Hosta

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I added the category "pseudoscience" to Sleep-learning, we have the article Sleep and learning for any scientific information on any correlated activity between the two brain functions. Does anyone disagree? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge wouldn't be out of place. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The science one is about getting enough sleep to cement what you learned the previous day and having enough sleep to be alert to learn the following day. The pseudoscience is about learning new facts while you are asleep. If we keep them apart the "pseudo" tag will be correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that pseudoscience. I would call it dubious science, but there are people working on it who are using the scientific method in a correct way. It isn't as if learning during sleep would be a miracle or anything -- there is plenty of organized brain activity during sleep. Looie496 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a merger working, so that the article on Sleep and learning carries the following: the research showing that sleep is useful for alertness, thus for learning the following day; some research into how memories may be sifted and sorted during sleep (if we have good sources - I hope we do because it's interesting); how there was a notion from the 1920s that sleep was like hypnosis and people would pick up suggestions played to them; how that notion was completely discredited; how the sleep-learning notion was transmitted into literature. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of the merger idea. The Sleep and learning article covers the scientific information and Sleep-learning covers a pseudoscienctific belief. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AAH is well-established fringe but persistent advocates are setting the standards on the talk page referring to "talk page consensus" (as far as I can tell) within the tiny group that are advocating it (everyone else gave up). The most arrogant and persistent advocate was reported on ANI without success. I've reported AAH before and last time that page got chopped to pieces. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is irrelevant. Fama Clamosa (talk · contribs) - have you warned the participants about discreitonary sanctions in WP:ARB/PS? If not, please do so. SPAs should be easily banned. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't warn anyone and I guess this means that I gave up AAH. I'll remove the page from my watchlist (like everyone else did). --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Fama, for cryng out loud, I'm not interested in bullying any one with valid points out of editing this article, just because I happen to support this idea. I've experienced too much bullying on this topic myself. What I've rebelled against is a long history of misinformation and distortion about AAH, on Wiki and elsewhere. I only wish to see a proper encyclopedic entry about this complex, and aparently divisive, topic. I don't see that as being arrogant, albeit perhaps I'm a tad paranoid at times. If you have valid points in terms of POV-phrasings or neutrality, let's just deal with that, especially if you're right. Just don't fall into a category of expecting ridicule of a misrepresented topic, and then frown on otherwise non-POV phrasings, that wouldn't support that. I'm not against representing the opposition to AAH (or though it's difficult for me to see what the hell it is at times), or for over-representing pro-AAH arguments where invalid. Especially if the hypothesis is so bloody wrong. --CEngelbrecht (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owing to this extremely problematic comment, I have notified CEngelbrecht (talk · contribs) of discretionary sanctions that are in effect at aquatic ape hypothesis. Further disruption should be referred to WP:AE with reference to this notification. jps (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? How in the hell is the above problematic?--CEngelbrecht (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ADVOCACY. jps (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were some image problems on that page. Please remind people that images should only be used when they can be directly connected to the content. A swimming baby is not an appropriate image at all for such an article. jps (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NORN#Images at Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. jps (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on this please, ladies + gents.

No independent references as fas as I can tell. only papers are in notorious pseudojournal/unreliable source Journal of Consciousness Studies. AFD? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pure puffery. A former PEAR staff member named Brenda Dunne subjected the article to an intense POV push, but even if the article is reverted to its previous state it still contains little to nothing of encyclopedic value. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is still predominantly puffery, despite the edits that I and others did some time back, which were admittedly rather tame. PEAR is, however, a curious artifact in the history of science and probably deserves to be retained in WP in some form. Perhaps the best approach would be to eliminate all the self-promotion and unreliable material, then see what's left. If it's inadequate as a standalone entry, we can merge what remains into the Robert Jahn page, and redirect PEAR there.

Much of the lab's early experimental work is described in a 1982 IEEE-invited paper by Robert Jahn. Here's the info: Jahn, R.J., "The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective", Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 136-170, February 1982. This paper provides some broader insights into the overall field, but it has not yet been included in either the PEAR or Jahn pages.

(BTW, most of the existing references for the PEAR entry are not from the above-mentioned Journal of Consciousness Studies, which is a fairly respected academic forum. They're from the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is indeed quite unreliable and unindexed; probably all but one of them should be eliminated.) Cheers! jxm (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Wikipedia infobox, Noah lived to be 950. And I'm not sure what the parenthetical "Biblical dating" means. I have tried to clean this up, but have been reverted a couple of times by someone who feels that the info is properly sourced (to the Bible). LuckyLouie (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found the same issue at Abraham. jps (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be in infoboxes, should say in the text that the Bible says so. Itsmejudith (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This new article, which unfortunately was approved at AfC, contains about 10% valid information and 90% fringe theory, by my estimate. I'm reluctant to take it on single-handed. Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I've removed the most glaringly-obvious hogwash, though I suspect that AfD is probably the best solution. The whole thing looks like synthesis to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems to me that whoever approved this at AfC should be asked to explain how this got passed. I'll look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a POV FORK of psychotronics recycling much of the same material but with an emphasis on tinfoil hattery. Someone please send it to AfD. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Microwave auditory effect - another AfD candidate, probably ...
• (Add) Allan H. Frey - "he microwaved cats and found that it had a huge effect on emotions". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether this belongs here or not. Gentech Pharmaceutical appears to my research to be a company that markets pharmaceuticals that have never been described in peer-reviewed publications, which would place their product as a fringe medicine. Whether or not what they're selling is snake oil, I couldn't tell you, but as they've never published any research that suggests otherwise, I think we need to assume that it is. Their home page is of course replete with unsubstantiated claims about their products (the main one is apparently "widely regarded as the most advanced and effective Synthetic Amphetamine", although they don't ever tell you by whom, or indeed define what "synthetic amphetamine" actually means). 87.112.96.96 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does Gentech sound confusingly similar to Genentech? I added a disambiguation hatnote. And what does ""Affiliated Organizations" mean? I suspect that it means that LA Fitness ordered some product to sell in their internal store. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I and another editor took a pass at cleaning it up. They actually have generated enough controversy that they probably are notable, but an editor with a declared COI wrote much of the article and it shows. Their product is legally classified as dietary supplements; not really fringe theory just reminiscent of a patent medicine. VQuakr (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A favorite fringe subject forked off by an editor who seems to have a POV problem, judging from the fuss he kicked up at Ashkenazi Jews. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear from the course of the discussion that this is going to survive, so those of you who are keeping an eye on this may need to adjust your watchlists accordingly. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable theory, and the editor in question only has a "POV problem" in the minds of some pretty entrenched POV warriors. Paul B (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was beginning to suspect that was the case; I'm aware of the controversy but hadn't read through things to see where the article came out. If people think the current article content is OK then I think we're done and just have to make sure that main Khazar article doesn't pick up a forked bad version. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Begins "Sonic and ultrasonic weapons (USW) are weapons of various types that use sound to injure, incapacitate, or kill an opponent." The article contains a couple of instances devices used as a deterrent (e.g. a burglar alarm, or opera on the subway to deter teenagers), but the key claims about weaponry seem unsourced - the UK report cited in a section entitled "Demonstrated infrasonic weapon" refers scornfully to the "'mythological" phase" of speculation about infrasound. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Add) Relatedly: Infrasound, particularly Infrasound#Suggested relationship to ghost sightings. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low frequency sound is a real concept and has been investigated and deployed as a less-lethal weapon. Obviously any dubious, poorly cited material should be tagged or removed though. The Infrasound ghost sightings section is about debunking a ghost theory and doesn't seem fringe to me. VQuakr (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the infrasound/ghost thing looks okay on closer inspection. But sonic weapons ... ? Are they a thing? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weirder things have been deployed. I haven't fact checked every sentence in the article, but yes, the concept exists and has been prototyped [1], or less reliably here. VQuakr (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I heard there was a conference on it in Geneva, back in the mid 1950s. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blistering barnacles! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Spirit possession is loaded with statements made as if they are factual when the whole subject is fringe. There is a section on Islam that is glaring POV and cites only religious texts. There is a list of fringe books in the article and the titles of the authors are cited and listed. If someone wants to wade into this there is a salvageable article in there. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a citation for the claim that demons can posses a person (not that I actually looked for one), but I have indisputable photographic evidence that a person can posses a demon here. I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - there's plenty of evidence in that link that those people worship their Demons and are decidedly more fanatical than reason would suggest! SteveBaker (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask User: John Carter to take a look, as he has the most experience with religion-related articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A false equivalency between global warming denialism and climate science was being asserted by Froglich (talk · contribs) using unreliable sources in violation of WP:SOAP, WP:PARITY, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. Please watch out.

jps (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course this is an area under discretionary sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a few more eyes. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical2013" (whose account was created in 2013) is most likely a returned "History2007" (whose account was created in 2007). History2007 left of his own accord and had his user material blanked. He appears in edit histories as "VanishedUserABC". Paul B (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's very plausible, actually; the editing style is very different. Mangoe (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree now that I've looked at the contributions in more detail. "History2007" was quite keen on the T of S, but the new editor may be mimicking the name, which suggests s/he isn't very new at all. Paul B (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article survived a November 2013 deletion attempt but I have my doubts about that. I deleted an initial section promoting one specific device but the whole thing strikes me as a stew of OR and promotion; it seems to lurch back and forth between "here's a new device" and "here's why the idea will never work." Googling seems to show that this is a Pop. Sci. perennial with a long string of new "breakthrough" devices that vanish as soon as they are introduced; it's not quite the cold fusion of diving but the material as a fringey feel to me. Any suggestions? I almost started another deletion discussion but gave that up, and I don't know that I could get away with an accurate stubbing. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So very many claims. According to this article, it can treat your cancer, cure Parkinson's, help with diabetes, fix your high blood pressure, and lower your cholesterol. Source: Low-quality Chinese in vitro and mouse studies, mainly. 86.129.152.82 (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Described as "a British historian, astronomer, archaeoastronomer, astro-archaeologist and author", he actually seems to have an academic career teaching Mathematics and Engineering which he left to become an author and astrologist. He has no qualifications in history, astronomy, archaeology, etc although he writes about the subject. His website[2] says he "teaches astronomy at an Oxford University FAS summer school but our article on the FAS Faculty of Astrological Studies doesn't suggest it is part of the university - they simply use Oxford University facilities, eg Exeter College, to hold their summer school, so that's a bit economical with the truth. Since I've just reverted an edit by his brother, I'd like other eyes so it doesn't look personal. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through some of the web pages listed in the Robin Heath article, I found several fringe historical interpretations. The real giveaway, however,was Heath's assertion that "Archaeologists have in general closed their minds to this approach to prehistoric sites." This both ignores the publication of reliable archaeoastronomical studies in the mainstream archaeological literature and smacks of the common claim of fringe scholarship that the mainstream ignore my interpretations.

The article itself falls under the problem of Wikipedia:Notability, and seems a reasonable candidate for an AfD. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not an astronomer, historian, archaeoastronomer, or astro-archaologist. I also cannot find any independent sources and think that deletion may be in order. jps (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of editing currently on BlackLight Power. I don't have the time to check all the changes. The article has just come out of a three day protection. Bhny (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again?

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 33#Blacklight Power

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Blacklight Power

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Blacklight Power

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Blacklight Power#Published material

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Eric mit 1992 Blacklight Power

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 22#User:TStolper1W

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive191#User:Eric mit 1992 reported by User:Bhny (Result: 24 hours)

Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/February 1-7 2006#Black light power, Nuclear fission or Nuclear fusion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalar field theory (pseudoscience)

ARBCOM user notification #1

ARBCOM user notification #2

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate input on the Alexander Helios page. I'm the (previously) anonymous editor who removed a small section from that page, which has been reinstated by user Til_Eulenspiegel. The relevant section alleged that Helios, who was born in 40 BC as the son of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, may have sailed to the US state of Illinois where he "ruled over a secret colony" and left artifacts in a cave.

This claim has two citations: 1) an episode of America Unearthed, a mystery investigation show on cable TV, and 2) an article in the peer-reviewed journal Public Archaeology. A peer-reviewed article might be a decent source, but in fact the abstract seems to indicate that the article is only a discussion of mainstream archaeology's dismissal of these Illinois claims, and not a source backing the claims themselves.

I removed this section, writing: An episode of a cable TV mystery investigation show is not a reliable source. The Illinois cave thing is a textbook fringe theory. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. The user Til_Eulenspiegel reinstated the section, writing: Undid revision 591083228 by 174.70.43.85 (talk) rvv anonymous editor removing cited information basically because they disagree with it and DONTLIKEIT

I don't often edit on Wikipedia, and don't know the procedure for handing these issues. I look to the community for advice. Thank you. IbisNext (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the rebuttal is a legitimate academic rebuttal, the claim it is rebutting is so fringe it should not be given any light of day in the article to begin with. I have removed it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"so fringe it should not be given any light of day in the article" -- Just how exactly do you arrive at these determinations??? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are any credible archaeologists supporting the theory? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

by the fact that it is complete and utter nonsense for starters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trpod, That would be a subjective pov of yours since clearly some people disagree, including A&E Networks. NeilN, no, that is what makes it fringe, but my understanding of wp:fringe is that this was correctly covered without undue weight as being of relevance to the article topic Alexander Helios. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO - reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. A&E sent their reputation out the window long ago. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit about Til's "reliable source". And the specific episode. Garbage reality TV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe that this really is a theory, check out one of the main sources, the appropriately named Alexanderhelios.com, which not only demonstrates that this is a theory but that there are hundreds of photographed artifacts with inscriptions. Many (perhaps not all) say it is a hoax, but if so it is a genuine hoax and of enough relevance to an article about the historical Alexander Helios for a brief mention in line with WP:FRINGE such as we had. If this is such blatant hogwash, I don't see what there is to fear from letting more finding out about its existence here, since otherwise they will elsewhere anyway. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever thought about a career as a stand up? HIL-arious! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where would that response fit in on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement I wonder? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

on the scale point: "the proposition is too ridiculous to merit a serious response" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

From the link, "Harry Hubbard, is co-owner of Alexander Helios (formerly called Ptolemy Productions), an organization set up in the 1990s to financially exploit the Burrows Cave “mystery” (and that of competing nearby caves) across a series of media properties, including books, DVDs, on-demand video, etc., in which Hubbard claims that Alexander Helios, son of Cleopatra VII, brought Egyptian treasure to Illinois. He also the body of Alexander the Great rests in the caves. This financial conflict of interest really ought to have been disclosed since Hubbard stands to gain massively from national television exposure. But don’t take my word for it. Alexander Helios put out a press release directing viewers to its online shop and the variety of products available for purchase. At one point, Alexander Helios was attempting to sell allegedly “authentic” Illinois Caves Egyptian and Roman artifacts for prices ranging from $45,000 to $2.5 million. If the artifacts were genuine and retrieved after 1989, sale would be illegal under Illinois law (20 ILCS 3440) because the state forbids the removal of grave goods without a permit and Alexander Helios claims that the cave is Alexander Helios’ tomb, complete with skeleton. Today the company settles for selling Hubbard’s books for $10 a pop. Obviously, Hubbard can be relied upon to declare any Burrows Cave or “Egyptian” material authentic since it goes directly to his bottom line."

All that (for starters) and all you want to put is, "The existence of this cave is disputed"? Seriously? Why not put an ad out on the Main Page inviting every huckster to add a sentence or two to articles about what they're shilling? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention was perfectly in line with WP:FRINGE since this is also a theory relevant to the article topic (not just espoused by Hubbard but there are others who do so as well), and no advertisement or sales contact point was ever in the content in question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -I just revisited AlexanderHelios.com and it is now a related marketing site; the site with more info that used to be there that I was referring to, may now be found at http://www.illinoiscaves.com Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, your application of WP:FRINGE is incorrect. "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." One sentence at the end of the paragraph does not come close to showing the theory is regarded as hogwash. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which evidently not everyone agrees is hogwash, see http://www.illinoiscaves.com Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owned by the company promoting the theory and shilling "artifacts" from it. Are you being serious? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like trolling to me - and if it isn't, Til probably needs blocking per WP:COMPETENCE. As fringe as the Time Cube, though not nearly as entertaining... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fringe theory about Alexander Helios that exists, like it or not. It has been covered on A&E recently. Consumers will be forced to conduct their research about this elsewhere if it is ignored here because in your subjective opinion it is nonsense. As usual, you know what this makes wikipedia look like in the eyes of the consumer. Whereas having a simple line explaining that there is such a fringe theory in connection with Alexander Helios doesn't make us look bad at all. Who the fuck do you think you are to threaten me with a block, you can't block me for expressing my opinion just as you have a right to express yours. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making a threat - it was an observation. Which seems to be borne out by your suggestion that Wikipedia should be promoting websites flogging bogus 'artifacts' to 'consumers'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there was nothing whatsoever about that sales website in the offending material, sherlock... The content was mainly about the recent attention this has been getting in the media. Also that's not the only website trying to profit from the story of this sudden horde of gold said to be worth millions, there are competing websites squabbling over who gets to do that, and a sizable amount of evidence of this being considered significant, at least enough for a line acknowledging it here. Hubbard didn't originate this story, he is one of the profiteers, there is also the guys who claimed they know where the cave is, the guy who published his analysis of the script used in the Latin inscriptions, Greek, etc. The fringe archaeology magazines that ran stories on it, etc Do you often make "observations" that editors who dare disagree with you be blocked? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also when I say consumers I mean consumers of wikipedia - our readership. I was not referring consumers of internet bullcrap. Consumers of wikipedia cannot find any mention of it here and are forced to get their info from elsewhere, because of your attitude, basically is what I'm saying. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. My 'attitude', and that of Wikipedia (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the loony fringe theory exists is completely irrelevant to anything under discussion here - and no on has said there are not idiots who may believe or shysters who may be trying to profit from it. The question is whether or not the theory has enough academic adherents to make it a relevant addition to this or any article. To claim that the answer to that is anything other than a thunderous NO is tendentious or incompetence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the article of the historical figure, I would have to agree that this topic is so WP:FRINGE that it should not be mentioned. However, I could see a potential article on the hoax/tourist attraction/person , as there does appear to be coverage of the guy/place (A&E, and then meta coverage thereof) http://thesouthern.com/news/caves-to-appear-on-america-unearthed/article_3a59ed62-66df-11e3-bbb9-0019bb2963f4.html, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=707411015945461&set=pcb.707422965944266&type=1&relevant_count=1. If the academic article is debunking the hoax, then it of course should be used in that context as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article on the TV series, I see nothing that indicates a reaction from the archaeological community, though a quick read through the list of episodes suggests that such reaction would be profoundly negative. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]