Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    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:

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

    Article alerts


    Did you know

    Categories for discussion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Tukdam (Buddhist post-mortem meditation)

    [edit]

    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]

    2024-09 Yuri Bezmenov

    [edit]

    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]

    Edgar Cayce

    [edit]

    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

    [edit]

    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

    [edit]

    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

    [edit]

    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.

    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

    [edit]

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

    The spikes seem to have passed.[2] What is the WP:FRINGE aspect here? Bon courage (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found this[3] 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:
    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."
    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' [...]
    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

    [edit]

    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

    [edit]

    Is newly at AfD, which may interest members of this noticeboard. Note the AfD has been advertised in the 'StopEatingSeedOils' subreddit.[4] 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. [5]. 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

    [edit]

    This is about [6] and [7]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Historical race concepts" sidebar

    [edit]

    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.[8][9] 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?

    [edit]

    A new editor is proposing a radical change[10] 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

    [edit]

    Realted to other discussions hereabout, I notice we have

    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 [11] Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    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

    1. ^ 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]
    Would you say the same thing if Wade were on the opposite side of you? (He is on the same side as me in this question, BTW.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hob, you can’t invent caveats to WP:RS due to personal preference. It’s one thing to suggest a different source be found, it’s another to dismiss a perfectly reasonable source in context and insist that we can’t use a perfectly fine quote without a different source because of unrelated comments about a wholly different topic when the source in question is just fine by basically any WP:RS standards.
    Stating an opinion is fine, admonishing editors for not acting on your opinion isn’t. We see that a bit too much in here with journals people dislike (like trying to ban all Frontiers on RS grounds when the issues with Frontiers are pretty situational and per-journal). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:06, 17 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 [12]: 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

    [edit]

    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

    [edit]

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

    Is a Qaballa "discovered" or "invented"?

    [edit]

    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]
    So do many faiths? I don’t think it’s making empirical claims beyond most faiths, unless I’m misunderstanding it? For all their other issues editing that article it does feel a bit out of line to call a religious belief disproven nonsense (per the talk page).
    Then again the article is quite obtuse and I’m not 100% sure what it’s trying to say so perhaps I’m wildly off base here Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me just try to be clear here, then. When someone's faith compels them to make an empirical claim, it can be one of two kinds:
    1) A claim that has a basis in reality. (E.g. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.)
    2) Claims that are at odds with what is known about reality. (E.g. A global flood inundated the world causing most geological formations)
    In instances where (2) happens, I argue (not without objection) that WP:FRINGE applies. I think we have that instance here. I encourage you to read some of the sources about what adherents claim to be able to do with this particular Qaballa. "Magick" is basically a precursor to things like the Law of Attraction, but with a bit more ritual.
    jps (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this fringe? Yes. Yes it is. The fact the some empirical claim about reality is part of some religious tradition, whether one considers it "normal religious belief" or not, doesn't protect it from being considered fringe. This has been discussed to death. Trying to shield religious beliefs from criticism has always been a way to protect cranks and frauds When we try to shield religious beliefs from criticism, what we end up doing is we protect cranks and frauds. Especially so-called mediums and faith healers, just to scratch the surface. Just stop it. This is an encyclopedia, we should inform people to the best of our abilities, not protect the feelings of the credulous and the gullible. VdSV9•♫ 13:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is inappropriate. There’s a huge, ongoing discussion about FTN’s handling of religions at VPP and I’d very much appreciate you avoiding aspersions here. I was struggling to see the empirical claim, but as I said I was struggling to read the article in the first place. Asking if something is WP:FRINGE isn’t a call for accusing the person who asked of improper behaviour. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was just pointing out the implications of your actions, not implying that was your intent. Sorry if it didn't come out as clear as it should have. VdSV9•♫ 13:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Religion isn’t fringe, it’s completely reasonable to ask if something is making the sort of claims that would make it fall under FTN’s umbrella, and there’s a bit of a track record here of open hostility to religion in editing that is best avoided. If you look at the bottom of this thread you’ll see me arguing that the consensus arrived at was too conciliatory to the in universe claims. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Open hostility to religion (an idea) is different than open hostility to religious identity (a protected class, at least in the US). I wish we could do better with this. If I deride a religion as being implausible, that is openly hostile to the idea in question, but it is not a violation of Wikipedia rules, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 18:25, 17 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]
    "In-universe"? I get what you mean but that feels like the wrong phrasing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “According to the internal historiography of a faith tradition” can get clunky, I think “in universe” is fine on talk pages as long as it’s not being used to directly denigrate someone’s faith. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, basically any believer will take offense at the use of "in universe" as a substitute for "emic". jps (talk) 18:21, 17 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]
    If I dig deep for some connotation, it starts to give hints of "invented". I wouldn't object based on those hints, just noting them in case they resonate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it probably should be giving off hints of “invented” when the authorship is well within living memory and there’s no evidence of a prior existence. I just think “invented” itself is perhaps pointlessly indelicate when other words exist which capture the nuance better without causing as many objections. Something can be formulated from pre-existing material, so it’s both appropriate in wikivoice and not just being needlessly hostile to the underlying claims, but in context of being so decent a publication that an ISBN may exist I think the average reader wouldn’t struggle to read “formulated” as “this is who came up with it”, which is the correct wikivoice (imo). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In normal parlance, people are proud when they have invented something. If people are offended because they want to hide the fact that someone invented it, and pretend that they instead discovered it after some deity hid it, then that is their problem, not a problem of a science-based, fact-based encyclopedia. We say "Scientology is a set of beliefs and practices invented by the American author L. Ron Hubbard" and that doesn't seem to be a problem. Fram (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t disagree, but I don’t see how “formulated” is actually less in-universe than “described”, which is the language we use for discoveries. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think formulated is the best in this case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? We're talking about English Qaballa, right? That's a system very much developed, created, devised, formulated, pioneered, or conceived by James Lees. It wasn't discovered and it wasn't described, as though a bird by a naturalist. I mean it's not even a belief system unto itself, right? It's a numerological method to access additional pearls in Crowley's work. Implying that something which was created in fact existed before it was created is going to be a WP:FRINGE problem whether we're talking about esotericism or the way a musician "discovered" their newest album. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with this. We need to quit beating around the bush and say that this is something he created, because it's something he created. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the question is whether it is something that he created intentionally or whether it is something he created accidentally after, y'know, a wild night out or somesuch. Anyway, it doesn't much matter to the point of fact that he was the one describing the thing and he is the holder of the copyright, for example. jps (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Gospel of Afranius

    [edit]
    This is a content dispute about a novel, not empirical claims of historical fact. WP:FTN is the wrong venue.

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A self-published Russian work containing a novelistic treatment of the resurrection of Jesus as a fraud, recently translated to English. Getting some pumping due to a sidebar review/essay in Nature (journal) but ultimately still one guy's fringe idea. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn’t fringe, it’s a novel. Please raise this at WP:NPOVN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Hmm, i once took objection to politics on this board, and some plot of an anti-abortion film (and got stomped on by jps for my trouble). What happened after that? A bunch of editors came along and started trying to insert content in the article which was squarely addressed by the fringe guideline. It's editors that are the problem, not topics, and i was evaluating based on an abstract evaluation of the topic and failing to take into account the issues involved with protecting content from fringe editors. Don't know if there is an issue here, but no harm at all in taking a look or watch-listing. fiveby(zero) 16:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for stomping on you, but, yeah, generally I think we do too much gatekeeping at Wikipedia generally. Let discussions happen, is my motto. jps (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1251723022"