[go: nahoru, domu]
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.

    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


    Articles for deletion

    • 21 Aug 2024 – E. A. Jabbar (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Youknowwhoistheman (t · c); see discussion (9 participants)
    • 13 Aug 2024 – Time dilation creationism (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ජපස (t · c); see discussion (15 participants; relisted)
    • 13 Aug 2024 – Russell Humphreys (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by ජපස (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 20 Aug 2024; see discussion (6 participants)
    • 12 Aug 2024 – Ron Wyatt (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by JzG (t · c) was closed as no consensus by Star Mississippi (t · c) on 27 Aug 2024; see discussion (13 participants; relisted)

    Redirects for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Family Constellations

    [edit]

    Cancel the "pseudoscience" description, it's all proven now! [1] --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Constellations jps (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger jps (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the article on the inventor is now soft deleted. Meanwhile, consensus seems to be pushing in the direction of having an article on Family Constellations. I honestly am not finding a lot of material on the Family Constellations therapy beyond what the inventors of it say and a lot of "laundry lists" that do little more than just identify it as one of any number of kinds of therapy. Critical evaluation is nearly entirely absent? Participants in the AfD seem to acknowledge that this is a problem, but no good solutions are apparent that I can see. jps (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I could be arsed I might argue for merging it into transgenerational trauma. Bon courage (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Prevalence in other languages looks like it is going to lead us to Keep this article. Fine. I am not sure how to proceed with sourcing, however. Y'all are on your own! (I might recommend putting up a maintenance tag, but I'm not sure which one is appropriate). jps (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    A leader of the church performed a "legal analysis" and decided his church did nothing illegal. It is a nice bit of apologetics based on a source that believes not believing the action was legal would mean he goes to hell. Editors on that page are preventing either removal of the frivolous apologetics, or mentioning that the lawyer who performed the analysis is a church leader. How do we deal with fringe legal apologetics? 166.198.21.32 (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Motivated argumentation should be identified inasmuch as there are sources which identify it. Find a source which identifies it, if you can. Whenever there is a historical event involving the law, questions as to whether some action is "legal" or not is fairly irrelevant. The question is better framed as to what the arguments were that various sides made and what the outcomes were. The law is, of course, dependent on interpretation and application. Was Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland guilty of treason? Inasmuch as he was found guilty of treason, sure. But once the restoration occurred, the argument got flipped on its head. Not our job to decide who is right and who is wrong. jps (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source clearly states that the analysis was performed by a ranking church member. There is no other analysis, because this is apologetics being passed as a legal review. Editors are opposed to explaining the analysis was performed on behalf of the church. 166.198.21.69 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement is pretty boring, I think. Even so, separating out this exposition into its own section strikes me as a bit WP:UNDUE. I've started a discussion with a proposed incorporation of this aside into another part of the article on the talkpage. jps (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @anon166 IP: is there a particular reason you opened this without noting so in the talk page Talk:Nauvoo Expositor or pinging the editors you are accusing of editing in bad faith? You are also mischaracterizing the source and text in question. The author was not a church leader or ranking church member when the analysis was published. At the time he was a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School and he is being cited as such. The analysis was not published in a sectarian or apologetic source, but in an academic, scholarly journal. It was not performed on behalf of the church. The source has multiple citations to it in academic sources. There might be other reasons to disagree on inclusion and presentation, but you've presented no evidence beyond your own assertions that this is a fringe legal analysis. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The author was not a church leader or ranking church member when the analysis was published" are you sure? Dallin H. Oaks says that he became a church leader in 1959, was set apart in 1963, and we're talking about a paper published in 1965. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are "General Authorities" and "Local Authorities" in the Mormon church. To be considered a "ranking church member" you'd need to at least be a "General Authority". Being in a Bishopric or even a Stake Presidency is far from being "a ranking church member". These are all volunteer position. When he wrote this, he was the second counselor in the Stake Presidency in Chicago. Epachamo (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe thats how it works if you're a part of the church but objectively he was a church leader and high ranking member. The second counselor in the Stake Presidency of a major US city is a church leader and high ranking member by any reasonable definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference between a Stake Presidency and First Presidency is IMMENSE. Maybe in the 1800s and early 1900s I would agree with you, but since the correlation department in the mid 1900s, the power of a Stake President has significantly diminished. They don't interpret doctrine. They don't control their buildings or even budget. The General Authorities do all that, deciding where buildings will be built, when to make a new branch, how much money a Stake needs to operate, what lessons should be taught, and on which Sunday's they should be taught. The fact that he was in a major US city is not relevant at all. There was and is a tiny Mormon presence in Chicago. Epachamo (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on the difference between First Presidency and Stake Presidency. Also, Oaks was a second counselor, not the president, in the Chicago South Stake (it did not even cover the entire city of Chicago.) The term Mormon leader, which implies the entire church, seems an overreach in 1965. Bahooka (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all leadership positions that you're describing. The term Mormon leader does not imply the entire Church, a leader in a local congregation is still a leader in that faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So now we're arguing about how powerful the leadership position was and how high the rank was? Because the statement was that they were not a leader and not a ranking member. If they're one of the most powerful leaders in a local congregation they are a ranking member, one of the top 1% of the religion. You can't turn around and argue that because the .01% has more power and prestige that the 1% aren't ranking members... That just doesn't make sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its probably water under the bridge at this point, but FWIW, being a member of a presidency/director/high council at the local level puts you in the top 10% (no kidding). A member of the first presidency is literally in the top .0000001%. But that is just the statistical likelihood of being in that position. The difference in authority and power is several orders of magnitude greater than that. To argue that he was a ranking member gives the complete wrong impression. Epachamo (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there statistics on what portion of the membership is set aside we can refer to? From outside it seems like an important distinction, perhaps this is just my own lack of knowledge but what would be a comparable position in another hierarchical faith tradition like Roman Catholiscism? A lay brother of a religious order? A deacon maybe? From my understanding of LDS demographics 10% would be roughly half of all adult males (and only adult males are eligible to hold leadership postions) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think perhaps the right thing to say is that he was a "lay leader at the local level". I think that would give the right impression to both insiders and outsiders. Just off the top of my head, in any given ward (congregation), there are Bishopric, Elders Quorum, High Priest Group leaders, Deacons Quorum, Teachers Quorum, Relief Society, Young Mens, Primary, Young Womens, Ward Mission Leader. That's 27 people that are in a Presidency, just at the ward level, not the Stake level. From my experience, there are are around 150-250 active people in a ward, so around 10% are in some kind of presidency. These "callings" typically last between 3-5 years, but never more than 10 years, so virtually every male member is part of multiple presidencies during their life. The genius of Joseph Smith IMHO, was his ability to make everyone feel like they were super-special, literally children of God, and literally Gods' in embryo. This has carried in to the modern church in many ways. You get baptized, and the next week you get a calling. In two weeks if you are male, you are ordained to the Holy Priesthood. After a year you can go to the temple and receive an endowment of power to become a King and a Priest to the most high God. Epachamo (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article def needs a lot of work. Feoffer (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a big POV-Cleanse on the article. Lots of POV language issues, but amazingly well-balanced for an article with so many POV issues. Language seemed quite partisan, but EQUALLY partisan. Assuming no pushback from either side, seems fixed. Also @ජපස, I'm not just UFOs -- any 'big' American NRM (broadly construed to include UFOs and even atheist Ayn Rand) from say 1780 to 2000 is something you can ping me on. Feoffer (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස, Bon courage, and Horse Eye's Back: Got some pushback after all. Article has scurbbed of all reference to the fact that Mormon scholars who denounce the destruction of the press have been subject to church discipline, while those who defend the the destruction have been elevated. Whatever one thinks of the events of the 1840s, this information is verifiable, but being deleted by proponents of FRINGE. Little help? Feoffer (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets avoid edit warring, the talk page discussion has been productive so far and it looks like this new editor is willing to participate in discussion (if from a particular POV). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Continued edit warring from editors who oppose readers knowing that Oaks was born to an important mormon family. NPOV violation to masquerade him as an impartial legal scholar. Feoffer (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Quimbaya artifacts has been heavily cn tagged

    [edit]

    Also see Talk:Quimbaya artifacts##Quimbaya airplanes claim" needs improvement which I'm sure is true. I'll try to find time but would appreciate some help if possible. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, I've found good sources and am working on it. The editor is very new. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Sweatman is back, comets, ancient calendar, Gobekli Tepe

    [edit]

    [2]. “Carvings at ancient monument may be world’s oldest calendar” by Martin Sweatman published in Time and Mind. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Time and Mind has often taken a "Yeah man, far out but that could totally be true lets get this out there and see what people think (passes joint)" approach to curation which does bleed into outright fringe for example around ley lines where they publish stuff that is entirely outside of the norm. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that anything Sweatman writes should be considered fringe and ignored at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Papers by a co-founder and I believe current editor.[3] Doug Weller talk 20:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger D. Nelson

    [edit]

    The current article for parapsychologist Roger D. Nelson is heavily skewed toward a sympathetic POV and fails to contextualize a description of his projects (like the Global Consciousness Project) with the scientific consensus that they're pseudoscience. It's also possible an AFD is appropriate here. 0xchase (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Service: Roger D. Nelson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
    --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this guy notable in any way outside of some tiny woo circles? Don't see why it can't just be given the boot, though that's partially because I'm too lazy to re-write it. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had trouble finding in-depth coverage from independent sources so I created an AFD. 0xchase (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Leaky guts

    [edit]

    Got an IP insisting this is science and not quackery. Could use eyes. (Addendum: same IP has been at work with Candida hypersensitivity in a similar vein.) Bon courage (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is clearly the relevant guideline here. We don't cherry-pick primary sources to support a hypothesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This episode is an interesting little example of how "due process" on Wikipedia is a mechanism to waste editors' time. A obviously bad editor making obviously bad edits; yet there needs to be the reversions, the warning, the Talkpage post, the noticeboard post, more reversions by multiple editors, and the miscreant keeps reverting with a giant FU. Bon courage (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now an edmin has had to do a block and a notice, and then the IP reappears with a fresh address necessitating a RPP, which will need to be responded to (argued over). Amazing the amount of time Wikipedia allows one fucker to waste. Bon courage (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking about this for some time too, but are there any admins left who specialize in medical or fringe topics? It seems like there's been attrition over the last 10+ years, so it's left to whoever is responding to the issue to do all the legwork you mention. KoA (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem runs deeper, and particularly affects FRINGE articles which aren't protected in some way. We're really long past the point where Wikipedia should require an account to edit, but that's long likely to change because "anyone can edit" is part of the brand, and quite a few people think it's a good thing! Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not kid ourselves, any POV-pusher with the slightest bit of patience will just make a throwaway account and then you'd be back to square one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While true, WP:SPI makes getting rid of the persistent ones easier. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ron Wyatt

    [edit]

    Ron Wyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I am curious as to whether we should identify Wyatt as an "amateur archaeologist" in the lede. The source being used right now to source this title is a bit iffy. jps (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well he is not a Professional one, and he did do a lot of "archeology", well what he claimed was. And it seems to me that is his main area of notability, his spurious archeology. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am mostly concerned that we are denigrating "amateur archaeology" with this identifier. There are legitimate and excellent amateurs active in archaeology. This is not one of them and the source being used to identify him as such isn't exactly one I would want deciding who is and is not doing legitimate work in the field. jps (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet we have to say what he is primarily noted for, but in a way that dopes not imply expertise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pseudoarchaeology is what he is known for. jps (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find souces that call him a pseudo archeologist go for it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As is the case with a lot of these fringe characters, the sourcing is weak regardless of what we have. Here is an article which identifies him as a pseudoarchaeologist, but I don't like that source either. The fact of the matter is that there is very poor sourcing for this subject. jps (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The sources on that article entirely fail to impress. Answers In Genesis (a canonically unreliable source, and even they think he was a nutter), "allthatsinteresting", which looks like a blog, etc. IMO the entire thing should be nuked from orbit. If we can't robustly source the thing he's known for (for certain, highly restricted values of known), then we should not have an article. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some kind of reverse hierarchy of criticism going on here, where the farther out on the fringe you go the worse Wyatt makes you look by association. To the editors at BAR he is an amateur given little credence, Christianity Today calls him one of the most notorious of pseudoarchaeologists, but "positively reviled by creationists". It seems the more towards the fringe you are, the worse Wyatt makes you look by association. Can you use "these people make the other creationists look like pinko socialists"? fiveby(zero) 22:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wyatt jps (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz is requesting a source review of fiveby's list. Anyone up for it? jps (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shaky. Feedback on the BAR editors comments and Lorence G. Collins would be appreciated tho. Feedback on all really, the only source i really like is Lawler's Under Jerusalem, but i might be being too critical. I think best for everyone would be seeing the sources used in context within the article. Working on it but not very fast a doing this sort of thing. fiveby(zero) 17:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Time dilation creationism

    [edit]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time dilation creationism.

    New creationism "just" dropped.

    jps (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The author of said creationism is someone I recognized but, remarkably, very few sources on the fellow:

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Humphreys

    jps (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    David Kaiser's "The Other Evolution Wars" was disappointingly no help here, but a fun read anyway. fiveby(zero) 13:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elizabeth Loftus

    [edit]

    Weird stuff from "New Yorker (which I do not have access to) has been added to the article [4]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted it. Loftus recalled something in court and the edit claimed that she recovered a repressed memory in court. Neither source says that. This should be watched in case it comes back. Zerotalk 11:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see my talk page. Zerotalk 02:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)

    [edit]

    The usual: "hatchet job", "BLP violation", "many would consider are libellous". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Grail Movement

    [edit]

    What do you think about [5]? tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it outing to point out that an editor appears to be citing themselves? Asking for a friend. fiveby(zero) 02:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fiveby: Googling their username would amount at WP:OUTING. But whatever they posted themselves at Wikipedia is fair game. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vojơšek also has Vojtísek, Z. (2013). "The Grail Movement" (PDF). Millennialism : expecting the end of the world in the past and present. Dingir. if you hadn't seen it. fiveby(zero) 03:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Purim

    [edit]

    A whole lot of coincidences, numerology and other unencyclopedic stuff has come back at Purim after I deleted it. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look. Incidentally, the Jewish year 5707 is written with heh (5), not vav (6), and Hoshana Rabbah has nothing to do with Purim. Zerotalk 08:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was casually reading the article about this holiday, and I honestly agree with removing the aforementioned content, as it doesn't seem that WP:Relevant to the article, even if it was well-sourced. StarkReport (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Did J Smith actually have golden plates?

    [edit]

    While editing Early life of Joseph Smith to remove some myths being passed off as factual parts of his biography, I've met some fringe opinions. In particular, did Joseph Smith actually possess golden plates and hide them under beans? Is a letter from a friend of his independent enough to put the plate under bean smuggling story in his should be facts based bio? 12.75.41.47 (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Vogel, there's plenty of evidence -- even from his critics -- to support the claim that he DID have a set of plates that could be hefted and felt, but not seen. So far as I'm aware, only the faithful believe the plates were gold or provided by an angel. That said, we don't have to go around inserting the word "alleged" into narratives obviously based in faith or fancy. We can trust the reader to understand that "an angel gave him golden plates" is part of a story, not something we're asserting as fact. Feoffer (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm missing something here but if it wasn't seen what is the support to the claim that it was a set of plates? Heft and feel alone don't do that Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of non-believers lifted the plates and ran their fingers over what felt and sounded like a set of metal plates. Vogel argues the plates were tin or sheet iron. Feoffer (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of non-believers lifted the plates.... We absolutely cannot conclude that. We can only conclude that Mormons preserved the written claims of certain non-believers. jps (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck arguing that. Mormonism-based articles are hard to edit here because there is a large contingent of faithful that monitor them and push their beliefs. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not gonna be a problem. We handle editors with all sorts of strong points of view, and the editors with seemingly-pro LDS views show a great willingness to play by the rules. I wont single any other group out, but this isn't always so: the project has handled far more intense POV-pushing from far more 'organized' and secretive groups. Assume good faith. It's a wiki -- the editing process is helped by a few rule-abiding partisans on both sides. Good changes will be defended -- but just inserting "allegedly" into a story about angels is not a good change. Feoffer (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't add allegedly, I removed that he hid the plates under beans so nobody would find them. This is a tall tale/legend, and shouldn't be part of a biography. I also removed that he spent time transcribing them, but that was also reverted, as sourced (to Smith). 12.75.41.47 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least 11 contemporaries of Joseph Smith (and a few more) have stated that they saw, not just handled, the plates. More information is at the Book of Mormon witnesses article. Bahooka (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to what Bahooka said, witnesses weren't limited to Smith followers. Josiah Stowell saw a glimpse of 'greenish' metal plates, for example. The numerous 'hiding of the plates' stories are likely based in fact. Feoffer (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to note that the Mormon reliance on these testimonies are culturally important but have no bearing on the question as to whether anything actually existed. Until there is a Joseph Smith seminar similar to the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we're going to have much more to say on the subject other than it's all based on eyewitness testimony claims. Such claims are notoriously unreliable. jps (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ann Taves and Sonia Hazard, both published in peer-reviewed academic venues (full citations below), state that the balance of documentary historical evidence supports Smith having possessed physical plates. Agreeing that Smith finding ancient magical plates in accordance with his account would be impossible, Taves and Hazard conclude that Smith had physical plates because he crafted them in order to 'materialize' the plates that he believed were 'supposed' to exist based on his dream (it was 19th-century New England, and people as religious and steeped in beliefs about magic as the Smith family were attributed a lot more significance to dreams than we do in the 21st century, when we're familiar with psychology). As a secondary hypothesis, Hazard argues that if Smith didn't craft a set of plates based on his dream, then he encountered a set of abandoned printing plates and, unfamiliar with that part of printing technology, interpreted them through his religious worldview and concluded they were the magical plates from his dream. In either case, he had a physical object.
    Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These flights of fancy are interesting and certainly can be mentioned, but both authors admit that they are based on nothing more than textual interpretation. The problem, as Hazard puts it in one of the footnotes, is that a common technique of religion scholars is to fix protective brackets around religions and proceed according to the idea that everything occurring within those brackets belongs to a phenomenal reality that must be respected as wholly different from the scholar's world. To ask empirical questions of what lies in those brackets is taken as the move of a debunker and, thus, threatening to the whole project of the empathetic understanding of religions. This means that a preference to take religious believer's faith-based claims at their meaning is common in the literature. Even as these authors propose to argue over the plausibility of physical plates, they do not establish any evidence for them beyond eyewitness testimony. This is not anything close to serious evidence for actual physical plates beyond the faith in the testimonies provided and an attempt to provide context. jps (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may consider peer-reviewed academic research by trained religious studies professionals who have been or are employed as professors at universities "flights of fancy" as a personal opinion. To write and verify article prose on Wikipedia, however, we defer to the findings of secondary sources rather than interpret primary sources for ourselves. If you disagree with the techniques and findings of the academically published literature on a topic, submitting your own research with your interpretations to academic venues is an option, though it's not something we do on Wikipedia itself.
    In any case, you seem to have misunderstood Hazard's article anyway. She goes on to explain, starting in the very next sentence of the same footnote you cite, that she criticizes the limits of the bracketing technique: But religions are hardly the closed systems that scholarly bracketing makes them out to be. In so far as religions exist in the material world, phenomenal religious realities (including felt experiences of the supernatural) are relentlessly augmented by concrete material things and circumstances that everyone can see. This article seeks to show that, in the case of early Mormonism and, perhaps, other religions as well, scholars could benefit from a more expansive theoretical and methodological repertory than what is allowed by bracketing (187–188).
    Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps their views, along with Vogel's, would belong in Golden plates. There seems to be a very strong consensus among scholars that Smith did have a set of plates he could show (covered) to non-believers. Feoffer (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. The consensus of scholars is that there are explanations that comport with a physical artifact being shown off in various fashions, but there is no consensus that he had a "set of plates". jps (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is with the contention that there is a consensus that Joseph Smith had "plates". Putting aside the problem that those words "plates" can mean a wide variety of things, there is absolutely no consensus in the literature that Joseph Smith et al. weren't just lying about the subject. All of the sources we have admit that they cannot argue against this null hypothesis of lying, and, to the extent that they do think maybe he had plates, they make this argument from the perspective of plausibility and explanation rather than any argument that there is evidence that plates existed/exist. jps (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec re Foeffer)Why would you say that? We often see claims of "consensus" in scholarship on WP and i often think the basis for this is extending Wikipedia editors silly ideas of what is consensus to real world scholarship. Good authors will almost always review the current state of the literature before beginning their arguments. It might be worthwhile to reread both Taves and Hazard in that light to test this "strong consensus". fiveby(zero) 13:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    there is absolutely no consensus in the literature that Joseph Smith et al. weren't just lying about the subject.:This contradicts Hazard's review of the literature. Hazard writes at the beginning of her piece that Most historians of religion have approached the story of the gold plates by wielding two powerful interpretative tools: religious imagination and cultural context. They explain the plates as part of the creative religious vision of Joseph Smith [and, Hazard adds, this majority of historians of religion] thread the needle between empathy and suspicion and regard Smith’s concept of the plates as more than a mere attempt to deceive, for good or ill. Rather, the concept was an expression of his religious vision, in ways consonant with his cultural and religious milieu (141, italics added). In other words, most historians of religion (the relevant experts for this topic in the history of religion) do not conclude that Smith was "just lying". Obviously, the scholarly consensus is not that there really were ancient magic plates, and saying as much in wikivoice would contravene WP:NPOV, but saying that no physical object (likely crafted by Smith) existed and/or that Smith and his followers were "just lying" is also not the consensus of scholarship. Personally disagreeing with the conclusions of secondary sources suggests that perhaps what you want to do is publish your own research rather than try to summarize existing current research (the latter is what we do on Wikipedia, per WP:NOR)
    rather than any argument that there is evidence that plates existed/exist: I don't see how this reading squares with Hazard's assessment that the plates persist across early accounts as real objects. While only Smith and the eight witnesses claimed to have seen and handled the plates directly, a number of others—the devoted, the curious, the skeptical, and the hostile among them—touched, lifted, or saw them in a concealed state. If one takes a careful approach to these testimonies, accounting for their varying degrees of reliability, an image comes into view of a set of objects with specific qualities (144). Hazard, a tenure track university professor, in a peer reviewed university press-published periodical, states that a careful analysis indicates the existence of something physical, i. e. a set of 19th-century printing plates or facsimile thereof. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points all around from many here. Looks like Smith did have physical plates, and usually scholars do not makes statements that religious beliefs are true or false, but that the group believes xyz. They usually take a limited view of these matters. If they have explanations for the plates, then those are what can be mentioned in the article. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis are you arguing Smith did have physical plates? jps (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hydrangeans, i'm mostly in agreement, but you may be overstating or editors may be taking more from your words than intended. I don't think everyone is understanding Taves' "process of materialization" as you tried to explain above. And i'm sure Hazard knows the meaning of the word 'hypothesis' which she is careful to use. At issue here i think is the idea of 'evidence'. Hazard emphasizes: Taves argues that the plates were not materially real—at least not originally, when Smith said he recovered them in 1827—but later underwent a process of “materialization” among believers, owing to the stunning reality-producing powers of the human brain. The very same datum, testimony of the eight, taken mostly as evidence of real material objects, is for Taves evidence that, at that time, the plates were not real but visions. It's important that when we say 'evidence' we don't confuse the question being asked. fiveby(zero) 19:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    for Taves evidence that, at that time, the plates were not real but visions.: For clarity, Taves's reconstruction of the events involves both the existence of a physical object (whatever Smith and his coreligionists believed were "plates") as well as ecstatic "vision" experiences of people believing they were seeing "plates" that were magical sacred artifacts. In Taves's own article, she explains that believers materialized the plates in two steps. The first step involved the creation of one (or more) representation(s) of the plates that could be hefted in a box, touched through a cloth, and translated by means of "interpreters" [i. e. a physical object, as in Hazard's assessment] but not viewed directly. The second step involved the direct seeing of the plates in vision by those already deeply invested in the translation process and strongly disposed to believe. [i. e. "vision" experiences in which participants believed they were seeing an object] (page 203).
    Whether the specific case of the "eight witnesses" (to use emic parlance) saw and handled physical object or not is up in the air in the secondary literature, as it is a point of difference between Taves's and Hazard's reconstructions/interpretations of the history. Taves thinks the "eight witnesses" did not encounter a physical object and that they rather "saw" it in a "vision" (Taves places significance on Lucy Mack Smith's retrospective autobiography, in which she reminisces that according to Smith angels secretly brought the plates to the location, from which Taves concludes that the object in that account was not materially real but was religiously/psychologically manifested [page 189]) whereas Hazard argues that they did see and handle a physical object, probably created by Smith (Hazard places significance on the difference between the "three witnesses" whose account describes a magical experience with an angel showing them "the plates" versus the "eight witnesses" whose account doesn't involve direct supernaturalism; in Hazard's words, This distinction would have been less imperative had there been no physical plates at all. While the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses" is not itself dispositive, it is significant in that it corroborates Smith’s account [page 143]). (By way of aside, this is a good example of why on Wikipedia we don't write articles based on interpreting primary sources for ourselves but instead defer to secondary sources. A primary source can seem to yield more than one interpretation, and we defer to the experts rather than do it ourselves.)
    But where these secondary interpretations of the primary sources do agree (and also with Dan Vogel's, mentioned in this thread, published in the book Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet) is on the assessment that Smith at some point after 1827 had some physical object that his followers believed were "the plates" (probably created by himself, unless they were a discovered set of abandoned 19th-century printing plates as in Hazard's secondary hypothesis) and that when people reported physically touching and hefting what they believed were the "golden plates" (to use their emic term) while it was in a container or under a covering, it was these 19th-century "plates" (probably made by Smith, possibly modeled on printing plates) that they were encountering. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken with secondary, but don't agree.
    Vogel, Taves, and Hazard share the source material but it is each their own evidence, their own reasoning, and their own argument. What i object to is a conglomeration to make our own arguments. For where where these secondary interpretations of the primary sources do agree you might reread the paragraph in Hazard beginning The present study shares with Taves... Don't know that the agreement is as clear as you present it. fiveby(zero) 00:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reread the paragraph but I'm not sure what the problem you've gestured to is. I see Hazard and Taves disagreeing about when Smith had the idea for 'the plates' (Taves states he had it of himself, in his 'vision' experiences; Hazard states he got the idea from seeing printing plates, which prompted his "religious imagination" (etic term)/'visions' (emic term)), and this difference is important. But from reading both articles in total, it seems relatively apparent that both interpretations of the history take the position that Smith possessed at some point a physical thing that his followers believed were 'the plates' (and that he probably created it). As for the more specific claim to which OP objects about whether Smith hid that object under beans on such-and-such date, that's not something either Taves or Hazard weigh in on, and if the bean story is attested only in primary sources we would be better served not trying to interpret it ourselves and incorporate it into an article, since we don't know how a professional like Taves or Hazard would weigh and analyze it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, most historians of religion (the relevant experts for this topic in the history of religion) do not conclude that Smith was "just lying".... This is bloviation not relevant to the point at hand note that I am tabooing uses of the word "bloviation" and all its declensions in future interactions with Hydrangeans. There is no one in the literature who concludes that there is solid evidence Smith had any physical objects. jps (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is bloviation: And this—calling my participation empty and pompous—is an insulting personal attack. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you concede the point that no one in the literature concludes there is solid evidence Smith had any physical objects when it comes to claims about these plates? jps (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because your claim represents a misreading/misunderstanding of the literature.
    Do you retract the personal attack? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you consider a claim representing "a misreading/misunderstanding of the literature" to be a personal attack? jps (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider you accusing me of "bloviating", i. e. speaking emptily and pompously (which is an insult to a person's character rather than an assessment of article content) to have been a personal attack. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it as an equivalent register to you saying things like your claim represents a misreading/misunderstanding of the literature That is just as much an insult in my book. I personally don't care, but I do care that you have not first cast out the beam in thy own eye. jps (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've assured me you aren't insulted, but I still apologize for whatever harm it is to have hypothetically almost hurt your feelings. I've tried my best to talk about our mutual disagreement of what the secondary literature is saying—you think that I've misread it, and I think that you've misread it—without personalizing it.
    Since I thought I I made it pretty clear that you calling me empty and pompous did hurt, and I did ask you to withdraw it, it's discouraging that you make no apology or retraction. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying. While I do not think you have sufficiently explained how identifying a certain comment as "bloviation" is a kind of personalization while saying your interlocutor "misunderstood/misread" a passage is not a personalization, I recognize for my own personal definition of civility that offense in the eye of the beholder is important to recognize. Up until now, you had depersonalized your critique of my commentary in a way that read to me like score-settling in what struck me as a somewhat WP:POINTy aproach. This is the first time understanding that you are saying that my comment "hurt" you personally, and for that hurt, I apologize. I am happy to taboo "bloviation" and all its declensions in future interactions with you and will start with striking that word above. I hope you can understand that my concern is having my main point consistently ignored/unacknowledged/dismissed as "misunderstanding". See my response to Feoffer below. jps (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not consider it to be a personal attack, but I am curious. What exactly did I misread/misunderstand and how was that made evident in my statement that no one in the literature concludes there is solid evidence Smith had any physical objects when it comes to claims about these plates? jps (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've elaborated on the relevant sources and answered multiple questions about them pretty thoroughly in this thread already. I'm not interested in playing along with being asked to WP:FETCH some more perfect explanation while you claim to describe "the literature" without yourself actually citing/quoting it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I read all the sources. None of the make anything close to a statement that there is dispositive evidence of the existence of anything physical with relation to the claims about these plates. This has been my point all along. That you may wish to make different points is fine, but I don't appreciate the implication that I am incorrect in that statement or that I didn't read the sources when you can't be bothered to even dispute my basic statement. jps (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To give just one example, Hazard signposts dedicating a subsection to material-bibliographical evidence in terms of eight physical qualities (color, dimensions, weight, orientation, characters, imagery, textual format, and binding) and then goes on for several pages analyzing and weighing available historical data and explaining what she finds convincing and why. You expressed your personal distrust of the primary sources and seemingly also of historians' ability to assess and interpret them (you claimed that what Taves, Hazard, and Vogel interpret and cite is not anything close to serious evidence, despite professional historians seriously using the material to develop their arguments; and you accused the authors of flights of fancy), and your thoughts are your own, but Wikipedia policy has us avoid publishing original interpretations of primary sources on Wikipedia; we summarize how secondary sources interpret primary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hazard nowhere says that this shows the existence of a physical object is the only possibility. None of the sources do. To argue otherwise is to argue apologetics. jps (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the null hypothesis, accepted by most, is that Smith never had any plates; A second line of well-argued but certainly unproven thinking suggests he may have used a sham prop of his own construction. And then finally, a third FRINGE claim suggest he had ancient golden plates. Golden Plates currently leans toward the FRINGE view, mentioning others only in passing and we probably should fix that at some point? Feoffer (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good summary, as far as I'm concerned. jps (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To say he had actual gold plates given by an angel is absolutely fringe. To say that it was "Accepted by most" that he didn't even have a prop? ... I'm not sure that is the case. [6] is an excellent overview by probably the most prominent naturalistic, critical historian on the subject. Can you find any historian that categorically says he never even had any plates or a prop to begin with? I would argue that this is the minority view from naturalistic historians. Epachamo (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like you are asking to prove a negative. All we have are testimonies that any physical object existed. To the extent that people accept or reject various testimonies as indicative of some kind of reality, that is the full extent to which there is any argument over whether something existed relevant to all this. But the entire conceit that there is anything more than stories is one that has to be adopted prior to considering the question of what objects Joseph Smith bandied about.
    Contrast this state of affairs with something like the Joseph Smith Papyri for which there is overwhelming physical evidence. The material object existed! We can say that in WP voice.
    jps (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't say that the Golden Plates existed in WP voice. We do have critical testimony preserved not by Mormons who hefted a box with something inside them. We also still have the box that numerous persons said they hefted, or saw hefted, which is on display in a museum to this day. We have a chain of custody for the box that goes back to 1828. So, we do have physical evidence for a box that held ... something that "jangled" when it was moved, that Joseph Smith claimed was Golden Plates. I think this is why most historians, even the most critical, agree that some material object existed inside that box. Epachamo (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Testimony doesn't suddenly become solid evidence just because it is preserved not by Mormons. I agree we can say a box exists in a museum (can't say much more than that!). But the plates or the plate impostors, whatever they might be, are nowhere to be found. jps (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did George Washington really cross the Delaware or just send his men? Were there really ancient Olympics in Greece? Virtually 99% of history is someone witnessing an event and writing it down. Historians are trained to interpret testimony and make a determination on its reliability. We are not historians. On Wikipedia we must reflect the mainstream opinion of historians. You are making a claim that the opinion of historians is that there was not even a prop that Joseph Smith used. Off the top of my head, I honestly can't think of a single scholar that would go that far, even the most critical. Epachamo (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are trying to make this a broader principle here when really it is specific to this instance. The physical existence of the plates is an important aspect to the story by all accounts and, somewhat importantly, everyone admits that there are no physical objects to consider. Inasmuch as the existence of a physical object is a bone of contention (and it certainly is), we as Wikipedia need to tread lightly with respect to the claim especially in WPvoice. This has wider implications than my insistence that we not say anything about whether it is a fact that there was some sort of physical object with which people engaged long about the time these plates were said to be in the possession of Joseph Smith. I am not saying that Wikipedia should say, "There were no metal plates" for example. I am saying that we cannot say in WPVoice there was a physical object. We can only offer the reliably sourced conjectures that align with the assumptions that the author of the conjecture is making about the story. jps (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Stages of death (recent quest to add non-human content)

    [edit]

    The far fringe of animal rights seems to be pushing addition of animals to some pages where the clear expectation would be that the topic is "human-centric" (a phrase they're using as if it's a bad thing). You can see what they're doing to the article Stages of death for example. The common assumption when talking about death is of humans, just like an article about war or murder or transportation would be expected to be of humans. The quest by a few to add chickadees, sea slugs, plankton, and crabgrass to the article about (human) death is WP:FRINGE. They could just as well make a new article about the non-human content. On the article's talk page, they're discussing using existing legit WP policies like WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, et cetera, to justify and prepare for edit-warring. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't seem to be a serious form of disruption at the moment.
    Until just now, the most recent edit to that article was a two-month-old vandalism edit. (which I have just reverted.)
    ApLundell (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an entirely reasonable question as to whether "stages of death" should cover the stages of death generally or specifically about those in humans. While NPOV and NOTCENSORED are a bit of a stretch, they're not totally inappropriate the way your accusations of FRINGE are. Especially since you're bringing up talk page comments from months ago that didn't lead anywhere. I suggest you drop this and move on to something more productive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthroposophy

    [edit]

    What do you say about [7]? tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it's just "punctuation", right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a series of edits. The edit about punctuation is just one of those. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, my mistake. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now an AE case related to the subject and another editor. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Luis Elizondo

    [edit]

    Luis Elizondo, who our article describes as known for promoting the claim that UFOs (or UAPs) exist and are not the result of human technology has a new book out and is presently doing a lot of interviews and appearances promoting it. This has lead to an increase of activity at the article (apparently a reddit thread is also now pointing people to the article), and a BLPN section at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo_labeled_a_"conspiracy_theorist"_repeatedly_without_citation,_page_locked. More watchlists and input at either (preferably both) locations would be very much appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thelema in an article on general worship of heavenly bodies fits the criteria?

    [edit]

    User:Skyerise insists we have a section on Thelema in Worship of heavenly bodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    [8]

    I am worried that this is WP:POVPUSHing.

    jps (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You haven't even started a discussion on the talk page. Isn't this a bit premature since you haven't even bothered to inquire as to why it is relevant to the article. Seems pretty rude to me that you just go to a noticeboard without even trying to start a discussion on the article talk page! Skyerise (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what of the substance of my concern? jps (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll discuss it on the article talk page if you start a conversation there. I'm not the only editor involved with that article. Skyerise (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC concerning an article which may be of interest to this noticeboard

    [edit]

    See Talk:Flying car#RfC on the inclusion of Whitehead's No. 21 machine in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1242566888"