Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience

Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days

Additional notes:

Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources.
We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed.
For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard.
Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Did you know

13 Oct 2024 – Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Dan Leonard (t · c); see discussion

Categories for discussion

15 Oct 2024 – Category:American people who self-identify as being of Yaqui descent (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
15 Oct 2024 – Category:American people who self-identify as being of Muscogee descent (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
15 Oct 2024 – Category:American people who self-identify as being of Miwok descent (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
15 Oct 2024 – Category:American people who self-identify as being of Lenape descent (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
15 Oct 2024 – Category:American people who self-identify as being of Choctaw descent (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
15 Oct 2024 – Category:American people who self-identify as being of Comanche descent (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
15 Oct 2024 – Category:American people who self-identify as being of Blackfoot descent (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
15 Oct 2024 – Category:American people who self-identify as being of Cherokee descent (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
15 Oct 2024 – Category:American people who self-identify as being of Apache descent (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HouseBlaster (t · c); see discussion
21 Sep 2024 – Category:Fictional witches (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c); see discussion

Tukdam (Buddhist post-mortem meditation)

The article on Tukdam cites plenty of sources, but it uses a framing that seems consistently odd. It's as if it is trying to remove the concept from Buddhism. For example, there is "However, these EEG studies have not detected any brain activity,1 leading to questions about the nature of consciousness and its possible dissociation from measurable brain functions.2" And neither the study [1] nor the interview [2] quite gives the vibe that sentence does. Reference 1 says, "No recognizable EEG waveforms were discernable in any of these tukdam cases, thus we failed to find support for the hypothesis of residual brain activity following the cessation of cardiorespiratory function in tukdam cases recorded beyond 26 h postmortem." Reference 2 says, "The basic paradigm and worldview of Western natural sciences investigating tukdam is so different from the Tibetan Buddhist worldview that bringing those two together is really challenging." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction being drawn here is that Tibetan Buddhism (and Buddhism more broadly) makes claims about consciousness independent of it being purely a function of brain activity, a hedge the papers seem like they're trying to recognize in the superimposition of a specific worldview onto a spiritual framework that exists independently of a Western academic tradition in light of the context of their field work. The edited in section seems to be alluding to, but I don't really think that people should be taking those hedges to make naturalistic arguments about theological worldviews. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot claim that the corpses of certain Tibetan Buddhists that are good at meditating decompose more slowly than other corpses. That's pure balderdash. See WP:ECREE. Right now, it's not adequately couched as a belief. It's stated almost as fact in WPvoice. jps (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase the specific thing I'm reading in that: When researchers go in to work with minority communities around religious belief, it's generally considered extremely poor form to go "We measured it and the religion is fundamentally wrong". So what I'm reading in there is an acknowledgement that a lack of brain activity as the researchers see it does not necessarily carry weight as a theological argument, and shouldn't be treated or viewed as making such an argument to readers. This is extremely common language in religious studies.

Right now, it's not adequately couched as a belief.

Well, there is apparently enough evidence of a delayed onset of decay to justify some heavy-duty field work which could, of course, have a multitude of environmental factors behind it. But broadly I agree, I tried removing some of the links to Tricycle which is a Buddhist magazine. As a source Tricycle often points to academic secondary sources which'd have no problem with WP:RS but I don't think it should be the primary source for some more off-into-the-theological-weeds discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers In? Seriously? We shouldn't use fringe journals to back up fringe claims. jps (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about this topic properly is really challenging due to a lack of non-credulous non-Buddhist sources discussing the topic. I share jps concerns that Frontiers is a low quality journal publisher, particularly for medical-related claims like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a rock guy more than anything else, so by all means edit away at that article, I’ve already removed a lot of the explicitly Buddhist sources being used to discuss the underlying data collection. I’m not defending the state of the article by any means. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed a cleanup of the article: [1]. There seemed to have been a lot of nonsense and the precise phrasing of a lot of the text was either absurdly precious or overly credulous. jps (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think removing the entire section on academic study was a miss, here? Other than that looks a lot better. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citations to said "study" were pretty thin. I can't seem to find any lasting impact of this and, apparently, they couldn't get it published in high impact journals. WP:REDFLAG ought to be considered. jps (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citations to said "study" were pretty thin.

Frankly, I think that it's been studied by western academics should probably warrant a mention and I feel like this is playing a little fast and loose with WP:RS, but we should probably take this to the talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers. This is usually disconfirming and is in this case as well... media hype and Dalai Lama funding notwithstanding. jps (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this to the article talk page and pinged you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a closely related topic, how do you guys feel about how the controversy in Richard_Davidson#Research_with_the_Dalai_Lama is currently described? VdSV9•♫ 13:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really considered controversial within the sciences? As the article points out, it was at first until it became clear that the topics of the meetings were genuinely about actual quantum mechanics and not quantum mysticism. Is there some specific point in the phrasing of that section you're concerned about I'm perhaps missing? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but where does it say quantum anything? Are you reading the same article as me? About a neuroscientist? I have doubts, and am asking in a place where I know there are more experienced and knowledgeable editors. I am concerned, to a point, that maybe the comment about some of the researchers who signed the petition being Chinese is a bit of a red herring, but I am unsure about that. Also, the language in The controversy subsided quickly after most scientists attending the talk found it appropriate is not something I am getting from the Science reference used. Also, before the part about the conference, maybe there could be more about about him being too close to someone with an interest in the outcome of his research and how that can bias his research. Finally, if there is a good number of reliable sources about these issues, I think that could be more prominent in the article. VdSV9•♫ 13:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, 100% confused the efforts of Davidson and the Dalai Lama with the projects with Innsbruck and a few others, so yes, pretty busted there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes needed on Genesis creation narrative

There seems to be a fairly lengthy dispute on Genesis creation narrative based on the premise that that the article "contains bias towards critical scholarship"; the main objection seems to be to the fact that mainstream academics aren't being given even ground with evangelical views of Genesis. Either way, the article is getting fairly dramatic rewrites as a result of the back-and-forth. I don't have the time to pick over all of the discussions in detail right now, but it could probably use more eyes to make sure we're not falling into WP:FALSEBALANCE or giving academically-fringe views too much weight. --Aquillion (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The allergy to describing these stories as "myths" is still quite pervasive. I wish we could get over that. Identifying the stories as "myths" is not an insult to the stories! jps (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of the conversation between Leonard's father and Sheldon's mother in The Big Bang Theory, where the father says he studies creation myths and the mother replies "I don't have a myth, I have the unerring word of God". Schazjmd (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly content that I have written, but also some of what @Joshua_Jonathan wrote, when we were deliberately trying to form a consensus, has been repeatedly deleted although I repeatedly requested discussion and argumentation before deletion, in line with WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, but to no avail. Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge from framework interpretation was done over the weekend. On seeing it, I don't think this is a good idea and I suspect this is an attempt to provide false balance to fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the mythology. I have warned new user Violoncello10104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about this. jps (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually stated my reasons for the merge in Talk:Genesis creation narrative. The framework interpretation article was only about an interpretation of the first creation narrative (Gen. 1:1-2:4a) which is a major topic of the Genesis creation narrative article. Therefore, the suspicion that this merge was an attempt at providing false balance was unfounded. Another more experienced editor agreed with me, with whom I had previously argued on that same talk page. Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure Wikipedia needs a separate article on the framework interpretation, but your merge looks an awful lot like importing apologetics and not much else. The current article seems to identify the actual scholarship surrounding this mythology better than anything inserted over the weekend (and certainly better than the shoehorning in of unreliable apologetics sources). jps (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of external links promoting a particular 'perspective' ~~(which is all this is)~~ is entirely unencyclopedic, and doesn't belong in an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: you didn't consider to inform me or Violoncello10104? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The focus isn't (or shouldn't be) on you, just on making sure that the article reflects modern mainstream academic perspectives rather than giving undue weight to views that are currently academically WP:FRINGE. I didn't even pay close attention to who the specific people involved were - it was just obviously eyebrow-raising to see a stable, reasonably high-quality article on a highly-controversial topic getting drastically rewritten so rapidly, so I thought it best to draw more attention to it. That's what centralized discussion forums like this are for. --Aquillion (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024-09 Yuri Bezmenov

Hello,

One week ago i improved the article on Yuri Bezmenov. Could you take a look? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview between Bezmenov and Griffin is currently used 12 times as a referece in the article. No red flag for you? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act, NPOV, FRINGE and UNDUE

Hello, I created the article Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act (UAPDA) and am struggling to figure out how to address concerns raised on the article talk page here by users User:ජපස and User:Allan Nonymous. I've gone over the recommended reading here several times to consider them again, including WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PSCI.

The article is not about UFOs, aliens or "ufology", but about the law passed by the United States, called the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act. The law spells out that if materials related to things like "UFO crash recoveries" and "non-human intelligence" exist, it must be processed per this law's requirements. This was passed into binding law by the United States Congress and President. It's a real thing and other parts of the government are already engaging in their legally required compliance. Whatever the beliefs or whatnot about aliens and UFOs and the paranormal we have, I simply wrote an article about a United States law.

The template on the article now (NPOV template) says that, "This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view and explaining the responses to the fringe theories." On the talk page, the comments left were,

"The fact that this stuff is so WP:FRINGE as to be eye-rolled at by the relevant scientific community is an important point to get across to readers and the article does not sufficiently do that. Please fix prior to removing the tag."
"Added a fringe tag, to warn readers of the undue credence the article gives UFO rumors."
"The fact the article takes at face value claims that the US government had in its possession alien material/technology."

I'm uncertain here how to modify this article, as there are seemingly no sources at all that get into criticism of this UAPDA law itself that get into critcisms of it related to the fact it... well, revolves around "UFOs" and "UAP". Any criticisms that I have found of the law are related to matters of how it is implemented and similar, such as the eminent domain topic associated with it. The article doesn't get into whether or not UFOs or aliens are real or not or their associated theories; I wrote about the law that was passed on December 22, 2023 by Joe Biden, it's main features as reported by reliable sources, and reactions to the law from elected officials and journalists. As far as I can tell, I've now completely exhausted all of the sourcing that exists outside of things like forums and message boards.

The more I read these policies, I worry we've fallen into some kind of catch-22 here. The law factually exists, does the stuff it says it does, is widely reported on by mainstream/major media, and is live and valid today in the United States Code of Law, passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. How exactly would this be addressed if there is no secondary sourcing related to the UAPDA that gets into criticism or analysis of the various claims of the law related to things that would fall under WP:FRINGE? This isn't "Wikipedia" saying that "if UFO stuff exists, it must be handled this way," and us giving 'undue weight', it's the US Congress and President saying it in passed law, and the Wikipedia article Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act reporting on the law itself.

How should this be addressed? I'm stuck as the templates seem incorrect given there is no plausible solution to them? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have relevant experts commented on the law? If not, then it may not belong in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Have relevant experts commented on the law?"

Relevant legal experts have been included as sources in the article on the law Pub. L. 118–31 (text) (PDF), yes! The Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act article seems to trivially meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, and as far as legal experts, as the article is about a law... we have extensive commentary from members of Congress who wrote, debated and passed the law. Then this from a major DC law firm advising government clients and related on full compliance; the authors of that piece are themselves notable legal experts including Stephanie Barna. Other sources from legal experts include this, then the same legal expert again.

How do we resolve the template that says X must be included when X doesn't seem to exist for a notable law? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All kinds of strange laws exist, not all of them notable. I think that this particular law is borderline in its notability. One problem we have with fringe theories is that sometimes "News of the Weird" allows them to get undue attention in ways that don't quite align to what we would require for NPOV. Explicit experts on "biological material" or "non-human intelligence" are required when discussing such matters. It doesn't matter if the context is a law or anything else! jps (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are terms used in the law itself. I don't think it's reasonable to tag the article because no experts have opined yet that the law mentions stuff that doesn't exist. Schazjmd (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? If you have a law that uses terms which are not properly defined, how is Wikipedia supposed to discuss them? jps (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't our job to report what seconday sources say? Why would 'we' discuss them in article space, which would be WP:OR? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't report on secondary sources which do not exist. jps (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the disconnect is here. What does is matter if a secondary source doesn't exist? We can only link and use sources that do exist. You said:

If you have a law that uses terms which are not properly defined, how is Wikipedia supposed to discuss them?

Do we have a policy requirement that impacts this, or is this your own personal preference? If the former, I need you to link the relevant policy so I can use it. Thank you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources do not exist, then notability can be questioned per WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is extensively sourced; and I want to do the 'good faith' thing, but I am suspecting you are dragging things out here for some end that I cannot see? If you have concerns on the notability please nominate it for deletion. At present I begin to grow concerned at the unwillingness to explicitly say what parts of the article are "NPOV" problems--a complaint has no validity unless it has merit, correct? Provide something actionable or do we remove the template for having been adding incorrectly? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article as written is a stalking horse for credulity about UFOs being evidence for aliens. It is, essentially, functioning as a WP:COATrack. It needs cleanup at least. We may decide to trash it, but I'm not quite convinced that this is the necessary remedy yet. jps (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment here, to be honest, makes no sense. It's an article about a factually existing law, with 40-50+ sources (I could have gotten more if I wanted to 'pad' it, which I had no need to), discussed in multiple mainstream sources. The entire article is about the law.

Just because the law says something, do we have a policy-based reason to somehow or in some way 'challenge' the law? If so, I will need to see a direct URL to a specific section of a specific policy, because that seems... patently WP:OR as a concept? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot see how this article is serving as a legitimation of the hyperbolic and farcical claims of the UFO cult, I'm not sure that you are duly prepared to work in this area. jps (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article reports on a law passed by Congress covered to where it easily meets WP:GNG or someone would have immediately given the passions some people have on this topic would have sent it to WP:AFD immediately, which I still invite if you or others think the law is not notable. If it's not sent to AFD, then it is notable. If anyone is performing legitimation, it's the United States government, which is not our job to challenge as editors here? As citizens, sure. But our job is to make an encyclopedia. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everybody is a citizen of that specific country, and although it is not our job to challenge the government of that country, neither is it our job to uncritically propagate any bullshit that government generates. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it is preposterous, being blunt, to equate Federal law to superstition. Especially a law that does not say there are aliens; the law says if such things exist and are found, they are now presumed public unless POTUS tells Congress why they cannot be, putting their existence still 'on the record', if they exist.

So the law is quite literally as written, "if such things are true, the public is now legally required to be informed," and that's it. The simple existence/reporting of such a law as an article, that trivially passes WP:GNG, is in no way is "uncritically" propogating "bullshit". If that is how this "FRINGE" lesser hieararchal guideline that is below our other rules interprets things, then the FRINGE guideline is a bit off-kilter, putting it mildly. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it preposterous to equate Federal Law to superstition? There are plenty of laws the Federal Government has passed which are basically superstition.

It is nice that people are comforted by conditionals, but how does one determine if such things exist? What is the test by which identifying thing is supposed to be done?

Maligning WP:FRINGE as a guideline as though that will save WP:PROMO of this law is not a great look. jps (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"bullshit"

Oh please.

Stop that kind of unjustified language.

That is your opinion;

other perfectly reasonable people have a different opinion . KHarbaugh (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that those people are perfectly reasonable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The article as written

is a stalking horse

for credulity about UFOs being evidence for aliens."

That is reading way too much into the article.

The law is essentially an if-then proposition.

It certainly does not state the hypothesis is actually valid. KHarbaugh (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no hypothesis that was even properly formed here. The problem is the thing is so messed up, we can't really say much about it. jps (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act fails WP:GNG potentially given the sheer volume of coverage and reporting over time, detailed at UAPDA#References?

"Explicit experts on "biological material" or "non-human intelligence" are required when discussing such matters. It doesn't matter if the context is a law or anything else!"

The article isn't about "biological material" or "non-human intelligence". UAPDA is about a new President/Senate nominated committee that would review government records that may be excluded from declassification in violation of an Executive Order from President Obama in 2009, and what the law described as abuses of the USA classification/restricted data scheme under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to conceal data. What policy or guideline on Wikipedia requires inclusion of experts on topics on an otherwise notable article? I would need to read that in case I need to update my other articles on laws, Born secret and Invention Secrecy Act. Can you please link me? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not a fait accompli. We can delete, merge, or redirect pages if the topic is fraught. That is allowed. jps (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. Can you explain further how Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act may qualify for deletion and under what policy/guideline?

I would still need to know how to resolve the NPOV/FRINGE tag on the article and would like to request you like where I can read on that for what precise actions would be required. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please address your other statement, User:ජපස? You seem to have said that experts are required to be cited in an article where a given subject is discussed, such as if a law covers "non-human intelligence" or any other thing? Would I need to find nuclear experts to cite to weigh in on the legal issues around Born secret or inventors to cite on Invention Secrecy Act? I can't find a rule/policy that seems to say that? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the WP:FRINGE board. The relevant policy is WP:NFRINGE. And while, in your other examples, I'm not sure WP:FRINGE applies, the first few searches I did found inventors commenting on the Inventions Secrecy Act and nuclear scientists commenting on "born classified" matters. Were you concerned that such did not exist? jps (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you explicitly stated:

Explicit experts on "biological material" or "non-human intelligence" are required when discussing such matters. It doesn't matter if the context is a law or anything else!

I am asking what guideline or policy says this is required because I need to read it. Will you please provide something supporting this? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told you that the guideline under discussion is WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is non-productive presently. Please speak directly, as I am. You will need to link the specific section of WP:FRINGE that says experts of a certain 'sort' are 'required', as you intimated. Please reply with that once you have it. Thank you! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFRINGE jps (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part requires experts? I am asking you to link the section. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need people who understand the claims to characterize the claim. Necessarily experts. If the only people commenting on a fringe theory are adherents and non-experts, then there is no way for us to characterize the claim properly. For example, when someone claims to have a perpetual motion machine, the relevant sources to determine whether it is worthy of inclusion here are those who can evaluate the particular physical laws being violated. jps (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a law, it's inception, it's structure and passage, and reactions. I have cited legal experts and similar. There is no issue there. This is not a science article; it's a *legal* article. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal experts are not routinely called upon to define terms "non-human intelligence" and "biological evidence" for such. If you know of any instance where that has been done, by all means let us know! jps (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference to biological now is a single quotation from the laws own verbiage. What policy says a derivative topic under the main topic of an article (a Federal law) has any need for exterpise to define that term? I know you linked "FRINGE" before, but be reasonable and cite the explicit "chapter and verse". I found, still, nothing like this. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this single quotation deserve inclusion? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, but if we have no sources which identify what the hell a law means by a particular phrase, what are we supposed to do?

Take, for example, laws relating to Huldufólk. We have lots of sources which identify the obvious peculiarities of such. In this instance, it looks like there isn't much in terms of comments by WP:FRIND sources as to what we are supposed to assume the meaning behind certain phrases and words in this law are supposed to be.

This is a very interesting edge case, indeed, so it may be worth thinking carefully how to thread the needle. jps (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it may not belong in Wikipedia I'm wondering the same thing. There doesn't seem to be much WP:FRIND attention, at least not yet, and so it isn't clear that WP:N is met. Should WP have an article on each of the hundreds of laws that are enacted by the US Congress every session? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we did, there would be a problem with many of the laws being poorly written as courts often determine after the fact. I have no real issue with identifying that a law exists. I have a much harder time when we go into details considering the way laws do or do not ultimately end up mattering. In this instance, we do have a few sources which have reported on the law, but none really have addressed certain fundamental points of fact with respect to the law itself. As it happens, I talked with Schumer's staff about the thing and the response was one of "no one really expects it to be strictly enforceable". Makes you wonder why they wasted their time with it, but I suppose lots of weirder stuff ends up becoming law, it's just not the subject of tabloid obsessions. jps (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain that a law's mere existence is sufficient to meet WP:N. Thousands of laws exist in hundreds of countries. So what? If there are any examples of this law actually being applied in an important/significant way (that is, if its application is reported by reliable, secondary sources), then fine, it might merit an article. But it sure looks like an example of WP:TOOSOON to me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"But it sure looks like an example of WP:TOOSOON to me."

Can we possibly not communicate by acronym? It seems unhelpful. How is the article "too soon", when I even went to my own trouble of specifically dating every single reference I added, and I have there from 2023-06-27 to 2024-06-12? Are 34 references spanning an entire calendar year from 29 or so unique sources WP:TOOSOON? I'm feeling like I'm answering every single 'notability' acronym you all are raising here, to where I'm wondering what the fuss is. It's notable. If not... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the explanation given at the link WP:TOOSOON insufficient? The number of references doesn't matter when they still don't demonstrate significant independent coverage of the topic—as opposed to primary documents and references for secondary claims that don't specifically mention the article topic at all. Remsense ‥ 论 02:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:TOOSOON explanation makes sense, but is not applicable to my what I see in the sourcing and coverage of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act. Would it be helpful if went through each source and specifically itemized how they are referencing the law and to what detail? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem difficult, as most were published years or decades before the subject of the article existed. Remsense ‥ 论 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 34 references that span from June 2023 to June 2024. Have you clicked edit on UAPDA#References and looked? I took substantial care in even organizing them by date. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem to be almost exclusively, if not entirely primary. I wasn't clear in that I was only considering secondary sources, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 03:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are notability concerns, perhaps we should get to the point and nominate it for deletion? Are you both looking at the same article, which has a huge number of unique sources from unique mainstream notable venues all talking about the law? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bizarre law from the USA. The article is built largely on primary sources/WP:OR and what little secondary sourcing there is is poor/fringe. Might be worth blanking and redirecting to a small mention in UFO conspiracy theories? Bon courage (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is built largely on primary sources/WP:OR and what little secondary sourcing there is is poor/fringe.

This statement is completely factually incorrect per: UAPDA#References. Reutuers, Washington Post, New York Times, USA Today, Guardian, The Hill, etc.
Might be worth blanking and redirecting to a small mention of UFO conspiracy theories?

No, you may not, thank you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that news reporting is primary I assume? Also, the background section seems to be largely from sources which pre-date the act, so is a piece of WP:OR. Bon courage (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS:
A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events.

Secondary by our standard: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], maybe, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], probably, [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], just at a glance. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather confirms it's just reportage with little or anything that is the "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas" that we look for in secondary sources. Clicking at random on your list I get[21] which doesn't even appear to discuss this law. What is going on? This is meant to be a serious Project and editors are expected to take care. Bon courage (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What it confirms is you are behind... look at the article history and how much I just cut, including that URL you linked, which was part of the original Background section that I completely erased. Take a look at the article, which is even stronger now. All good, please look at UAPDA's history. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm attending with care, but it is difficult to keep up with an article which is being panic edited in he background. I encourage further reduction, to a para or two, and then it can take its rightful place in the UFO conspiracy theories article where, per WP:NOPAGE, it will make more sense to readers. Bon courage (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of links to The Debrief in there, a source so obscure that it lacks a Wikipedia page. Are you sure you have done careful diligence according to WP:RS? jps (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dreading this, but we do at some point need to cover the fact that some pretty important people in the US government have started spreading unsubstantiated claims about 'objects in the sky where we don't know exactly what they are' and 'can't explain how they move'. One possibility is that it's just another Qanon, where high level government officials just start spouting fiction. Alternatively, they might just be talking about something non-fringe, either novel technology or natural phenomenon, and it's getting washed a way in the oceans of fringe fandom. I honestly don't know, I try to stick to the 1940 and 50s. It's a topic we should cover, but what a difficult needle to thread! Feoffer (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been an analogous position with climate denial and medical science for ages. Wikipedia can cope. Bon courage (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am throroughly flummoxed as well. The UAPDA is law, it passed, it's on the books, and it is live. The National Archives and Records Administration is already complying substantially. As far as I can tell every provision except the UAP Review Board and it's subpoena powers and the eminent domain portion passed and is law effective January 1, 2024. This is not a controversial or divisive position, it's simply fact, like the Internal Revenue Code. The entire UAPDA was already re-introduced for the NDAA 2025 with the previously omitted portions, and it's not a valid article source, but digging around all over for assets for this article, I found plenty of remarks by involved politicians that this would be introduced repeatedly until all provisions were law, implying not just back to back years, but three in a row should it fail. Will we complain about the article when people are being nominated to the United States Senate for confirmation? I honestly and truly understand if the article needs adjusting--I've yanked out over 20k of material from my initial draft and another 14k and counting today. But I cannot find a single reasonable or logical way this fails to pass any notability metric we have. None! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're on the path to a fine article. "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon" sounds very "X-Files" until you point out Chinese Spy Balloons are UAP, and then a light goes off and you realize it's not about Mulder and Scully, it's about Beijing. Feoffer (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, except isn't this just WP:OR? Do sources link this to Chinese Spay Balloons? It seems the politicians introducing it are framing it as being about aliens.[22] Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not OR that Pentagon UAP task force (which preceded the law) confirmed the spy balloons were classed UAPs and that led to a reporting delay. And then, in addition to that, we definitely have people talking decades old conspiracy theories. Feoffer (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But are sources saying this is the background? In my (admittedly non-exhaustive) look it seems they're all focussed on aliens too, just like the politicians. Bon courage (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the same WP:PROMO and WP:FRINGE issues were evident at the Luis Elizondo article where WP:CRYBLP had been used to whitewash anything critical from cited sources. Mostly remedied now, but might be a good idea watchlist it for the near future. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LL I hadn't heard of CRYBLP before. Lots for me to learn. Sgerbic (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh that is very interesting. I have encountered this on paranormal related articles, I didn't know it was a "thing" I just assumed it was some new tactic that was being tried. Kind of "I was just asking questions" and "I'm hoping to understand better". Thanks. Sgerbic (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yingling, Marissa E.; Yingling, Carlton W. (2024). "Academic freedom and the unknown: credibility, criticism, and inquiry among the professoriate" (PDF). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 11. The study itself doesn't look very useful, but the section "What next?" beginning on p. 13 should be. Seems like this could be better presented to the reader in the Investigation_of_UFO_reports_by_the_United_States_government#U.S. government activity from 2017 to present section. Also why "a series of bills passed by the United States Congress and signed into law on December 22, 2023.", it was an amendment to the NDAA proposed by Schumer but diluted in committee. fiveby(zero) 17:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another merge target would be National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024#Provisions#Unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Aside from other fringe concerns UAPDA was not passed nor signed into law, "H.R.2670 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 sections 1841, 1842, 1843, and 7343 are what was passed. fiveby(zero) 18:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the measure is far weaker than what Mr. Schumer and other lawmakers in both parties had sought. Mr. Schumer succeeded over the summer in attaching a bipartisan measure to the defense bill that would have established a presidential commission with broad power to declassify government records on U.F.O.s, modeled after the panel that reviewed and released documents related to President John F. Kennedy’s assassination...Unable to reconcile the two competing approaches, negotiators who hammered out a bipartisan compromise between the House and Senate on the defense policy bill ended up dropping both Mr. Schumer’s measure and Mr. Burchett’s. Guo, Kayla (December 14, 2023). "Congress Orders U.F.O. Records Released but Drops Bid for Broader Disclosure". New York Times. Why is WP saying Schumer's amendment was passed and signed into law? fiveby(zero) 18:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to the NDAA article. fiveby(zero) 18:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Cayce

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

Talk page has a new entry, a question on how to handle the tall tales in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major progress made and still being made. As a side note, "Looks like I picked the wrong week to edit the bio of an Appalachian folk magic practitioner who predicted changes to the earth's climate would cause western North Carolina to go underwater." Feoffer (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone get Newspapers.com access restored to Wikimedia Library

Access has been down since early summer and it was spotty before that. It really impairs our ability to debunk things -- Edgar Cayce is just the lastest in many articles I can't improve because this access is down. Feoffer (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Feoffer, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T322916#10036209. Schazjmd (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SOO much! The workaround (manually copy cookies across sessions) worked! Feoffer (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had issues with Newspapers for the last couple years, it was spotty and sometimes I was unable to clip articles. Finally I just paid for a membership. If they ever finally catch up to 2024 and fix these issues, someone please remember that I've had to cut back on my pizza addiction in order to afford the website. Or maybe it's a good trade-off? Newspapers is clunky and hasn't expanded to the include some of the newspapers I would like, but I absolutely love having access to old newspapers. If you aren't using this, you might just love it as I do. Sgerbic (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgerbic and @Rjjiii The workaround described here works; you just have to copy two cookie fields across sessions and it works like a charm. Feoffer (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm technically approved from their new process, but some things still seem kind of broken. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Triangle

Alaska Triangle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

New article about a superstition-related geometric shape. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm vaguely familiar with this and I don't think it's a superstition related geometric shape as much as a region of convenience to account for an unusually high number of missing persons within a geographical area. The reasoning behind it is generally "it's wooded, unpopulated, and not at all safe" rather than "this is where UFOs like to harvest their test subjects" or something like that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...That is one terribly written article. And seems to blame magnets. "Alaska Triangle disappearances theorists believe is due to unusual magnetic activities or other natural causes or large stretch of land with natural dangers." Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not another one, I think AFD may be in order. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AFD. This is another Bermuda Triangle wannabee clone. Paul H. (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hob Gadling: yikes, deleted in 2008 and resurrected this week. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, its now a stub. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've neatened it up a bit. If it gets deleted, I'm fine with that, but I'd rather have it be in decent enough condition that if it is kept it's not embarrassing Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 12:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to pass WP:GNG and frankly keeping a version of it up that isn't a fringe-y mess probably will help prevent people trying to write new huge dumps of fringe theory info into the article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft about a fringe writer, not sure it can be saved

Draft:Randall_Carlson is interesting but the sources don't show notability. It may not be possible to do that, but just in case I've brought it here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Parry, Roland (October 7, 2022). "Video falsely claims scientists exaggerated 'hockey stick' climate chart". AFP Fact Check.
Lloyd Parry, Roland (March 14, 2023). "US podcaster promotes false claims about weather, climate change". AFP Fact Check.
Robinson, Nathan J. (February 11, 2022). "On Experiencing Joe Rogan". Current Affairs. pretty useless content tho
Cooper, Evlondo (February 9, 2022). "Already embroiled in controversy, Spotify's Joe Rogan platforms another serial climate misinformer". Media Matters for America.

Westervelt, Amy. "Podcasts That Make the Climate Crisis Personal". Sierra. brief, linked from above

Defant, Marc J. (June 9, 2023). "Alternative Histories That Really Aren't". Skeptic.
Thagard, Paul (2024). "Storms: Climate Change and Scientific Misinformation". Falsehoods Fly. Columbia University Press. very brief mention but maybe usefull

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat familiar with Carlson's crankery, and I agree that the sources provided don't demonstrate that he is wiki-notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Wikidata has an item about him: wikidata:Q107206942 (created by @Aluxosm: several years ago). You may be able to mention those sources in the aforementioned item. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Visite fortuitement prolongée: I don't care to get into a discussion here regarding this article (as per my user page). However, if the intention is to submit the Wikidata item to an RFD, I would caution that the notability criteria over there are quite different from Wikipedia's; at least criteria 3 (fulfilling a structural need) would apply due to the links to his appearances elsewhere. If any of those sources can be mined for references to statements on his item, great! Aluxosm (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

«if the intention is to submit the Wikidata item to an RFD» => This has never crossed my mind and is not my goal. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankism

Please see Talk:Frankism#2024 spike in interest. --Joy (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The spikes seem to have passed.[23] What is the WP:FRINGE aspect here? Bon courage (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this[24] which is textbook conspiracy-mongering (even if it was probably not intentional): SYNTH with the unrelated related topic of pedophiles evading justice (it's only related if you believe in the conspiracy theory), soapboxing (Youtube as source) and whitewashing ("Owens is very careful..."). –Austronesier (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the question is how do we best handle this weird recent talking point in an article that seems to be about something from 150 years ago. The article's sources say e.g. there is evidence that the Frankists as a distinct social group existed at least until the 1880s, but there's no apparent connection between 19th-century Poland and whatever some American pundit is saying today. --Joy (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the pro-conspiracy POV, but the question is, can we mention the whole thing at all without producing WP:undue weight? –Austronesier (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we have another existing article that mentions Icke's use of this term, these mentions of Owens' use of the terms can be moved there. The mention can then be reduced to a single sentence, in a separate section, with a link to an article that puts it in proper context. --Joy (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia search brings up references to this stuff in:

Marvin Stuart Antelman:

To Eliminate the Opiate ... claims to trace the roots and offshoots of Sabbatean, Frankist, and Illuminati groups [...]

To Eliminate the Opiate reports many rare, obscure, or conspiracy theory type elements of Sabbatean and Frankist exploits.

Popular conspiracy theorist author David Icke's 2019 book about 9/11 "The Trigger," cites Antelman extensively in tracing the conspirators or antagonists that he calls "The Death Cult."

Sacha Stone:

Stone blamed the world's current woes on "Sabbatian Zionist Lurian Kabbalists behind the veil," a formulation referring to followers of the 16th century Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Luria and the 17th century mystic Shabtai Tzvi.

The likes of Shemirani, Stone and Icke tap into the 'cultic milieu' [...]

David Icke:

The Trigger: The Lie That Changed the World – Who Really Did It and Why (2019), Icke writes [...] "Zionist and ultra-Zionist organisations form a network across America and the world to manipulate and impose the will of ultra-Zionism and the Sabbatian-Frankist Death Cult [...]

The article about Sabbateans doesn't seem to mention any of this at all, so it makes sense that both have a similar kind of treatment of this matter. --Joy (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed oil misinformation

Seed oil misinformation has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed oil misinformation. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seed oils

Seed oil misinformation (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Is newly at AfD, which may interest members of this noticeboard. Note the AfD has been advertised in the 'StopEatingSeedOils' subreddit.[25] Bon courage (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was closed as speedy keep. It's possible this means the article itself is now going to be the target of editing from the external attention although frankly there didn't seem to be any sign of much during the shortish time the AfD was open. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is an anti-seed oil Reddit board with over 40K members, users over there will likely find the Wiki Page in the next 4 or 5 days. It's early days yet but there is likely to be trouble on this article. It might have to end up being protected like the carnivore diet article due to excess vandalism. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the same Reddit board where the AfD was already posted? It seems to have "40,643 readers". I don't see why'd they suddenly discover the article in 4 to 5 days when they didn't already discover it via the above linked thread. I doubt it's the only thread where it was mentioned either e.g. [26]. From discussions in the threads, I get the feeling that enough of them think so little of Wikipedia that they're not interested in touching it which might be why there doesn't seem to have been much coming from those threads. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that is all news to me. I wasn't aware of the AfD discussion. I have debated the creator of the StopEatingSeedOils in the past. He operates a crazy carnivore diet website claiming all plants are toxic/bad for health. The same grift has been taken up by many others in the anti-seed oil community. I do expect to see vandalism on that page, it's still early days yet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quirinius

This is about [27] and [28]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical race concepts" sidebar

Template:Historical_race_concepts_sidebar (edit | visual edit | history) · [[Talk:Template:Historical_race_concepts_sidebar|Article talk]] (edit | history) · Watch

A new sidebar called "Historical race concepts", which does not make clear that such concepts are pseudoscientific and fringe, is being added to some articles about historical racist figures and works. Should it be removed and perhaps replaced with the existing Template:Historical definitions of race sidebar, and perhaps also the Racism topics sidebar? Llll5032 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Historical race concepts" footer template also, naturally, "does not make clear that such concepts are pseudoscientific and fringe". Having a more condensed sidebar template corresponding to such a large footer is common practice. If any included entries are WP:FRINGE, you should make your case at the template's talk page, @Llll5032. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also commented at the "Historical race concepts" talk page, with a notification about the discussion here. The existing "Template:Historical definitions of race" footer at least has a prominent sub-heading with "Scientific racism", although perhaps it also perhaps could make clearer the pseudoscience of some listed works. Llll5032 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does a footer/sidebar "make clear" something like this. They very much entail that the concepts included are of historical nature and no longer widely accepted. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, it could add a "Pseudoscience" or "Fringe theories" label in sub-sections, in cases when academic reliable sources support such a label. Llll5032 (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what this means. If you want to include "pseudoscientific" or similar as a prefix in all section titles, this totally bloats the template and is most definitely WP:UNDUE. Strange thread. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Biohistorian15, it is not clear from the language that you currently use in the sidebar that the concepts are "no longer widely accepted". The word "Historical" does not necessarily entail this, so perhaps you could endeavor to make it clearer. Llll5032 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are referring to the "paradigms" section. If you have a reasonable alternative title, why not just add it yourself. If it is very objectionable, a last resort might be to just resolve it into the "Related topics". Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added language matching the other template. My opinion is still that this new sidebar is redundant and that the more longstanding template would benefit from more clarity about the pseudoscience. Llll5032 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding a "Pseudoscience" descriptor to both templates along the "Scientific racism" descriptor, to match the first sentence description in the "Scientific racism" article: "Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that the human species is divided into biologically distinct taxa called "races"... I believe that this descriptor is an improvement, and I would welcome discussion about it. Llll5032 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I addded a link to Racism to both templates.[29][30] Llll5032 (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Historical" does not necessarily entail this How about "obsolete"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete does sound better, historical isn't quite right in this situation. These aren't just past ideas, but ideas that have been completely refuted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're also idea that are still held by some, albeit fringe figures... So obsolete reads better than historical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the template is not used by any article (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Historical_race_concepts_sidebar), and since it contains just an arbitrary selection of the articles in Template:Historical definitions of race, I think it should be deleted. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the title of Template:Historical definitions of race to "Obsolete definitions of race". Rsk6400 (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just started the deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 11. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotherapy: not very good or just misunderstood?

Hypnotherapy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

A new editor is proposing a radical change[31] to the article lede. Could use eyes. As, in general, could the content of this the article, and how it differs from Hypnosis. Bon courage (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness after death

Realted to other discussions hereabout, I notice we have

Consciousness after death (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Which doesn't appear to have any reliable sources on the actual topic of "consciousness after death". Could there be some kind of merging between this and the fringe/science aspects of Tukdam? Bon courage (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this separate foro life after death? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose life after death is when a dead person is resurrected. Consciousness after death is the idea that the brain remains conscious (presumably in a way which can be measured with the correct brain monitoring equipment) in a corpse. I think, Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The afterlife or life after death is a purported existence in which the essential part of an individual's stream of consciousness or identity continues to exist after the death of their physical body" vs "Consciousness after death is a common theme in society and culture, and the belief in some form of life after death is a feature of many religions. However, scientific research has established that the physiological functioning of the brain, the cessation of which defines brain death, is closely connected to mental states." seems to cover the same topic. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one is "a purported existence" (i.e. make-believe) whereas the other is making a science-y claim about brain activity. Bon courage (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So a POV fork? Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably one of those cases where "afterlife" is essentially religious and so held to be not fringe, but consciousness after death involves electrodes, doctors in white coats and bleeping machines hooked up to dead bodies, so rather more fringe. I don't think the latter is a viable topic given the apparent dearth of RS. Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Slatersteven is right. This is a WP:POVFORK. While I am certain that some of those arguing that, for example, near-death experiences are evidence of consciousness after death that is more respectable than the Long Island Medium's stories of how your grandma wants you to wear a certain outfit, I don't see any hefty sources which make a meaningful distinction between these approaches. jps (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hell even I’m with you and Bon that this is a POV fork. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now mentioned at AfD [32] Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great ape language and related articles

Wikipedia was covered in content treating the claims of Koko (gorilla) and other ape-human language experiments as successes despite widespread rejection by experts (outside of the primatologists who specifically study these apes and those uncritically citing them). I’ve pinged both the linguistics and primate wikiproject but frankly FTN may need an eye on it too before the effectively in-universe claims of some of these research groups percolate back into the articles, especially given the popularity of these specific apes, evidence-be-damned.

Most of the discussion is currently at the Great ape language talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and for those who, like me, find this kinda stuff interesting; check out facilitated communication. Polygnotus (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Gardner also wrote skeptical articles about that. Not sure primatologists are necessarily familiar with Clever Hans. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of people insisting that primatologists are a reliable source for “is this a language” coupled with how easy it is to demonstrate that domain experts widely reject any finding of language in these experiments is wild. I’ve not yet found a source that rises to an explicit WP:RS/AC (but it’s still easy to find sources discussing broad consensus against this among multiple SME disciplines, just not to the exacting standard of WP:RS/AC) but people do seem willing to just make arguments researchers themselves aren’t making (“they’re using a different definition of language”) or pick and choose which source lets them still believe there are great apes with language regardless of how qualified that source is to make the determination.

There’s a lot of people who really want these experiments to have demonstrated use of sign language, couple that with a very big popular “sexy” bit of science and the impulse here is to drag these articles away from the academic mainstream. There’s currently some disagreement that the belief that language was demonstrated is WP:PROFRINGE, so I’m hoping some other editors here are familiar with this topic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A discussion about whether or not primatologists are considered a reliable source on questions of "what is a language" is up at WP:RSN and may be of interest to people here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actually WP:FRINGE though? Isn't this just a legitimate dispute in its field? Or is there some RS saying the pro-language side are engaging in pseudoscience or crankery or are outcasts in their field? Bon courage (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to why this one is so tricky. There’s a spectrum within the research, and for certain the field itslef isn’t a mass of fringe, but the reports of successes are actually in a majority of cases (let’s leave Kanzi out of this, and there’s a few other places) fringe as hell
is there some RS saying the pro-language side are engaging in pseudoscience or crankery or are outcasts in their field?

Yes, and not even a small number of sources saying this. Patterson (Koko’s trainer) has been referred to as an ape-stealing quack for her research in an RS, there’s statements by Thomas Sebeok, an American semiotician specialized in nonhuman communication systems:

In my opinion, the alleged language experiments with apes divide into three groups: one, outright fraud; two, self-deception; three, those conducted by Terrace. The largest class by far is the middle one.^[1]

”Terrace” here is Herbert S. Terrace, P.I. For Nim Chimpsky (widely regarded as the most rigorous of these experiments until Kanzi). In the aftermath of Nim Terrace became one of the most vocal critics of claims of success in this research, I’m going to cite his wiki page but these aren’t my edits (and they’re cited):

While Nim was in New York, Terrace believed he was learning sign language. But in reviewing the data, Terrace came to a conclusion that surprised most everyone involved: Nim, he said, was not using language at all. … Controversy erupted over the fact that Terrace did not restrict his analysis to Nim. He claimed that other apes in other sign language research projects—most notably, Washoe and gorilla Koko—were mere mimmicks as well.

There’s an ocean of sources saying similar things for all of the other great ape language experiments (again, except Nim and Kanzi). Essentially it’s erroneous to make this out to be primatologists vs linguists, it’s a small, small subset of primatologists vs everyone else. A lot of people (I’m assuming including some FTN readers) were under the impression that these results were a lot more robust, and so we have a generation of both academics and lay people who believe these experiments demonstrated language and cite the studies while being unfamiliar with the rigorous academic debate behind it that has been damning to the research. Keep in mind that the great ape language groups are generally more eager to contact the media with their findings than actually publishing them, which I’m sure is a pattern we’ve all seen before at FTN and the typical response to valid criticism has been either “nuh uh” or as hominem.

So you, that’s why actually getting Wikipedia to reflect the actual scientific understanding on this is a complete nightmare. It’s big, “sexy” science backed by a media blitz. That’s why in the threads mentioned above I’ve repeatedly been invoking WP:ECREE and WP:PARITY, but I think a lot of people see my stance as unreasonable rigid dogmatism and not the actual WP:RS/AC on this topic from people who aren’t so far down the rabbit hole of being invested in these studies being real that they lose objectivity. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, @Polygnotus above linked the technique that’s been used in most of these studies, which is straight pseudoscience. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right so it's a field of apparently legitimate enquiry with, it is said, some bad research and good research (as is quite common). Relevant in WP:FRINGE is
Poorly conducted research, research fraud and other types of bad science are not necessarily pseudoscientific – refer to reliable sources to find the appropriate characterisation.
As usual, WP:RS/AC is a red herring except in the rare cases where a field is described literally and specifically by sources as having positions subject to "consensus". Like (say) zinc and the common cold Wikipedia would emphasize the WP:BESTSOURCES which would happen to have unsurprising, unexceptional findings while contextualizing and downplaying lesser sources. But that's not necessarilly a WP:FRINGE issue. Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ight so it's a field of apparently legitimate enquiry

I’m sure this is accurate, teaching human language to apes is not viewed as legitimate at this point, even within primatology. Teaching advanced communication, sometimes with signs humans recognize from ASL, is. Sometimes research groups do both, but facilitated communication is pseudoscientific when done with humans, let alone nonhuman primates. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Bon courage says, primatology studies aren't pseudoscientific crankery. The primatology studies are very well-published in reliable journals. And critiqued, of course. They're controversial, but they're not going around making nonsense claims. The language abilities of Kanzi are not explained by the Clever Hans effect. Frankly, that just suggests that someone hasn't reviewed the research at all. Andre🚐 05:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're controversial, but they're not going around making nonsense claims

They often, in fact, are. It’s no different from the engineers and physicists who try to publish studies discrediting anthropogenic global warming using the skills they have: it gets published and through peer review, but eviscerated by those with full expert knowledge on the specific topic. Academic training is not some universal badge of knowledge. I don’t know how many times I need to say I’m not dismissing the entire field of research as WP:FRINGE but merely certain specific claims which you’ve already stated you accept as credible, personally. This is why I’ve asked for any WP:RS from within a SME discipline (which the primatologists are not. No amount of primatological training is sufficient to make fundamental claims about language comprehension and use, especially when there’s overwhelming consensus in pertinent disciplines rejecting these findings.) supporting these claims. As for Kanzi, well, I’d highly recommend reading what you replied to :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. And if you specifically except Nim and Kanzi then you aren't rejecting all primate language study evidence, since they contain it. And your idea that "in the specific field" means linguistics is doing a lot of lifting. See the study I linked by a cognitive scientist below, an expert on human brain evolution and the nature of language. Andre🚐 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Nim nor Kanzi have made claims of language to my knowledge. Koko, on the other hand, did. I am trying to tread very carefully with what’s WP:FRINGE here but you yourself called the difference between disjointed signs and sign language “splitting hairs” (not an exact quote, I believe, sorry) which… kind of tells me you lack familiarity with this, and I don’t mean that as a personal attack at all. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a study below which clearly says, Ape language acquisition studies have demonstrated that apes can learn arbitrary mappings between different auditory or visual patterns and concepts, satisfying the definition of symbol use Andre🚐 19:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t even vaguely WP:FRINGE, though, which is one of the reasons I keep raising the specific nuance around language vs communication. Symbol use has been noted in more than great apes I believe, it is just not language. Again, if primatologists are using their own definition of language I’d appreciate a source saying that, I know of one primatologist who argues that a different definition should apply, but he explicitly acknowledges he’s against the mainstream in advocating that stance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wade is not among the most solid people to quote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is attributed to Thomas Sebeok, in an article by Wade, published in Science, in 1980. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^
Wade, N. (1980). "Does man alone have language? Apes reply in riddles, and a horse says neigh". Science. Vol. 208. pp. 1349–1351.

And then filtered through Wade, who is notorious for smelling fraud in every scientific study. He is a taint, cannot be trusted and should be avoided. If Sebeok is quoted by someone serious too, the quote is useable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's silly and petty to disregard everything previously published by Wade in top publications (e.g. Science, Nature, the New York Times). We don't need to quote as facts his popular science books that misrepresent human genetics, but for science reporting I'd trust the editorial staff of these publications, decades ago, over Wikipedia editors who now have a strong dislike of Wade (especially since COVID). Wikipedians thinking they know better than those dumb old reliable sources is a constant source of amusement. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant anyway. Something from 1980 can't know about more recent research. Andre🚐 19:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wade was incompetent long before COVID, and it is normal to reevaluate earlier works of incompetents after they have been shown to be incompetent. Sometimes what they write slips through although it should not. Just do not use that guy. When others agree with him, one can use those others. When he is the only one who says something, it's not worth quoting.

Wikipedians thinking they know better than those dumb old reliable sources This is projection. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just do not use that guy. When others agree with him, one can use those others. We can, in fact, continue using him here in this cite, and I suspect we’ll continue to do so. @Animalparty is right, here, and I think you’re perhaps unintentionally misrepresenting a personal preference as an editing standard. It’s not a reasonable request as it’s phrased, and it’s a perfectly valid and useful source in the context it’s being used, and you should probably be a little cautious making statements like this in a place where less informed editors may think you’re describing policy and not a vibe check. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I provided WP:RS/AC-passing sources that these studies are universally rejected within entire domain expert fields. If people want to advocate that these studies aren’t just a load of delusional bull they’re free to cite a single person with expertise on the actual question being looked at stating that the results are valid, as opposed to someone whose expertise is the primates themselves. See also: ape-stealing quack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly did not provide a source which explicitly states that the studies are rejected, let alone universally. You simply provided a source for linguists' definition of language, then you SYNTHetically argued on your own logical foundation absent an explicit source, that the studies didn't conform with said definition. Consider [33]: sing a randomization study it is shown here that his performance actually vastly exceeds random chance, supporting the contention that he does in fact understand word order grammatical rules in English. This of course represents only one aspect of English grammar, and does not suggest he has completely human grammatical abilities. However, it does show that he understands one of the arbitrary grammatical devices used in many languages that is evidence for language, not proof but evidence. You claimed that there is a consensus that there is no evidence, which is untrue, and unattested. Andre🚐 18:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked if you’d have accepted “no compelling evidence”, acknowledging the imprecision in my initial statement, you said “of course not”. I, again, disagree that “if X were true it would upend the academic consensus, so X cannot be true” is WP:SYNTH but rather a mere statement of fact regarding the academic consensus, any more than we can rely on the academic consensus of the Copenhagen Interpretation to reject countering theories. WP:RS/AC doesn’t require a direct statement that a specific consensus-breaking theory is false for all possible theories, and we’ve seen those arguments time and time again in FTN. If there was compelling evidence the academic consensus wouldn’t be the academic consensus. You’ve acknowledged that WP:ECREE applies but seem loath to apply the actual evidentiary standards of WP:ECREE:

Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people.

while there wasn’t consensus, WP:RSN wasn’t exactly warm on primatologists being sufficient sources themselves when the relevant community disagrees. Again, I have repeatedly asked for a single solid and accepted citation from one of the primatologists themselves that they are using a distinct definition of language, rather than some nebulous allowance for primatologists to be qualified to upend the study of language. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No compelling evidence" is also not stated explicitly in any source. Andre🚐 19:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this argument is common on fringe topics. I don’t think that’s your intent here, but we can accept an academic consensus of one thing as a demonstration that compelling evidence against the academic consensus hasn’t been forthcoming. It’s not like there’s a shortage of sources directly saying that some of these findings are junk science, you just want a WP:RS/AC source that directly states that “The academic consensus is X. Y arguments against the academic consensus have not been accepted.” which isn’t necessary when WP:ECREE applies, which by your own admission it does.

Notice that I’m no longer actively taking a heavy handed role in editing the articles in question, and if we’re going to get into specific content disputes around the articles then we should continue that on the talk page. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what WP:RS/AC says. It says you need to explicitly cite a source that states what it means about the academic consensus. This was told to you by SunRise at the WP:RSN discussion but you still WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Andre🚐 19:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely did hear it and have explicitly acknowledged that there wasn’t consensus at WP:RSN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'd actually say there was almost a consensus at RSN that you were misinterpreting RS/AC. ECREE doesn't weigh in here. ECREE just means that the sources must be high-quality, which they generally are. Nobody is inserting bad sources. Andre🚐 19:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider a physics journal, publishing a paper by a physicist, which attempts to discredit anthropological global warming, as sufficient to warrant inclusion in an article about global warming if only climatologists disagreed with it? Because this is a similar situation as far as I see it and this specific example is definitely a thing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jews in New York City

Black Jews in New York City seems to conflate Black Hebrew Israelites (not Jews; fringe) with Black Jews (Jews) . ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's really an article about three or four different populations that should be WP:SPLIT up or separated into sections differently. The chronological ordering is logical enough but it jumps back and forth from group to group and isn't cohesive. Black Sephardic Jews, who date to colonial times and are connected to the Sephardim in the slave trade and freed former slaves; converted or adopted or otherwise black Jews that aren't part of the Sephardic group, which could be Reform Jews or Orthodox Jews but is definitely at least another if not several distinct groups; Ethiopian Jews, who are their own ancient group that exists mainly from Ethiopia and Israel; and finally the BHI who are not considered Jewish by mainstream Jewish groups, but form a distinct population of self-described Jews who practice certain Jewish traditions, some sects but not all of which are antisemitic. I agree it's a bit "in-universe" right now but it's not too terrible and doesn't seem intentionally such. I think someone who didn't really know much about the BHI wrote it based on the sources, and not an intentional promotion of fringe ideas. Andre🚐 08:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't seem to be a deliberate POV-push of BHI ideology, but as it stands it isn't acceptable. And I agree that the lumping of Ethiopians with black Spharadim with any sort of African-American who is Jewish seems tenuous to me—do sources really refer to these all as one "black Jews"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BHI shouldn’t even get a passing mention, see also:, or any other acknowledgment in an article about black Jewish people anymore than Raël should have a discussion in List of French astronauts. Just because a religious group makes a claim doesn’t mean it has bearing on reality. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with that Andre🚐 18:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed all the BHI content, the remaining article probably just needs to be merged with African-American Jews. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed the merge, discussion is here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paratoari

Fringe, not notable. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Qaballa "discovered" or "invented"?

Disagreement at English Qaballa, where some editors insist that the Qaballa is "discovered", not "invented", as if it was a real, pre-existing thing just waiting for someone to notice it. Fram (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this fringe? Either way, “discovered” isn’t appropriate in wikivoice. If it was an older faith tradition I’d probably discuss it as “emerging” at a certain date but we’re talking about the 70s, so invented is appropriate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proponents of this system believe, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that it is an empirical truth about the universe to the point that they think it is best described as "truth" or, as you may have seen on the talkpage like discovering a new drug. jps (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase: how is this not just a normal religious belief? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure whether "normal" religious beliefs make positivistic claims about material reality. I think that religious beliefs sometimes (often?) do, and, to that extent, those beliefs tend to fly in the face of the academic consensus that the world lacks a certain kind of enchantment. This is one of the WP:REDFLAGs that I use to decide when a claim is relevant for WP:FRINGE as opposed to being purely a religious consideration. jps (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not "discovered", which would be making a fringe claim in wiki-voice. Definitely not "invented", which would cast a non-neutral amount of doubt. Words like "described" or attribution with "said"/"wrote" would work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is something which is described or explained or WP:SAID. jps (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Described' seems fine to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Described” seems fair, but considering the edit warring its probably best we take this to the talk page and make sure @Skyerise is aware of the parallel discussion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Described' is a fine compromise edit. I said so in an edit comment when I fixed it being misspelled as 'Derscribed'. Lol! I hope you're not planning on warning me for edit warring because I removed a spurious letter. Skyerise (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we worry about the "neutrality" of the term "invented", when the entire article uses Wikivoice to present an in-universe perspective entirely based on in-universe sources? Isn't that what Fandom is for? Pikachu does a better job.. Austronesier (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles on this topic have used “formulated”, which I think is a little less passive than “described”. Are there any objections to that? @AndyTheGrump @Austronesier @Firefangledfeathers @Fram? (Sorry for the pings, I just figure changing it right after we have some kind of consensus here is better not done via WP:BEBOLD.) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Wade, N. (1980). "Does man alone have language? Apes reply in riddles, and a horse says neigh". Science. Vol. 208. pp. 1349–1351.

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards