of the authors WLU is citing cited the DSM as a reliable source on (paraphilic) infantilism[77]. Regarding the edit history, WLU is accusing[78] and implying[79] that I was the source of the pre-Dec 6th "misrepresentation". It was necessary to provide diffs in self-defense.

As for the alternate theory, would that be before or after the 180? (That is, infantilism as a type of pedophilia, or infantilism unrelated to pedophilia?)BitterGrey (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Complete, utter, inapplicability of James Cantor's opinions and irrelevance of an edit made three and a third years ago, [80], [81]

Single mention of infantilism by DSM [82] in addition to three discussions above [83], [84], [85]

Freund & Blanchard, and Cantor, Banchard & Barbaree are both reliable sources used in paraphilic infantilism to verify that infantilism and pedophilia are two different paraphilias. As I've said before [86], [87], I'm not sure why Bittergrey edit warred [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93] to remove these sources and thus the clarification they bring to this point.

And like I said before, I'm not sure why we're here if we agree that pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are different and I'm using high-quality sources to distinguish between them. Is the whole point of this section an effort to make me look bad? And how do I look bad merely because I keep insisting on retaining high quality sources to verify a point that we both agree on? All I want at this point is to remove the now unnecessary tags on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish WLU would stop trying to make this something personal. Had WLU been open to conversation, we might have been able to resolve this. ("I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading."). Now he's complaining about being made to look bad. He never retracted his accusation that I added that citation to the DSM[94] that was added by Cantor[95]. He is also claiming that his pre-Dec-6th position was actually my "misrepresentation" of the sources. ( This would involve me mind-controlling him into edit warring against me somehow :) ) The more false accusations he makes, the more I will need to defend myself, making him look bad in the process.

On Dec 6th, the meaning of the contested text was reversed, from infantilism is a type of pedophilia, to infantilism is NOT a type of pedophilia. The sources cited haven't changed. My position - which has not changed - is that the autoerotic pedophilia/masochistic gynephiles theory written about by Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al is not sufficiently covered by clear, independent RSs. BitterGrey (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Cantor added the DSM three years ago. The link I added in that diff is this one, where you are replacing the DSM on August 14th, two days after an extensive discussion that indicated the DSM was not an appropriate citation for that point. My comment about ignoring your claims of bias came after lengthy and pointless discussions spanning three archives at talk:paraphilic infantilism alone where Bittergrey consistently didn't listen to outside input - First archive, second and third. Not to mention I still addressed and took seriously your substantive points as in this section despite having you lecture me about assuming good faith. Not to mention an entire section of the RSN where you didn't listen to outside input that you were wrong, and another one here and a third one yet ongoing here. As for misrepresentation of sources - you've been claiming for months now that the DSM is relevant to the parpahilc infantilism page. Again, nobody agrees with you, and there are three different lengthy discussions in which several editors point out that it is not relevant to paraphilic infantilism beyond the short mention already there. Yet still, you claim things like the DSM represents the APA's consensus position on paraphilic infantilism [96]. You accuse me of conflating parpahlic infantilism and pedophilia despite a discussion in August that demonstrates I know the two are different and wanted to avoid the term. You accuse me of changing my mind December 6th when on August 30th I suggested a wording nearly identical to what I used on December 7th. I shouldn't have to repeat the fact that your representation of James Cantor's opinion on the DSM is both irrelevant and inaccurate. I shouldn't have to keep repeating that I know paraphilic infantilism isn't pedophilia. I've been consistently responding to your points, but you're ignoring mine in favour of the same links and the same false claims that I have repeatedly shown to be false. So don't talk to me about misrepresentation. I listen to outside input, I apologize when I've made a mistake, I accept feedback. Can you please stop lecturing me about bias and just let it drop before we end up at arbitration? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A link to the whole of archive 3. WLU's diff skips, among other things, his edit war with a bot[97], which I'm sure is my fault too somehow :). Wouldn't it be great if we could just discuss Blanchard's autoerotic pedphilia/masochistic gynephilia theory without all of this misdirection? BitterGrey (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note... there is a parallel discussion on this topic at WP:RSN#Paraphilic_infantilism. I don't think this is a case of forum shopping (there are legitimate questions that relate to both noticeboards)... but I would suggest that we centralize these discussions, so we can discuss the various issues in one place without giving conflicting advice. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bittergrey, if you genuinely want a discussion of the issues, stop bringing up my name and my alleged motivation. Lay out the best arguments you have that the ETLE is a fringe theory and leave out any and all diffs. Stop bringing editor behaviour into a discussion of a policy point. Until that happens, I will keep having to defend myself and the thread will keep getting pulled away from the central questions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems I really should have spent more time building a groundwork for discussion. Claims about ETLE's applicability to transexuals don't necessarily apply to ETLE's applicability to infantilism. Transsexualism and infantilism are different. BitterGrey (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The overall theory is the same - the sexual impulse is directed at self rather than other. Erotic target becomes one dimension among many - male/female preferred partner; adult/child preferred partner; attribute applied to other/attribute applied to self. Transexualism is different, Freund & Blanchard are proposing that both share one common attribute, the erotic target is oriented inward rather than outward. The erotic target is of the self having a specific attribute rather than the sexual partner. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Central questions

1) Can the following sources be rejected on the basis of lacking independence?

• Cantor, James; Blanchard, Ray; Barbaree, Howard (2009). "Sexual Disorders". In Paul H. Blaney and Theodore Millon (ed.). Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 530–7. ISBN 9780195374216.
• Freund K; Blanchard R (1993). "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists". The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 162: 558–563. PMID 8481752.

2) Is the theory of erotic target location errors a fringe theory?

Uses of both sources:

“ In 1993 sexologists Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund published and discussed a series of case studies involving infantilists^CB&B and noted a distinction between them and pedophiles. While pedophiles were attracted to children (and objects related to childhood) due to the desire for a child sexual partner, infantilists imagined themselves as children and adopted the objects of childhood or infancy to increase the power difference between themselves and their preferred sexual partners of adult women, with whom they acted out masochistic fantasies.^F&B ”

“ Another theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centred on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child.^CB&B ”

“ In the limited number of extant medical case reports some clinicians have attempted to explain the behaviors associated with infantilism...as a form of autoeroticism analogous to Ray Blanchard's concept of autogynaephilia as applied in certain cases of gender identity disorder.^{Unrelated F&B CB&B} ”

PDF copies of both sources can be provided. Google books has a preview for Cantor et al. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Question 1 - independence

WP:IS is an essay, thus represents at best suggestion from an experienced editor. However, even within that framework both sources are independent - they are published in either a textbookk or a peer reviewed journal, both of which have editorial independence and oversight. That both are reliable should be uncontroversial. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Independence—both whether the quality exists and whether it is desirable—has to be assessed in terms of the statement that the source is supposed to support. To give a simple example, if you want to support a claim that "George Washington once wrote, 'Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country,'" then the letter to Benedict Arnold in which Washington actually wrote this is a non-independent but 100% reliable source for the direct quotation. Would you repeat or summarize the material that these sources are supposed to support? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, above. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The authors are not independent, but the publishers are.

However, it just doesn't matter: there is no possible source more reliable for "what Ray Blanchard said" than a publication in which Ray Blanchard is actually saying it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Question 2 - fringe theory

The theory of erotic target location error was first published by Freund & Blanchard in 1993 in The British Journal of Psychiatry. That paper has been cited 33 times (google books gives about 10 more but the scholar search should pick those up). There is minimal research on paraphilic infantilism (pointed out on the page here). I believe it constitutes at "worst" an alternative theoretical formulation as discussed in WP:FRINGE/PS. It is not pseudoscientific, it is published in a respectable, mainstream journal, and it is not contradicted by any other sources that I've seen. "Extreme claims" has been cited as a reason to remove, but the claim made is not extreme. The erotic target location error theory is that an external sexual desire is turned inward - specific to paraphilic infantilism, the idea is that the individual is attracted to the self being a child. Freund & Blanchard make the point explicitly that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles (they use the term "autoerotic pedophilia" but the full context indicates that this is meant very technically and paraphilic infantilists specifically distinguished from actual pedophiles in that they are not sexually attracted to children). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(I saw Blueboar's note about this at RSN.)

Whether this is a fringe theory depends on what you mean by "fringe". Going by the dictionary definition, every single theory ever propounded could be declared "fringe", because nobody much cares and the very few experts largely disagree with each other. But I think it more accurate under Wikipedia's policies to declare all of the properly published (e.g., in books put out by reputable publishers or in peer-reviewed academic journals) sources to be equally credible alternative theories. As such, we should describe the fact that Expert #1 said this, Expert #2 said that, etc., without presenting any of them as being the Truth™. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All three quotes are attributed as X person said Y. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, since you are not the one who placed the tags, you and longtime friend WAID really shouldn't be trying to define what they were put there for. It makes it seem as if you are trying to drown out discussion and force you own views. A further example of this is how, immediately after another editor included a link to this whole discussion[98], you added a link to just your and WIAD's input.[99] BitterGrey (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to restart this discussion below, with the multiple theories/neologisms/diagnoses and positions listed. Without this groundwork, they could too easily get confounded. WLU, please let me know if you'd like your past positions renumbered. It doesn't matter which we call #1 or #2, we just need to be able to differentiate them for discussion.

Appologies in advance to the noticeboard regulars who were patient with my first attempt at discussion, aborted for being too long, and my second attempt, which didn't have the groundwork for a long, involved discussion.BitterGrey (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions, is there anything wrong with the arguments presented by myself and WAID? Are there any factual errors? Are any policies misapplied? Have we misrepresented anything? Have we actively portrayed another editor's position as other than what it was? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The above confounds "mosochistic gynephiles","autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia", and "autoerotic pedophilia" together. When two of three of those sources were written, the authors chose to call what they were writing about something other than infantilism. Even though they were all coworkers, none of the three groups authors chose to use the same terminology as the others. While we might conclude (after discussion) that they are the same thing, we shouldn't presume so by neglecting the authors' chosen terminology.

Additionally, the sections of article text has changed to the near opposite of what it was before Dec 6th. This provides still more confusion. For example, AerobicFox's application of extreme claims doesn't make sense here: Readers might think he was referring to the post Dec 6th version (WLU#2), when he was referring to the pre Dec 6th version (WLU#1). WLU#1 had extreme claims, WLU#2 claimed nearly the opposite, but both used the same sources. Now that we have the groundwork below, we can discuss this.BitterGrey (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We can ignore all rules to write a better encyclopedia, in this case we can quite easily use common sense to note that they're talking about the same thing, particularly when Cantor makes the link explicit. Particularly when F&B's definition of a masochistic gynaephiles are people "who habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women." That sounds pretty close to the definition of a paraphilic infantilist - and again Cantor explicitly links the two. To quote:

“ Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic as an erotic target location error. They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia. ”

AerobicFox's comment doesn't really apply since he misunderstood the use of the term "autoerotic pedophilia" and conflated it with actual pedophilia, thus misrepresenting the source. My statements, as always, and as I noted in August, were the same - autoerotic pedophilia in the context of Freud & Blanchard's erotic target location error hypothesis, is not pedophilia - it is sexual attraction to the idea of a transformed self (in this case, transformed into a child). You are misrepresenting the sources by saying they are the same thing, Freund & Blanchard clearly distinguish the two in a very explicit and meaningful way. To quote Freund & Blanchard:

“ The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies. This view is based on our analysis of the relationships between the infantile (or juvenile) self-imageryand the other elements of the total fantasy. With paedophiles, this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children). With masochistic gynaephiles, the same imagery increases the subject's difference from the sexual object (women), in particular, the difference between subject and object in power and control. This power differential, expressed in such fantasies by the imagined woman ”

Emphasis added. In other words - pedophiles are not paraphilic infantilists, and despite similar-appearing fantasies, the sexual partner and intent is completely different. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Essays do not overule policy. "Ignore all rules" (the essay WLU linked to) does not trump WP:SYNTH. Please note that WLU claims common sense here, but on another board complains that it is "One thing that everyone seems to miss..."[100]. F&B claim to be discussing "masochistic gynephilia," not infantilism. WLU edit warred to keep the "misunderstood" and "conflated" version that AerobicFox correctly quoted[101][102][103][104][105][106].BitterGrey (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've changed my initial comment to refer to a policy and some quotations that indicate why this is a good time to permit the use of this source that clearly. You have edit warred to remove the distinctions made by Freund & Blanchard, so criticizing me for doing the opposite with a highly selective set of diffs is less than honest and completely ignores the fact that you did exactly the same thing. I admit edit warring is bad, I shouldn't do it, and I have edit warred in the past. You have never admitted that the very next edit you made in most of these cases was to edit war to remove the same text I replaced [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112]. Can you explain why me edit warring is bad, but somehow you are permitted and should not be criticized? I can't think of a reason. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, BitterGrey, you need to go check your facts. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is one of Wikipedia's oldest and most fundamental policies. It was written nearly two full years before NOR, and the SYNTH section appeared rather later in NOR's development. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, my initial comment linked only to WP:UCS, I added WP:IAR later; but UCS is attached to an essay about what IAR does and doesn't mean, so I suppose the point still stands. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the ideal close to this discussion: WAID wrongly calling me wrong because she was confused by WLU reversing himself. Couldn't ask for a clearer demonstration about why this discussion needed to start (or restart) with an enumeration of WLU's multiple positions. BitterGrey (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Article needs attention Biological_transmutation

This article needs attention with sentences like: "Proponents have presented much evidence for biological transmutations, but mainstream science has decided to ignore it." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the Biological_transmutation#Mainstream_perspective section is written from the fringe perspective. That section needs attention. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. Who finds this stuff... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie has cleaned up a good deal of it. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

New template:

{{Fringe theories}} which looks like this:

Wording and format can probably be improved, it's just something I keep wanting to use, then finding it's not there. 86.** IP (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not all fringe theories are pseudoscientific: it either needs to be more general, or make clear that it is only applicable to pseudoscience. I'm not sure it will actually achieve a great deal anyway. We have plenty of policies to deal with fringe material, in my opinion - the problem is finding enough people prepared to do the donkey-work in enforcing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Review of 86's contribs shows a very large bandwidth seeking article deletion, and at least in climate change articles, essentially zero article improvement efforts. This tag smacks of a Plan-B.... "if I can not get it deleted, then maybe I can at least get it tagged with do not bother to read this hooey. The better plan is Plan C (as in Plan C-onsensus).... if a neutral 3rd party would say it qualifies for coverage, then do the donkey work of covering it with a neutral point of view and good sources. Whenever we do that, the hooey is readily apparent for all to see. The solution to bad information is not denial about its existence, but to provide better information. Of course, this requires intellectual discipline, and is not nearly as fun as arguing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a separate tag for fringe might be beneficial. For example, "undue" would call for the adjustment of text in proportion to the weight of RSs, pro versus con. In contrast, "fringe" would call for the removal of text without independent sources, only pro but no con. If a theory is sufficiently minor, dismissable, laughable, untestable, confusing, etc., no one else might ever write about it. As a result, there wouldn't be RS's for a balanced handling. An "undue" tag might be cleared by gathering RS's from proponents, but a "fringe" tag by gathering RS's from critics. Of course, that fringe tag would need to be worded differently than above. BitterGrey (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's long, I would suggest lopping off everything between "view" and "Please". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Concise, and to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this discussion to the proposed template's talk page? Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree about moving to the specific template's talk page. Instead, I think this should be moved to some section of the village pump. The original comment does two things (A) identifies a perceived problem and (B) suggests a very specific solution. I think the perceived problem deserves a wide open discussion with the broader community, and out of that other possible ways to address the problem might emerge. Maybe this specific template in some revised form is the best we can think of, but maybe not. So I would prefer to see a broader conversation about the perceived problem before we turn a new tag loose NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I am opposed to all article tags except deletion and hoax tags. I believe that they disfigure articles, and are mainly used as a way to achieve by extortion what an editor can't achieve in any other way. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Eh, I don't accept that theory. I tag material in cases where I can see that there is a problem which I cannot (for reasons of time, expertise, whatever) remedy at the time. A more naive reader whose critical facilities are not as sharp as, well, mine frequently needs a warning to mistrust the material he's seeing. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tags are not supposed to be used to "warn the reader". Many of them (e.g., {{POV}} directly say this in their instructions. The purpose of a tag is to attract the attention of someone who can fix it. (The reason they're made visible to readers is because sometimes a never-before-edited reader is the "someone" who can fix it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what it says at WP:TAGGING

• Well, as you concede, one function is indistinguishable from the other; and frankly I think the warning of the unwary is the more important. YMMV, of course. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but with slight changes. I think it would be useful in principle, in the same way as the other similar tags we have (and let's be honest, in practice they sometimes do serve as a warning in addition to attracting expert attention). However, not all pseudoscience articles are fringe, and vice versa. (Anybody want a Venn diagram?). I think it would be helpful to separate the two concepts so fringe and pseudoscience each get their own warning tag, rather than mashing the two together. bobrayner (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  To clarify: I would be happy with the "short form" too. bobrayner (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a Venn diagram in wikimedia for posting to the FRINGE and PSEUDOSCIENCE articles/help/talk sections on those topics would be very useful.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support but lose all after the word 'view'. The word "fringe" is enough to cover pseudoscience, pseudohistory, minority views, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Half-hearted support - one more tag that'll almost certainly be misused but it's at least more specific than the others that will be misused. Just make sure the documentation page specifies you need to note something on the talk page immediately after placing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support short form per Lucky Louie. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Well this has already been misused which is why I'm here. There is no injunction in Wipedia against fringe theories. Fringe theories is not a problem. Fringe theories are described under the POV policy specially because there are often neutral point of view weight problems. It may be reasonable to have a 'POV fringe' tag but using this as well as POV shows a misunderstanding and iumplies that fringe in itself is something wrong and should be removed. Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the template implies that fringe in itself is wrong. It clearly states that undue weight is the issue at hand, not the fringe view itself. I do however support the short form since bringing "pseudoscience" into the mix is asking for trouble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose After reading the comments here from WhatamIdoing and Dmcq, I oppose. 1) the "warning" should not be necessary, the body of the text should make it clear that it is a fringe view and that it contradicts mainstream view. 2) The tag will be misused by the fringe fighting "tag" teams (pun) who will stick to any article they don't like. When an article is well written according to wp policy then there is no need for any tag, it doens't matter if the article is about a fringe topic or not. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  That latter argument applies equally well to other tags. Why do we need {{Unreferenced}} when somebody can just add references? The answer is: Identifying a problem is often much easier than (and the first step towards) completely solving the problem. There are currently a quarter of a million articles with the unreferenced tag; there would be fewer with a fringe or pseudoscience tag but let's not pretend that simply rewriting all the problematic content straight away is such a good solution that we don't even need a tag in the meantime... bobrayner (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  A tag denotes that an article should be improved. If the article is "perfect" then no tags are necessary. This is also true for a "perfect" article about a fringe topic. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be on all articles on fringe topics, that really would be abusive. It's meant to be a clean-up tag. I am interested in whether it could be set up so as to trigger an automatic alert here. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems most editors think the best way to clean up a fringe article is the AfD and we already have a tag for that --POVbrigand (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD is the most sensible option in many cases raised here, perhaps the majority. I don't think that's surprising. Some people try and use the encyclopedia to push fringe points of view. Not as many as try to use it to sell goods, post their CV, or worship music or sports idols. It is arguably a worse problem than those, because the result is Wikipedia promoting silly views as truth, which reduces its credibility as a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have no right to speak for topics other than the cold fusion single purpose that I am currently working on. I believe you when you say that AfD is often a good solution. On the other hand, wikipedia is open for any fringe topic that is notable and verifiable. I think that "Push fringe points of view" is a very arbitrary expression. I have been called fringe POV pusher (and worse) numerous times for adding notable, verifiable, reliably sourced statements to a fringe article. Once you loose AGF and start calling names you start an argument without end. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose fringe theories are already covered under NPOV, so a POV tag is all that is necessary. I've been at the other end of the creators misunderstandings about what NPOV means when dealing with a topic that is clearly minority->fringe, in these cases we can't explain the majority POV at every other sentence (as the proposer surmises that we should), but instead deal with the concept, by describing clearly that the article is dealing with viewpoints that are outside the mainstream and what the mainstream is. Once that is out of the way, we can explain how believers think that the earth is flat and why they believe that it is so. This is how the 2nd paragraph of WP:UNDUE describes that we should do it.... Unfortunately i believe that the tag will be misused in such situations (as it already has). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I can even imagine that this tag could have a contrary effect. Article quality might suffer, because editors will argue that that article already has its disclaimer in form of the tag, so we can write what we want. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

By that rational every template is useless. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support with the changes proposed by WLU. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose long version by 86.** IP, which confuses fringe theories with pseudoscience. Support short version by LuckyLouie, which does not have that problem. Mathsci (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Short form was originally proposed by WLU, but thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I just looked at the edit to the template page. Mathsci (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support short form, oppose long form, for reasons set forth above. The long form confuses fringe theories and pseudoscience, when in fact there are many fringe theories that can't be fairly categorized as pseudoscience, which by my understanding requires claiming to be science while operating outside the scientific method. While a tag like this may be useful, I do think it should be used sparingly, and while keeping WP:NECESSARY in mind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems like an odd template to begin with, and without some explanation of how and why it would be used it's just senselessly combative. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering that you have frequently made comments that support the wholesale gutting of the WP:FRINGE ruling to support equal sides coverage of fringe views, why do you even bother posting comments like this? To you, actually enforcing the ArbCom decision is "senselessly combative," so it's not like your opinion on these matters is at all useful. Ditto for the other shamelessly pro-fringe editors who show up here to make comments with the sole purpose of trying to derail conversations and obstruct much-needed improvements. DreamGuy (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

DreamGuy: I'm sorry, but since you apparently have absolutely no idea what I think or want, your opinion is more or less useless. They day you bother to think about what I say is the day we will come to an agreement; until then, this kind of comment is just you spinning mental wheels in the mud of your own misconceptions, splattering it all over the page. I don't see why you bother. --Ludwigs2 17:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Further attempts to pigeonhole just encourages lazy editing. Fringe theories do not just apply to science either. Labelliing a topic fringe requires knowledge of the topic and sources, but I suspect this template will allow and encourage snap judgments and POV editing.(olive (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC))

• Oppose. Too verbose and inaccurate. The POV tag is sufficient for the purpose. Otherwise I would support the short form that has been proposed. Hans Adler 19:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support short form. I'm surprised no one made one previously. It's long overdue. There are a number of templates on Wikipedia that could be replaced by a more general one, but being more specific about the nature of the problem can only help. Of course there comes a point when a template could be too specific, but considering this area had a very key ArbCom ruling about it, it clearly needs something more than just the POV tag. DreamGuy (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly, more is needed to prevent the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, but I am against his for a number of reasons:

First, this is already redundant with the NPOV tag. What will adding a second one achieve that the first one didn't? Can you have both on the same article?

Second, I fear that this might lead to more coatracking of articles that are tangentally related to a fringe topic. For example, I am very active in the 9/11 and the 9/11 conspiracy theories (CT) topic space. Our 9/11 CT article does a resonably good job explaining both the fringe and the mainstream viewpoint. That is sufficient. I don't think it's necessary to re-argue the case for and against 9/11 CT on every single article (as this tag seems to imply).

Third, what about the opposite problem? That is, what about articles about fringe topics where the mainstream POV is disproportionately represented? Believe it or not, I've worked on articles on fringe topics where the fringe viewpoint wasn't even explained or barely explained. IOW, it contains the debunking without explaining what is being debunked. Are we going to create an equivalent tag for this problem?

Fourth, fringe is fringe is fringe. If we were to do this, it shouldn't be limited to just pseudoscientific theories. It should cover all academic disciplines, not just science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support I could live with the short form, but if anything find the third point above more acute. I optimistically look to fringe articles to gain detailed understanding of the concepts behind fringe thought, but am all too often disappointed to find little more than a wall of cautions and correction protecting me from assumed naivety. "This article doesn't cover the topic it debunks" would be a fine additional tag to design. K2709 (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Truehope Nutritional Support

New editor User:Truehope created an account today and then immediately created a page for Truehope Nutritional Support, makers of EMPowerPlus.

The user was blocked for being a company representative shortly thereafter (and has admitted as much), but the article remains. I think it could use a good look-over by y'all. Enjoy!

If this isn't the right place for me to post this, please let me know. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on the sources there, all news articles, it really only looks like it's notable for getting sued by Health Canada. It made a series of medical claims (nutrients could treat bipolar disorder in both pigs and people) which I have since deleted. There are claims that a clinical trial is being run using TNS's supplements to treat bipolar [113], and there's even a pubmed-linked secondary source [114]. What's fucked up is that there is also this shitty case report that claims it was superior to conventional treatment. There's a surprising number of google books mentions in various "integrative medicine" and the like books, but then again this is basically a CAM product akin to an orthomolecular approach.

Probably a better place to look for input would be WT:MED, the issue isn't quite fringe theory but the page currently straddles an organization and a medical intervention. Not sure if it should be split, merged or moved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both for your edits and your recommendation. I've now added the same message to WT:MED as well. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽

Dumb question of the day: how can you tell if a pig has a bipolar disorder? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You probably can't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy was applied to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"mosochistic gynephiles","autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia", and "autoerotic pedophilia"

Trying again, this time starting by laying a proper groundwork. This involves listing the various theories/diagnoses/neologisms involved, and the various positions taken over time. Perhaps this way we can keep them from getting tangled and confused.

First off, there are at least FOUR theories/diagnoses/neologisms afoot.

• "paraphilic infantilism" - Listed as a type of masochism in the DSM (pgs 572-3 in 4th TR[115], also [116][117][118]). It has been listed (although not at length) since DSM IIIR, in 1987. The DSM might not be perfect, but it is the consensus view of a national organization (the APA). Other sources consider infantilism a separate paraphilia diagnosed as "paraphilia NOS" (Not Otherwise Specified)(eg [119]). The mainstream view is clearly somewhere in between. Exactly where in between is unimportant, since neither masochism nor paraphilia NOS is pedophilia.
• "mosochistic gynephiles" - Freund and Blanchard (F&B)[120] described three groups in their paper, but didn't refer to any of them as infantilists. The first line in the paper describes them it as "A series of male paedophiles who dressed or fantasised as children..." F&B doesn't describe any in this series as infantilists. Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree (CB&B) [121] don't detail which in this series they claimed F&B interpreted as infantilists. The prevailing WP:SYNTH seems to be that it was the "masochistic gynephiles". This does seem to be the closest to paraphilic infantilism, as defined in the DSM. However, this would be SYNTH. The authors in 1993 could have used the term 'infantilism' but chose not to.
• "autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia" - Dickey, 2006[122], also one of Blanchard's coworkers, provides his own spin, or at least his own neologisms. Dickey does not cite F&B. However, like F&B, Dickey chose not to call autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia infantilism.
• "autoerotic pedophilia" - F&B either clarified or reinterpreted by CB&B (pg 531). "They [F&B] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia." For those who are unclear on this point, "persons whose erotic target is children" are pedophiles. CB&B do not cite Dickey.

Calling all of these "infantilism" cripples discussion. F&B chose to use other terms, as did Dickey, and CB&B's interpretation is not in line with the mainstream definition of infantilism.

Blanchard's other theory, that transsexuals are heterosexuals who's heterosexuality has become inverted, isn't related to this discussion, since this isn't an article about either transsexuals or heterosexuals. To avoid obscurity, we'll call this ETLE for transsexuals.

Second, there are THREE positions/versions that have been taken by the TWO editors involved in the edit war.

• WLU#1 (from August to Dec 6th) "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section)[123][124][125][126][127][128] The F&B-related text in the pedophilia section was commented out until Dec 6th[129].
• WLU#2 (After Dec 6th) "infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child." (that is, NOT a form of pedophilia). [130][131][132]
• BitterGrey: Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al are dependent sources, advocating an ambiguous fringe theory. The sources and theory should not be in the article, much less present in multiple locations. (Similar set of difs, since he was the one WLU was edit warring with.)

Now for that we have the terminology out of the way, we can start a real discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The pre Dec 6th and post Dec 6th positions are contradictory: Either one or both is a misrepresentation of the the sources. Ideally, we'd be able to refer to independent sources for a different perspective, but we can't in this case: Neither the "mosochistic gynephiles" theory, the "autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia" theory, nor the "autoerotic pedophilia" theory have been discussed outside of Blanchard and a few of Blanchard's colleagues.

Since WLU was the one edit warring to include text, WP:BURDEN demands that he source it. He did not. In discussions, he cites a Google search. Of course, if any of these were both independent and relevant to the article, why wouldn't WLU have cited them?

Personally, I believe all three fringe theories should not be in the article. Internally, they lack any testability. They make no predictions that can be used to show the theories true or false. They are an arbitrary categorization schemes. Externally, they are categorization schemes that no independent source uses, and not even the author's coworkers use consistently. (I also think these dangerous and false conjectures to be junk science, but that is beside the point.)

By the way, feel free to email me if you would like access to the sources. I'd need to look into fair use (since I don't have connections to Blanchard and colleagues) but we should be able to work something out. BitterGrey (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This section is completely redundant, and as usual brings up a whole bunch of irrelevant tangents that were resolved months ago without Bittergrey ever acknowledging it. First, the DSM is almost entirely irrelevant to paraphilic infantilism, a point made back in August. After extensive discussion the DSM was found to be clearly not an appropriate citation for much on the page and it certainly did not represent the APA's position on paraphilic infantilism. This conclusion has been repeated twice more. Nobody agrees with the point that the DSM is relevant to paraphilic infantilism beyond the short mention already there. In August I started a discussion on the talk page where I demonstrated I know pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are different. "Autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". My first point in August was that the two are different and wanted to avoid the term. You accuse me of changing my mind December 6th when on August 30th I suggested a wording nearly identical to what I used on December 7th. There is no overall mainstream view regarding paraphilic infantilism because there is minimal research on the topic, Freund & Blanchard's paper is an alternative theoretical formulation on a topic with minimal research. Cantor quite explicitly states that Freund & Blanchard 1993 found infantilists to be expressing the autoerotic form of pedophilia. Translated into lay terms, they are attracted to the idea of themselves being children - not actual children. Freund & Blanchard make this very useful distinction, and as I've said repeatedly, since Bittergrey and I agree infantilists are not pedophiles, I have no idea why there are four separate discussions about removing sources that make a point we both agree on. And if you're talking about edit warring, you might as well say "I was edit warring" instead of referring to yourself in the third person. I wasn't edit warring to replace the idea that paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles because I never believed that. I was reverting your changes in which you removed sources and statements on spurious grounds. That was one block of text among many, I wasn't reverting on the basis of that alone.

Bittergrey's final points are spurious as well - wikipedia doesn't determine if a source is pseudoscience or good science on the basis of editorial judgment, it does so on the basis of publication venue, reliability and degree of criticisms and scrutiny. The publication venues of Freund & Blanchard, and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree are excellent, The British Journal of Psychiatry and the Oxford University Press respectively. Freund & Blanchard's theory of erotic target location error has been cited many times in respected journals. Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree explicitly makes the point that the theory of ETLE proposed in Freund & Blanchard 1993 applies to infantilists (page 531, second column, middle of the page).

And again, the claim is I am including these sources for personal reasons, and a subtle dig that somehow I'm acting for James Cantor and his colleagues. There's no evidence of this, and the only reason I can see it being brought up is to question my motivation and hopefully sway an audience through claims of bias. Untrue, I simply think these sources are unambiguously reliable and apply directly and concretely to the page.

It's also unbelievable that a fourth section discussing essentially the same issues now exists. Even more unbelievable is that the DSM is still being cited as relevant. No less than five editors (myself, FiachraByrne, James Cantor, FuFoFuEd, WhatamIdoing and AerobicFox all agree the DSM is not relevant. It would be nice to see some sort of acknowledgement that the DSM is not relevant and does not represent the APA's position on paraphilic infantilism. It's absurd that it is still raised as if it were relevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, James Cantor himself used the DSM as an RS for the definition of infantilism[133]. The later diff above[134] is his comment that the category of 'paraphilia NOS' is a better match than the category of masochism. Both of these are within the mainstream view. The relevant point of that view is that infantilism is not a form of pedophilia. The current issue relates to the promotion of multiple fringe theories, "mosochistic gynephiles","autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia", and "autoerotic pedophilia." All of these describe pedophiles, and the assertion that infantilism is actually some form of these is the fringe theory/theories being discussed.

Also please note that "the claim is I [WLU] am including these sources for personal reasons" was not made above. If WLU would like to state that he was including the text for personal reasons, this statement would be fine. However, he shouldn't put words in my mouth. I'd encourage WLU to actually read my comments, as I have encouraged him to actually read what others, such as AerobicFox, actually wrote: "...I still find the mainstream consensus to be against any type of relationship between the two [pedophilia and infantilism]." This would be a consensus against a common theme in the fringe theory/theories being discussed.

AerobicFox's prior comment about "Extreme claims" applied to WLU#1. WLU#1 had extreme claims, WLU#2 had different claims, but used the same sources. This might be yet another point of confusion for any editors joining the discussion. Thus the need for a restart with detailed groundwork.

As for the chronology, WLU, If you've like the above list to be appended to show that you changed your position twice instead of just once, I wouldn't be opposed to that. Since you edit warred for the text to be included in the body of the article, AGF requires us to assume that you supported that text, as opposed to edit warring for some other reason. BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You are still citing James Cantor as if he supported the inclusion of the DSM as a defining text for infantilism. He doesn't. The relevant quote from the dif you include would be "The DSM does not at all support those statements. The claims apply to "typical" masochism, not to infantilism." Citing a link from three years ago in which he uses the DSM as a citation, and never replaces it, misrepresents his opinions as an editor and author. There is no mainstream view of paraphilic infantilism, and it certainly isn't embodied by the DSM. Cantor's use of the DSM as a citation three years ago is completely irrelevant and I simply don't know why you keep bringing it up. "Autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". Pedophiles desire children as sexual partners, paraphilic infantilists want to act like children. That's the point. Realizing the use of "autoerotic pedophilia" is a loaded one, I suggested in August and different wording, and implemented that change December 6th. Why do you keep insisting I think paraphilic infantilism is pedophilia? Why do you claim that "autoerotic pedophilia" as defined by Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree is the same thing as pedophilia, when they clearly ascribe a completely different meaning on page 531 of the textbook chapter they wrote? Specifically, "The erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." In other words, the sexual attraction in autoerotic pedophilia is the idea of a transformed self - not to children. This is the position I have always held, and edited towards both in my inclusion of the term "autoerotic pedophilia" and the better, less technical use of "attraction to the self being a child" made here. And for that matter, even if I did in the past think or claim paraphilic infantilists were pedophiles, which I don't and never have, now I am stating clearly and unambiguously that Freund and Blanchard should be used to verify clearl and distinctly that the two paraphilias are different and should not be confused. So what's the point of bringing up and misrepresenting my past position? Is it to make me look bad? That's the only reason I can see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Those "persons whose erotic target is children" (CB&B, pg 531) are pedophiles. These sources are, at best, uselessly ambiguous. And no, I did not comment about what WLU believed. I quoted the text he was edit warring to keep, and provided multiple diffs. As for Cantor, the more relevant quote would be "In my experience, [infantilism] is diagnosed as 'paraphilia NOS (infantilism)'"[135]. Again, this is in line with the mainstream position that infantilism is not a type of pedophilia. Unfortunately, the article isn't citing this comment, but the autoerotic pedophilia section of the CB&B chapter, which contradicts the mainstream position. BitterGrey (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

These large discussions are probably best kept on the talk page, when you have a clear idea of what both positions are it might be then easier to request a third opinion RfC etc when there is a succint description of the problem. Bring the individiual sources to RSN etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the full sentence is "They interpret infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia." In other words, if it were turned outwards it would be pedophilia, but it's not - it's turned inwards to the idea of a transformed self. In other words, they are not pedophiles, they are people who are attracted to the idea of themselves being children. It's like saying someone with apotemnophilia (the desire to have an amputation) has acrotomophilia (the desire for a sexual partner with an amputation). The two are clearly different, and selective quotation doesn't make them the same.

IRWolfie, to date not the single other person willing to engage on the talk page has declined until at least January. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie, Unless other editors get involved with the page, discussion there will be pointless. WLU claims that he is ignoring me [136] and is unwilling or unable to accept me as an editor[137]. There was a time when I was involved with multiple articles - WLU ended that. He even tried to hijack my last third opinion request[138]. As for FiachraByrne, WLU has tapped her three times now, hoping for one other editor that agrees with him[139][140][141]. However, her last relevant edit was to revert WLU[142]. Notably, her version is without the mosochistic gynephiles/autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia/autoerotic pedophilia fringe now being debated. Let's see if we might be able to keep this discussion focused on sources (as opposed to recent weasel wording). 14:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Again you are misrepresenting what I said. My actual statement was that I was "ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias". As I said two days ago, I respond to your substance when it exists. And I didn't say I didn't accept you as an editor, I said that if you continued on your path of picking fights and holding grudges, you'd end up blocked or banned one day - not by me, I am not an admin. As for that third opinion request, the instructions specifically state to make requests neutral, which yours was not. Your claim that FiachraByrne's last act was to revert me was correct - except for the crucial fact that it was on her draft article page, not mainspace, talk page or anywhere else relevant. As she said in her edit summary, she simply wanted her previous version.

If you want to keep the discussion focussed, stop making it about my actions and make it a discussion solely about the sources. Your edits spend most of your time misrepresenting and selectively quoting either my own edits or the sources (such as claiming Freund & Blanchard are saying paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles, or that the DSM defines infantilism) rather than giving an honest, best treatment of the sources, relevant policies and guidelines. All of these sections would be shorter if you stuck to the sources. If you genuinely have an issue with me as an editor or my edits, the appropriate venue is a WP:RFC/U. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the fringe theories guideline, "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." The essay on independent sources gives detail: "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." The masochistic gynephiles/autoerotic pedophilia theory/theories is not accepted (or even considered worthy of criticism) outside of Blanchard and his colleagues, and so is fringe. It contradicts the mainstream position that infantilism is not a form of pedophilia([143][144][145][146][147]...). The two or three sources on the fringe theory/theories are all from Blanchard or his colleagues, and so are not independent. Only one of them even mentions infantilism:("...infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia..." Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree pg 531)[148]) Per WP:BURDEN, the one editor seeking to keep references to this theory/theories has the burden of finding independent, third-party sources. He has not, and has chosen to edit war instead.

May I have your thoughts and your help? BitterGrey (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My edit warring, which both of us have done, is irrelevant to the sources. Please cease to discuss it.

Freund & Blanchard is not a fringe theory, it is at best an alternative theoretical formulation. It was published in a peer reviewed journal and discussed and referenced by several others. The publication venue was independent, Freund & Blanchard do not control the British Journal of Psychiatry where their theory was first published making your claim of lack of independence incorrect. You have provided no sources indicating the theory of erotic target location errors is not accepted. Freund & Blanchard state quite clearly that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles and this point is made in the article. The DSM does not define or provide a mainstream view of paraphilic infantilism, as pointed out in August. Since the statements verified by Freund & Blanchard are not unsourced, WP:BURDEN does not apply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

One of us held to a consistent position. The other fought for one position, and then toggled to another, nearly opposite position when the first proved unpopular. Then, he continued fighting. In the WLU#1 version, F&B was cited to support the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(see the last altered section)[149][150][151][152][153][154] Now WLU claims that F&B state "infantilists are not pedophiles." WLU#2. The truth is that F&B don't mention 'infantilism' at all. They wrote about, among others, "masochistic gynephiles." As for being "discussed and referenced by several others", why hasn't WLU cited them? BitterGrey (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You are yet again misrepresenting my position, ignoring my actual opinions, and misrepresting what Freund & Blanchard mean when they say "autoerotic form of pedophilia". Freund & Blanchard do state that infantilists are not pedophiles, thus:

“ The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies. This view is based on our analysis of the relationships between the infantile (or juvenile) self-imagery and the other elements of the total fantasy. With paedophiles, this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children). With masochistic gynaephiles, the same imagery increases the subject's difference from the sexual object (women), in particular, the difference between subject and object in power and control. This power differential, expressed in such fantasies by the imagined woman spanking or scolding the subject, is central to the masochistic arousal. A similar analysis can be applied to the fetish objects (usually nappies) used in masturbation by the two groups. With paedophiles, the fetish derives its power from its association with the sexual object, children. With masochistic gynaephiles,the fetish derives its power from association with the (fantasised) subject; it is an accoutrement to the role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy. In light of these differences, we believe that erotic fantasies of being a child probably have different aetiologies in the two groups. ”

I've cited this passage previously, it seems quite clear to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, are you claiming that the source you fought to cite to support "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia" (quote is from the last altered section)[155][156][157][158][159][160]" actually says infantilism is completely unrelated to paedophilia? BitterGrey (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely; I am saying "autoerotic pedophilia" as defined by Freund & Blanchard means "attracted to the idea of the self transformed into a child". It does not mean "attracted to children" (pedophilia). I've said this many times, but for some reason you keep falsely insisting I'm saying paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. I am saying pedophiles want to rape children, paraphilic infantilists want to pretend to be children. Autoerotic pedophilia is not the same thing as pedophilia, just like military intelligence does not mean the same thing as intelligence, a pineapple is not the same thing as an apple (or a pine tree), and Lamarkian evolution is the same as evolution. That distinction is what you have been removing in this set of edits [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166]. I fully admited the term was loaded in August, and altered the wording to reflect the more understandable and less worrisome definition on Decembber 6th. Why do you keep falsely insisting my goal was to conflate pedophilia with paraphilic infantilism? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU - the problem is that the term is over-loaded. Pedophilia in the average reader's mind has a particular meaning (relating to the sexual abuse of children). The source in question uses the term in a significantly different way that has to be considered a neologism (there's no evidence that that use of the term is common in the field). This creates a problem: the odd usage of the term requires careful disambiguation to prevent readers from getting a seriously wrong idea about the topic, but the theory does not seem to be significant enough in the field to merit that kind of extended discussion (per NPOV). Can't you discuss the theory without referring to pedophilia? The 'infantile form of pedophilia' bit does not seem to be a central construction in the author's theory. --Ludwigs2 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig, can you point to a section in the current page that uses the term "autoerotic pedophilia" or something similar? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

nope, I was simply commenting on the conversation here, which seems focused on that terminology. Aside from that singular phrase, what is the issue here? Freund seems to be a reputable academic, there's nothing about the theory that leaps out at me as particularly fringy, it does not seem to me to be obviously overrepresented in the article. where's the beef? --Ludwigs2 21:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I. Don't. Know. Since the wording was changed December 6th to reflect a more lay-friendly, less alarming (but still accurate) definition, I frankly see absolutely no reason to object to the source. The only discussion of "pedophilia" on the page is a section discussing how parpahilic infantilism is not pedophilia. Freund & Blanchard is one of the sources that does this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess that it's the usual problem for articles about unusual sexual traits: the editor with the trait in question does not want people reading the article to learn anything about theories that he personally disagrees with (and especially not anything that presents it neutrally, i.e., "So this one expert had this idea..." rather than "The following idea, which I hate, has been thoroughly discredited"). BitterGrey's complaints have all aimed at removing Freund and Blanchard's ideas about PI entirely from the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my attempts to balance the article were quickly reverted(eg [167]). As for Freund and Blanchard, they never even used the term "infantilism." The closest they came was possibly "masochistic gynephiles." Claiming that "masochistic gynephiles" are infantilists is WP:SYNTH. The DSM might not cover it in detail, but at least it actually uses the term "infantilism."BitterGrey (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You weren't balancing the article, you were deleting reliable sources that verified a position you disagreed with. The DSM uses infantilism to mean something completely different to the point that it is essentially irrelevant. Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree uses the term infantilism such that no interpretation is required to use it. I indicated this in the RSN yesterday but I'll repeat the quote here. From page 531:

“ The erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic as an erotic target location error. They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia. ”

Though Freund & Blanchard could still be used since their definition clearly addresses infantilists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That exchange again for those who ignored me completely: BitterGrey adds a ref[168], WLU removes the ref[169]. Please note that an autoerotic form of pedophilia is a form of pedophilia.BitterGrey (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The "reference" you added was the DSM, which everybody but you agrees doesn't meaningfully discuss infantilism. You keep claiming the DSM is relevant, and it's not; to date I've accumulated 22 examples where you attempt to cite the DSM, despite a clear consensus that it does not represent a consensus statement on infantilism (see here). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The persistent NOR violation in this claim:

• "paraphilic infantilism - Listed as a type of masochism in the DSM"

is getting irritating. The DSM does not say that paraphilic infantilism is a type of masochism. It says that some masochists want to be humiliated by being treated like a baby, just like some masochists want to be humiliated by being forced to cross-dress. The fact that these behaviors can be a superficial manifestation of masochism does not mean that these two paraphilias are defined as or types of masochism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In the effort of focusing on sources, policies and guidelines, I've been avoiding stating something along these lines. However, I agree to both of the above points by WAID. I've been assembling a list of the latter and expect that this discussion will result in accusations of bias, conspiracy and collusion as it has in the past. If the accusations of bad faith, personal bias and criticisms and representations of my editing history were eliminated from this and the RSN pages then these discussions would be a) about a tenth the length and b) finished. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

F&B mentions "masochistic gynephiles" but not infantilism. The DSM explicitly lists infantilism under masochism, pg 572 in 4TR. That is what the sources say. Were WLU's sources adequate, why would he be nursing not one but two pages of accusations[170][171]? BitterGrey (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The RFC page has looked like this since December 10th. "My" sources are adequate, the issues indicated by the absolutely unnecessary page are that you are ignoring and misrepresenting the sources, my position and previous consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been no previous consensus, except for maybe the unopposed RSN motion to remove the three sections on Blanchard et al. The big section on F&B under pedophilia was commented out since August because, of the three editors involved then, no two agreed on how or if it should be presented[172]. As for ignoring the sources, I've shown you wrong a number of times. For example, my attempt to get you to accept a basic point about two other sources, Michel and Pandita, stretched on for two thousand words before you concluded "oops." BitterGrey (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources are reliable per publisher and expertise (Oxford University Press and The British Journal of Psychiatry). You are misrepresenting what the sources actually say and the relevance of the DSM to paraphilic infantilism. I'm not sure what your diff is supposed to show except that when I'm wrong, I will admit it and move on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, one concern with the mosochistic gynephiles/autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia/autoerotic pedophilia fringe is that a single source (Blanchard and colleagues) makes vague and dangerous claims. Of the three sources, only one even uses the term "infantilism." Each has an independent set of neologisms.

WLU will repeat and repeat the more politically correct version (WLU#2) that has only been up since Dec 6th. Before that, he had spent three months fighting for version WLU#1. This version used Blanchard et all and Blanchard et all to support the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section)[173][174][175][176][177][178]. (To be clear, this is among the text I tried to take down and he fought to keep up, until Dec 6th.) So is it pedophilia, or not pedophilia?

The assertion that infantilists are pedophiles should not be made lightly. Sources that make this extreme claim should be clear and well-supported if they are to be used at all. Blanchard et all and Blanchard et all were used by WLU to support this claim, but they are neither clear nor well-supported.BitterGrey (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

BG: I don't care what WLU was doing before the 6th - if he's changed what he wants on the page, that's a sign that he is trying to reach some kind of balance with you, and that is a good thing. This is a collaborative effort, not a dog-fight, so just hum a few verses of Auld Lang Syne to yourself and move onward. Right now the article does not seem to be asserting that infantilists are pedophiles - are you ok with that? Do you have any specific problems with the current state of the article that you think need to be addressed? As far as I can tell F&B are both established, reputable academics, so there is nothing overtly fringe about their work. it may not be a very prominent theory - which is something that ought to be considered, obviously - but the fringe argument is just not flying here. If you think they are being overrepresented, the best thing for you to do is to find different sources that will flesh out more common theories in more detail. --Ludwigs2 08:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, the change on Dec 6th was to avoid the theory and sources from being removed due to extreme claims[179]. WLU has reverted every substantial edit I have made for months. When I commented that he was demonstrating ownership and prejudicially reverting me, he made an accusation which he had to retract when it became clear that he hadn't even read my edit[180].

The theory from F&B, as described in CB&B, is that infantilism is a form of pedophilia. "They [F&B] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia." This is the opposite if what the article says after the change. F&B itself is explicit in that it mainly discusses pedophiles, and does not use the term infantilism. The previous version of the article text was closer to what F&B wrote, at least according to CB&B. Obviously, infantilism can't be both pedophilia and not pedophilia. One version of the article text is a misrepresentation. Since F&B don't mention infantilism, it is only CB&B that connects it in any way to infantilism. CB&B dedicates only three sentences to the theory as it applies to infantilism, in one place. The current article discusses the theory in three places.

Of course, I want neither the previous extreme claims back in, nor the current misrepresentation to remain.BitterGrey (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not pedophilia, that's the whole point I've been making for a very, very long time. According to the ETLE theory, paraphilic infantilism is attraction to the idea of the self being a child (a transformed self), not attraction to actual children. Paraphilic infantilism is not pedophilia, and both Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree all make this point in attributed statements on the actual page. The part that Bittegrey is leaving out in CB&B is the definition of an erotic target location error - "The erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic as an erotic target location error." The claim that I "flip-flopped" or ever changed my mind on the paraphilic infantilism/pedophilia idea is a blatant lie. The statement was always the same in intent, but before December 6th it was a technical phrasing using a very loaded term (something I was uncomfortable with in August). After my December 6th edit, the exact same idea remained, but using a description and definition of the term that avoided the loaded and scary "pedophilia". "Autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia" any more than "backhanded compliment" is the same as "compliment". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Forms of pedophilia are forms of pedophilia, be they autoerotic or otherwise. Please notice that neither WLU nor WAID are contesting my statement that F&B don't use the term "infantilism" at all - they know it doesn't. F&B used a set of neologisms that not even CB&B used. Nor are they contesting the quote from CB&B that "They [F&B] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia" - they know that is what CB&B wrote. Again, I want neither the source's extreme claims back in, nor the current misrepresentation to remain.BitterGrey (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cantor uses the term infantilism explicitly within the discussion of the ETLE. If I were citing F&B as my source, and that were the only source, you might have a point. I have yet to see you honestly acknowledge the contents of Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree on this point. Let me again provide the quote from page 531:

“ The erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic as an erotic target location error. They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia. ”

So you can pretty much drop the "F&B don't mention infantilism" as if it were a valid point. It is a straw man since Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree are clearly reliable (published by Oxford University Press) and explicit in their discussion of how paraphilic infantilism is a focus on the imagined transformation of the self into the image of a chiild. So irrespective whether infantilism is equivalent to masochistic gynaephiles, and it is, Cantor et al. can be used to substantiate the ETLE theory. The "extreme claims" are identical to what is currently there, and it does not say paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles, it says they role play and are attracted to the idea of being children. "Forms of pedophilia" doesn't equal "pedophilia" within the theory of ETLE, it places pedophilia on one end of a continuum, and paraphilic infantilism on the other, with the actual continuum being interest in the transformed self versus interest in the other. The theory of ETLE, F&B's publication and CB&B all distinguish pedophiles from paraphilic infantilists. Dogmatically insisting that the two are identical despite clearly different definitions is a blatant, inexcusible misrepresentation of the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this dispute comes down to BitterGrey's unwillingness to have the article accurately represent a theory that personally offends him. Since his personal views are setting him at odds with basically every other editor for approximately the millionth time, it might be in the best interest of the encyclopedia for him to permanently stop (directly) editing the article altogether. Even if the community did not believe that his public activism on behalf of other paraphilic infantilists amounts to a WP:COI for this article (and it might), the COI advice of "It is also advisable to take similar care on subjects where you do not have a conflict of interest but do hold strong views or have a significant involvement" certainly applies.

We could consider an RFC/U. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is off topic to the noticeboard. My sole comments are that I generally find RFC/U to be fairly unhelpful (the editor in question at a RFC/U usually gets there by being unwilling to cooperate civilly and refusing to listen to other editors' feedback) and given the volume of text that usually accompanies discussion with Bittergrey, it will result in a nearly unreadable page that ultimately gets nowhere. I haven't decided what to do yet, but given the history already documented on my "unnecessary page" (and my review is currently just between end of November and December 19th) I might bring this right to AN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie didn't take sides. WAID supported WLU. (Of course: I didn't have any problems with WLU until he rushed to WAID's support[181]. Before his embarrassment there, WLU had shown no interest in infantilism or any related topic.) Ludwigs2 is a longtime friend of WAID, even offering to vote for her to become an admin[182] and giving the benefit of doubts[183]. (In this context, she is accusing me of being a pedophile[184].) This is a two-party debate.

...That is, if we don't include the folks at RSN. That discussion wrapped up with WLU claiming that "One thing that everyone seems to miss here, is that "autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia".[185]. It seems more reasonable that "everyone" agreed with me that any form of pedophilia was still pedophilia.

None of them opposed my motion to remove the fringe theory from the three places in the article. (WLU and WAID argued, but never cast a vote to oppose.) The only other consensus that could be drawn is that no one who was truly uninvolved cared enough to get involved. Sadly, I must concede that this seems to be the case.BitterGrey (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

By "rushed to WAID's support" of course, that simply means I disagreed with you and agreed with her. I often agree with WAID, she is an excellent editor with whom I share a common understanding of policies and the importance of sourcing. She's not portraying you as a pedophile, she is saying you are a self-identified paraphilic infantilist, and you are the only one who seems to think the two are identical. And now Ludwigs2 is another outside editor who is too biased in WAID's favour to give a neutral opinion because once he said she would make a good admin? I doubt that means he will only ever agree with her.

As for the RSN, I think everyone there read your description of the page and sources, your endlessly repeated statements that claimed Freund & Blanchard said paraphilic infantilists and pedophiles were the same thing. The reason nobody wants to get involved is because you keep bringing up false claims of bias, filling the page with irrelevant tangents and repetitive misrepresentation of sources - for instance, every single diff in your above post. Nobody want to get involved in a debate that ugly and nobody wants to be accused of calling someone else a pedophile. I also think WAID would be a good admin, but that doesn't make us a cabal. And your accusation that Ludwig is WAID's pal and too biased to give a neutral opinion neatly sidesteps every single actual argument he made - one of the prime reasons an ad hominem fallacy is employed, so people can discount an opinion. Again, you've spent most of your time misrepresenting the sources and policies rather than making a positive case. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@ WLU: (and hopefully the irony of my being the one to tell you this will amuse people - always love to spread Christmas cheer) it's time for you to disengage. BitterGrey is not making a reasonable argument for removal of this source, and continuing to try to defend yourself against his attempts to cast blame on you are just perpetuating the conflict. Time to let it die a quiet death.

@ BitterGrey: Your argument against the source is more or less baseless - The source is not being misrepresented, and is not an unreputable source. You are yourself misrepresenting what they say in a passage that's not even being used in the article and trying to remove the source on those grounds. I'll remind you that Wikipeida is not censored - the fact that there is an interpretation of this source that might offend people is not in itself sufficient grounds for removing the source. You need to show that the source is being misrepresented or misused, and to date you've failed to do so. I suggest you back off, regroup, and try to find sources that disagree with this theory or offer alternatives so that you can change the balance of presentation in the article.

I suggest we close this (and all related discussions) as resolved - there's no reason to believe this falls under Fringe, and not even a clear case made that NPOV needs to be invoked. I'll do that myself in a bit unless someone makes a credible case that there's something that needs to be discussed here. --Ludwigs2 14:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your irony, and at all future points where we intersect and I may reference WP:IDHT, you may laugh in my face and call me a hypocrite.

Since this dispute essentially came down to the presence of four tags in the article (the ones added here) I would like to remove the tags and consider the matter closed. I'll wait a bit out of good form, then do so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@WLU: I've spent most of my time quoting the sources and the article text that you previously edit warred for. You've been ignoring me from the start ("...I can just delete this without reading it") and continue to do so ("I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading."). Of course, that doesn't matter. You have a loyal mob and I don't.

@Ludwigs2: Endlessly repeating verbose cruft is one tactic that career Wikipedians like WLU and WAID use to discourage neutral editors from becoming involved. It also gives them the advantage over those of us who do other things (like work for a living). They'll keep arguing until given the WP:LASTWORD, and then claim a consensus later. Please be aware that a neutral editor would have considered edit histories and rejected insinuations about personal orientations (eg[186]), not the other way around[187].

CB&B clearly states "They [F&B] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia." Version WLU#1 included the text "...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia." WLU warred to keep this text[[188][189][190][191][192][193]], but flip-flopped when it became clear that no neutral editor would support him(eg [194][195]). The current version, WLU#2, says nearly the opposite and so is a misrepresentation of the sources. These sources - Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al - give no indication of the acceptance the fringe theory outside of that one facility. Even within that facility, no two papers uses the same neologisms. Currently, it is mentioned in not one but three places in the article. Clearly, this is a case of a fringe theory first being given undue weight and then being misrepresented in hopes of perpetuating the undue weight. BitterGrey (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual Hierarchy

Resolved

 – Consensus to redirect through merge proposal

Horrible article which I think is also being used to publicise someone called Paul McCarthy and his "Sirius Ascension Center". Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wall-to-wall insider-sourcing and an apparently obliviously-enthusiastic insider-editor adding more such material in front of our eyes. Another trainwreck. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed merger of the article to Ascended master, probably as a bare redirect. Discussion may be found at Talk:Ascended master#Merger proposal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ascended master teachings is another in the series. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And in fact every article listed in the Theosophy portal needs close examination. Theosophy itself is definitely notable, so are Blavatsky, Besant and Bailey, probably some of the other theosophists. I doubt whether all the books are notable, and the articles on the "masters" could become one list. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Have people watchig hat page been informed on the talk page about this discussion? Dmcq (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Notified. bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect?

I think the best solution for Spiritual Hierarchy (as it currently stands) would be to redirect to a related article with better content. Admittedly it is a severe treatment. If somebody later builds sourced, neutral content on this topic, they're better off starting from scratch. However, I have previously had difficult interactions with a major editor of the article, including lots of deletions (albeit on a completely different topics) so I'm not personally going to redirect - don't want to give the impression of stalking / vindictiveness / vendetta. All suggestions welcome... bobrayner (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Limited observation of this editor's editing habits led me to a similar viewpoint, which is why I'm attempting a redirect via a WP:MERGE proposal (and thus an enforcable WP:CONSENSUS). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect with substantial gut. That's an...astonishing amount of...cruft? The sourcing is pretty terrible, it's a whole whack of primary-esque sources. It's like someone crossed all' the lists of pokemon characters with the astrology page, then fed it through an English-to-French-to-English translator. Twice. And seasoned with some diglossia. Redirect, and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless the dear soul who tries to extract anything meaningful from it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)