Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Page semi-protected
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


    Articles for deletion

    • 01 Dec 2024 – Plant perception (paranormal) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Psychologist Guy (t · c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted)
    • 30 Nov 2024 – List of references to seer stones in the Latter Day Saint movement history (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Howardcorn33 (t · c) was closed as delete by Just Step Sideways (t · c) on 07 Dec 2024; see discussion (9 participants)

    Categories for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Traditional ecological knowledge

    The articles traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge could probably use more scrutiny by folks with the time to do so. In fact, it might be good to merge them. But in any case, while there is undoubtedly something to the idea that people who have lived in and depended on an environment for a long time have gained knowledge about that environment, this topic never seems to be too far from people who use it to science-bash, or to give credence to unreliable ways of knowing or supernaturalism. There also seems to be a lot of bloat. Crossroads -talk- 18:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and, sigh:
    fiveby(zero) 18:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was thinking some about the prior thread during the VP discussion with Tukdam and religion. Here also we have a call to legitimize other knowledge systems by exploring alternative epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies. While the Buddhism and consciousness revolution we are assured is on the way soon, it seems to me this one already happened. How do you provide information about knowledge when knowledge itself is disputed. fiveby(zero) 20:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Related: Decoloniality Leijurv (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly have no idea what to do with these articles. The literature surrounding this topic, while published in reputable sources, is an intellectual walled garden that is largely ignored by non-proponents. This makes providing any sort of balance tricky. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Big garden in as you say reputable sources. What would you do with Bob Denver? Mind Beyond Brain is Columbia University Press. fiveby(zero) 00:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was primarily talking about "indigenous science" What I mean is that historians and philosophers of science largely don't engage with the sorts of academics who write about "Indigenous science". Buddhism (the subject of Mind Beyond Brain) to me doesn't seem to come under the scope of "indigenous science" It seems more in the same sort of book genera as The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see an inherent difference:
    1. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for religious observers
    2. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for paranormal believers
    3. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for Buddhist scientists
    4. Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for indigenous peoples
    Pick all that apply.
    Before anyone jumps on me that is not commenting on the groups but those who talk of new "epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies" or some kind of fusion with science. fiveby(zero) 01:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see an inherent difference: I mean, a big difference would be that, say, Christian Bible fundamentalists and UFO proponents haven't historically been the victims of colonialism, displacement, white supremacy, and genocide the way Indigenous peoples have been, and there aren't major fields of respected, university press-published academia that legitimize the former two while there is a wide range of academically published scholars who write about decolonizing knowledge.
    Though I'd say the real question isn't whether 'Wikipedia should legitimize other knowledge systems for X'. The more pertinent question is 'is X knowledge system documented and analyzed as a subject of interest by reliable sources, like academic publications, and how do those reliable sources characterize that knowledge system?' Wikipedia looks to the best relevant sources for the best way to describe a topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the approach you describe as the real question follows this: "De-centring the ‘big picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the modern origins of science" i linked in the older thread. That sounds to me appropriate for a global encyclopedia. But what we have here is a critique of Western science, and so Ecosystem management is a multifaceted and holistic approach to natural resource management. It incorporates both science and traditional ecological knowledge to collect data from long term measures that science cannot. Science can't do that? fiveby(zero) 05:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As that paragraph in traditional ecological knowledge isn't footnoted, it's hard to judge whether it hews to sources and to which sources or not. What I do notice is that the apparently main article, ecosystem management, seems to describe the practice's relationship to science differently: ecosystem management is guided by ecological science to ensure the long-term sustainability of ecosystem services.
    As for the question whether science can or can't do X, that answer would depend on what relevant reliable sources say about the topic, and what is meant by 'science' in those sources (science as practiced at a specific moment in time? scientism? specific hegemonically influential scientific institutions?).
    In any case, the question of what Wikipedia should do, broadly speaking comes down to simply that Wikipedia should cite and summarize relevant reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, failed to link the TEK article, and you are right it is not cited. Look at those which are such as Kimmerer, Robin Wall (2022). "Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education: A Call to Action". BioScience., Oxford University Press, 566 scholar cites.
    So on the "reliable sources" grounds that is what i was questioning in the prior thread. Why are you removing 'holistic' here. That is like removing The Trinity from Max Hedroom's views if he were all over in the academic press. Not sorry philosophers, sorry jps. If you see it reifying the false dichotomy between "Indigenous knowledge" and "science" as if Indigenous people aren't doing "real" science that dichotomy is intentional and in the sources. It's got predictive power we are told, but it's not universal so not everyone can test that power. Sorry again. fiveby(zero) 13:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reminder, but what is interesting in this 2002 (note the date!) paper is the uncited stereotype: Western science is conducted in an academic culture in which nature is viewed strictly objectively. I guess you could just write a sentence like that in a paper in 2002 and get away with it. I doubt that would pass the muster today! I don't think the "holism" is dichotomous, then. Now the framing seems to me to be more about eliminating intentional and unintentional bias against knowledge sourced to stakeholder communities. Does that track? jps (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes i think reading the wrong sources might be part of my problem w/ TEK. I don't know if "Indigenous Science" is a concept built on or a reframing of TEK? But was reading sources which included both and seeing the text in the article (which you removed) which seemed to merge both. Anyway this: Ludwig, David; Poliseli, Luana (2018). "Relating traditional and academic ecological knowledge". Biol Philos. 33 (5). reads much better. The aim of this article is to develop an account that relates the epistemic resources of TEK and AEK while avoiding both horns of the dilemma of assimilation and division. Some criticism of a couple authors i was reading and more: these accounts typically combine epistemic and political concerns also a simple holism–mechanism divide misrepresents the epistemic resources of both TEK and AEK and holders of TEK are perfectly capable of identifying mechanisms that underlie ecological phenomena.
    Reading that source i don't think i need to "construct" or "fuse" or "legitimize" any epistemoligies do i? fiveby(zero) 02:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This indeed aligns more closely with how I see TEK presently being used. jps (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Christian Bible fundamentalists and UFO proponents haven't historically been the victims of colonialism, displacement, white supremacy, and genocide the way Indigenous peoples have been, and there aren't major fields of respected, university press-published academia that legitimize the former two while there is a wide range of academically published scholars who write about decolonizing knowledge. While I do agree that traditional knowledge isn't necessarily on the same level as the former - even if Christian fundamentalists and ufologists had been the victims of colonialism, that wouldn't validate their views, even if they got more sympathy from some academics as a result. So that's not really relevant here. Aside from that, apparently some academics are legitimizing certain Western ideas of paranormal beliefs by appealing to non-Western beliefs, such as in this book mentioned earlier, from Columbia University Press. Even academics can be profringe. Crossroads -talk- 16:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is relevant is that according to the pertinent content guideline, in Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. If decolonizing knowledge is part of a prevailing view in the relevant particular fields—in this case the framework appears to prevail in fields like anthropology and in subject areas like studies of colonized peoples, histories of colonialism, etc.—then I'm not sure how that would qualify as 'fringe' under our content guideline. I or you having a personal disagreement with the conclusions of academics isn't on its own enough grounds to deem scholars 'profringe'. On Wikipedia, we don't try to lead; we follow the sources. If there is a substantial, reputed, legitimately published scholarly field concluding that conventional institutions/systems/patterns of contemporary science are colonized/part of colonialism (that's the impression I'm getting from the thread and the articles so far), then it's not a 'fringe' position in that field. It might not be a universally conceived idea across all individual humans, but a lot of reliable academic sources describe the world quite differently from how the average human might (e. g., a god being in some way involved in human origins is a majority belief in the United States but is not at all how science understands and describes the unguided and undirected process of evolution). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a red herring. Whether a group has been historically oppressed has nothing to do with whether ideas associated with that group are valid. By that logic, we should be giving significantly more weight to Mormon views on archaeology and history. Furthermore, there is no policy or guideline that says academic sources should automatically be considered reliable, and the ones you are referring to here clearly are not, because they will publish almost anything that conforms to their a priori ideology/worldview. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, we should be giving significantly more weight to Mormon views on archaeology: Suggesting that Mormons are as colonized, oppressed, and genocided as Native Americans—now that is itself a take quite out of step from academic consensus.
    there is no policy or guideline that says academic sources should automatically be considered reliable: Not automatically—context still matters—but it seems significant to me that the neutral point of view policy recommends looking to books and journal articles and that the reliable sources guideline states that Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. With that in mind, personally disliking academics' conclusions isn't on its own a good enough reason to disregard scholarship. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the worst way to describe what is happening here is ignoring scholarship. Let's take a source and me for a malicious editor on WP. "Discovering indigenous science" Cited in Indigenous science for TEK a type. Respectable publication, well cited paper. But i can look through that paper and find anything i want, reword, add to the article and cite. I've just ignored the rest of the paper, and anyone the authors might cite for opposition to their views. Let's see, the authors don't like universalism so how about:

    When Western modern science (WMS) is defined as universal it does displace revelation-based knowledge (i.e., creation science); however, it also displaces pragmatic local indigenous knowledge

    and

    it is possible that the universalist “gatekeeper” can be seen as increasingly problematic and even counter productive.

    then reword to
    How much scholarship have i ignored there? Even if i just included a faithful representation of the source in opposing universalism i've probably ignored some philosophy of science, history of science, and maybe a couple scientists.
    The paper tells me where the term "Indigenous Science" comes from and it's "Science education in a multiscience perspective". Masakata Ogawa tells me he was influence by Lucien Lévy-Bruhl and quotes him. Lévy-Bruhl wrote a book called How Natives Think in 1910 and divided the world into two mindsets "primitive" and "modern". What could i do with that and how much scholarship would be ignored there?
    Those might be extreme examples—or maybe not—and might or might not be noticed by a page watcher. But it doesn't even really need to be done intentionally. Just incautiously like by the WikiED'ers at TEK. Just pick something, cut-and-paste, quote part and reworde part. There's a lot of things you can do with good sources, within policy, to make bad content and ignore scholarship. Yeah, i don't like it. fiveby(zero) 06:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me this seems more like an NPOV issue than a FRINGE issue. As Hydrangeans said, if these fields are discussed in reliable sources (and they are) then we can and should have articles. The problem is that "decolonisation of X" is often a fig leaf for tearing X to shreds, and we shouldn't write our articles from that kind of "in-universe" perspective. Based on a glance at the first couple of articles mentioned, it looks like they lean that way, but this isn't my field so I don't think I'm the one to edit it. As for the comment that Indigenous peoples have been victims of colonisation while UFO believers have not: Perhaps that's why university presses give them a pass, but we shouldn't. One's level of privilege has zero bearing on the validity of their ontology. If a Holocaust survivor tells me climate change is a government hoax, they are wrong. We would thus be taking sides with an article, say, on "Survivors' views of climate change" that reports uncritically that climate change is an anti-Zionist scheme to ruin Israel, or whatever. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say the whole talk of "other ways of knowing", "data that cannot be collected by science" and this "taking into account the suffering and exploitation, past and present, of certain peoples while evaluating their epistemologies" are very much FRINGE. Although, NPOV and FRINGE are very closely related, so it's probably both. VdSV9•♫ 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has worked as a science professor at a university with a strong science-studies community, I can confidently say it is not at all fringe in the science studies and postcolonial studies disciplines. A good chunk of those scholars (maybe not a majority, but a very large minority) are pushing right-wing denialism of science and expertise (perhaps unintentionally) by dressing it up in left-wing tropes like decolonisation, queer liberation, and so on. "Other ways of knowing" is to the Frantz Fanon set what "do your own research" is to the Alex Jones set...trust your gut, TheyTM are lying to you. If a sizable minority of scholars holds a certain view, then by definition it can't be WP:FRINGE even if it's demonstrably wrong. So we can have articles on these subjects, but we shouldn't give them false balance because, you know, reality exists. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is your source for your extraordinary claim about "A good chunk of those scholars"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The very scholars who write about this stuff very often characterize them as "marginalized", and "outside of mainstream science" (often using the misnomer "Western science"). Those fall very much in the definition of fringe (marginal happens to be synonymous). VdSV9•♫ 18:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Fiveby's comment above that talk of new "epistemologies, ontologies, and methodologies" is nonsense. And science-bashing is extremely harmful (having probably resulted in hundreds of thousands of extra deaths from Covid in the US). But I think that there is an inherent difference between #4 and #1-3 in Fiveby's list. Certain indigenous medical practices, while not science-based, are based on centuries of observation and experience. In modern times, scientists and pharmaceutical companies have studied some of them in a rigorous, scientific way and found that they could use them as a basis for developing new, safe, and effective medicines. For example Tu Youyou was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for (according to her Wikipedia BLP) discovering artemisinin [...] and dihydroartemisinin, used to treat malaria, a breakthrough in twentieth-century tropical medicine, saving millions of lives in South China, Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America. The Wikipedia article goes on to describe how she achieved this by studying a vast number of traditional Chinese medicines, finally finding two that were the basis of the medical breakthrough.
    It is also possible that a folk medical practice that's still followed in some parts of the world could be harmless and somewhat effective for some people, although inferior to the best modern medicine. People who are impoverished might not have access to the latter, in which case such a folk practice is better than nothing. (This is the viewpoint, for example, of the Cuban Ministry of Health, due to the extreme scarcity of certain imported pharmaceuticals due to the US embargo.)
    Because of these two possibilities, there is an inherent difference between folk knowledge and paranormal belief, superstition, and science-bashing. NightHeron (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think artemisinin is like one in the ten thousand TCM remedies that turned out to have promise, so perhaps isn't a representative example. Bon courage (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but has there ever been a medical breakthrough and a Nobel Prize for saving millions of lives that resulted from studying ten thousand superstitions or paranormal beliefs? NightHeron (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TCM beliefs didn't contribute to artemisinin's discovery... Artemisinin just happened to be among the compounds whose effects had traditionally been ascribed to a fundamentally faulty mechanistic framework (or, maybe more likely, were retconned into a pseudo-traditionalist system by Maoists). JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The artemisinin discovery story has also been heavily propagandized to promote TCM. I'm skeptical there was any real link between the purported TCM uses of the parent decoction and the antimalarial properties of its active compound. JoelleJay (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first paragraph summed up my thoughts too. The one issue I've run into IRL with this is that the lines between historical/folk knowledge/alternative ways of knowing and transitioning to science-bashing is a very thin line that is easy to cross. This often comes up at land-grant universities nowadays and especially can get contentious and difficult to navigate at those meetings, especially when you have groups of scientists and non-scientists involved.
    It's a good thing if the focus is on historical preservation of culture, finding accounts of plants to test in the current-day, etc., but I have seen talks where people try to label it Western vs. Indigenous ways of knowing that quickly gets into trouble. Labeling it "Western" science in that context, especially with dashes of colonialism mentioned in order to dismiss what is just simply science, can be a red flag. That starts to invoke a sort of special pleading to avoid the formal scientific process that we often see in other fringe topics. That's what it can easily become if a particular group is given "privileged" status in their knowledge even if that knowledge would violate something as simple as correlation ≠ causation.
    So I'm glad this has been brought up because we probably do need to keep a guardrail in mind for the above, but as others have mentioned, it's a bit of a walled garden topic. I can see challenges for us editors in terms of NPOV when it's advocates primarily publishing on the topic. KoA (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, science has "legitimized other knowledge systems for indigenous peoples" in one case. Wikipedia cannot do that unless science does it before. --Hob Gadling (talk)
    The more I think about it, the more I think we should merge traditional ecological knowledge and traditional knowledge, and probably indigenous science too. They are all the same basic topic as far as I can tell, and having it in one place will make it easier to keep an eye on so it doesn't accumulate stuff from the fringey end of this idea. Crossroads -talk- 16:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an interesting idea... but I think the merge may be a pretty heavy lift as the articles are all strikingly different. Just to play devil's advocate, I think that there is a lot more to say about these concepts within the context of ecology since the idea of working with indigenous stakeholders has a much longer history in that discipline. jps (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Crossroads not sure merges are a good idea. I'm thinking TEK came from resource managers and tribes/First Nations in the 80's? I don't know about "traditional knowledge" as a concept, maybe earlier? "Indigenous Science" often points to TEK, but it came from educators in the late '90s. TEK is certainly applied in education, and likewise "Indigenous Science" to promote policy decisions. I'm having a difficult time when the sources start merging the two and not telling me exactly what they mean. fiveby(zero) 02:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Traditional knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge are not exactly the same thing. TK may incorporate TEK but incorporates things outside of Indigenous views on the natural environment (wildlife and the land). Look at Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, while incorporating Avatittinnik Kamatsiarniq (respect and care for the land, animals and the environment) one of the major aspects is Inuuqatigiitsiarniq (respecting others, relationships and caring for people) and most of the others are more than just a narrow focus on environmental concerns. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to merging indigenous science into TK, but TEK is a distinct term, and while being a subset of TK, it has received substantial scholarly attention on its own. The article being in a poor state is not a reason to merge. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just read through traditional ecological knowledge and I don't see the WP:FRINGE problem. Can someone explain what the problem is with reference to the current text? jps (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The opening image that dichotomizes and essentializes TEK and "Western" science as "holistic" and "reductionist" respectively seems pretty sketchy. There's also a lot of overly long quotes and descriptions of examples/case studies, and it's somewhat disorganized. Crossroads -talk- 16:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That image needed to go, agreed. I found one on Commons that looked better to me. Poorly accounted-for, so we might want to contact the Forest Peoples Programme to see if they have information about the event that occurred in 2011 that we could add as a citation (although, vainly, I think the caption I wrote is relatively uncontroversial). jps (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have started the process of copyediting. There are issues here with undergraditis writing with value-judgements and dated jargon. The temptation of the prior authors (and some of the older sources, even) to slip into the false dichotomy between "western science" and "noble savage" seems particularly acute. Doing a quick search for the word "western" yielded some places where rewording was possible. jps (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a little more work on cleaning up problematic writing. This is definitely one of those cases where the poor quality of writing by assigned students was dragging down the content. However, most of what was included was fine. It's just really, really bad writing. jps (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think I'm done with my copyedit. I did not remove any sources. I pared down a lot of the unnecessary text. The page was a victim of undergraditis and might be a good object lesson for what happens when half a dozen classes get a hold of an article and let unprepared college students just add text in the hopes of meeting arbitrary word counts. One thing that probably needs emphasizing more with our WikiEdu collabs is that less is more, brevity is the soul of wit, vigorous writing is concise, etc. jps (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking hatchet to sources, rv anything where you object. Let me know if you saw any sources which should be included be aren't. fiveby(zero) 16:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust your judgement. jps (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

    I'm leaving the article alone because Tollefsen tells me[1] there is some discussion about anomalies being a signal to the reader and might be a bad thing to remove them. fiveby(zero) 15:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what to make of that. Regardless, bad content (either false or undue) should still be removed. Crossroads -talk- 21:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was just angry about the "ignoring scholarship" comments. I can sure go add to his article that he was an armchair anthropologist who never went into the field and based everything on testimony of missionaries. And:

    Levy-Bruhl had imputed to Africans a certain lack of mental skills and he had suggested that such a lack was due to the fact that they were black. Thus, his conclusion held that black people were incapable of logical and coherent thought. Instead, they tended to wallow in contradictions and could not distinguish between what he called the supernatural and reality.

    — [1]
    Then start in on Indigenous science, all within P&G, because i don't like it. fiveby(zero) 13:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Tollefsen 2009, p. 20.

    Intuition and animism at the article Traditional knowledge

    Some of the material I had removed from Traditional knowledge around the time I opened this thread has been reverted back into the article by the editor who added it originally. The text claims, These systems of knowledge are often guided by intuition, and generally based on accumulations of empirical observation and on interaction with the environment. and, as before, cites this 2012 paper, which on Google Scholar only got 16 cites in well over a decade (way less than many other similarly aged papers on TK). The paper includes something called "revealed knowledge" in IK/TK, and explicitly supports animism, supernaturalism, and misuses of concepts like "expanded" consciousness and quantum entanglement:

    • Intuition, particularly in its transrational form, refers to knowing without knowing how you came to know (Bernstein, 2005; see also Barrett, in press). It goes beyond patterned understandings based on experience (for example, those small intuitive leaps an experienced practitioner might make when encountering a new problem to solve) to include insights that in some cases transcend time (McCraty et al, 2004) and physical location (e.g. a mother who knows her child is hurt even when he may be in another country). To distinguish this kind of intuition from intuition based primarily on experience, we use the term transrational intuition throughout the rest of this paper. Such transrational intuitions may come through dreams, visions, gut feelings, a sudden word or phrase that pops into one's head, a "felt sense" or an unexplainable awareness of the "right" answer, or way to proceed. Transrational forms of intuition are the result of an expanded consciousness, and are accessible to all humans regardless of cultural background. They are also in alignment with many of the spiritual aspects of Indigenous knowledges. However, since they “fall outside the pale of what professional cultures are willing to accept” they are often dismissed
    • Transrational forms of intuition and animism are linked....An animist ontology supports a relational interaction with those who are not human, and acknowledges that plants, animals, and spirits exist in communicative relationship with humans. Insights received often take the form of dreams, visions, a felt sense, and so forth – ways of knowing which in Eurocentric traditions, are generally attributed to a brilliant human mind (Snyder, cited by Taylor, 2005), a pathology (Vaughn & Walsh, 2000), or a higher power (e.g. Abell, 1994). From an animist perspective, these insights are contributed from non-human “persons” with whom one is in relation (Harvey, 2006a; Stuckey, 2010) and are offered to humans who have the ability, and are open, to receiving them.
    • The intermingling of learned knowledge with other forms of knowing reflects the existence of a realm of knowledge and knowing well beyond conscious thought – an idea which is well accepted in many knowledge traditions (Meyer, 2008). Recent theorizing in the areas of, human consciousness, quantum entanglement, spiritual knowing and intuition (e.g. Bradley, 2007; Hart et al., 2000; Sinclair, 2011) is deepening understandings of forms of knowing that are not fully premised on rational analysis and observable phenomena.

    I think this sort of thing is very clearly fringe.

    The editor also cited this paper this time, which only mentions "intuitive" briefly in passing.

    In sum, I don't think the idea that knowledge based on intuition, let alone "transrational" intuition, is something mainstream belongs in Wikipedia at all. Crossroads -talk- 01:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a tremendous amount of literature here, coming from multiple disciplines, and many of the authors are not very careful with what they say or how they describe 'knowledge'. It seems to me those papers coming from post-colonial studies and the field of education are the worst and most incautious. This 2021 literature review has been very helpful for me in organizing the concepts and Fikret Berkes' Sacred Ecology is excellent for Traditional ecological knowledge.
    At heart much of this is political and authors are seemingly willing to make outlandish and unsupported statements in order to promote their views. In my opinion everything here, despite publication within academic journals, should be treated as merely political screeds and undue for inclusion until demonstrated otherwise. Hopefully a careful author such as Berkes can be found for TK/IK. fiveby(zero) 12:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that may help here with 'animism' is that is clearly within the domain of TEK. Berkes does cover animism so you could shunt all that content over to the TEK article and i'll make sure that it follows the WP:BESTSOURCES policy. In fact anything connected to the land people live on or or how people interact with it should be primarily described in the TEK article. fiveby(zero) 12:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor also added this source to support their claim about intuition. But here too are multiple problems - this source is 17 years old and engages in an essentialized dichotomy between "Eurocentric" and indigenous knowledge (a claim already identified above as outdated and inaccurate), attributes intuition to science as well, intuition is only a minor point, and makes some claims that legitimize things that are clearly fringe like This holistic spiritual power expands the sources of data for IWLN to include, for instance, dreams, visions, and intuitions.... Some of these data (observations and images) are collected systematically in, for example, vision quests, fasting, smudging, prayer, sweat lodges, and various ceremonies.
    In any case, based on what I've read, I've not seen intuition mentioned much in recent sources on the mainstream academic use of indigenous knowledge, and certainly not supporting its WP:UNDUE emphasis in the lead (and not in the body, against guidelines). I've removed the claim again and pointed the editor here. Crossroads -talk- 20:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Masakata Ogawa, the coauthor on that paper, is the science educator i mentioned above. First to use the term indigenous science and based on the ideas of Lévy-Bruhl. I had a source for Lévy-Bruhl's popularity in education in the '70s through the '90s and will need to find it again. I'd really like to describe the origin here along the lines of some kind of race realism and there are probably sources available to do something like that. It probably wouldn't be a fair or neutral way to approach the topic tho. Just need to find time to work on the articles. fiveby(zero) 21:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean if that's the history, then so be it - I support adding it. I myself have certainly noticed that ethnic/racial essentialism and 'noble savage' tropes often crop up in this discourse, with some people basically just taking racist stereotypes and inverting the polarity of which traits are considered good and bad. At least we have more recent sources with a more moderate and reasonable take on things, as you've noted. Crossroads -talk- 21:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Kowal2701 just reverted my changes and citation of newer review sources in favor of the problematic sources described above. Kowal2701, the discussion is here, at a public noticeboard; per WP:MULTI, we are not going to have multiple places talking about the same thing or have it somewhere less visible like an article talk page. Also, per WP:ONUS, you need to get consensus to include these claims about "intuition" and "holistic" before they would be kept. Crossroads -talk- 21:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Talk:Traditional knowledge#November 2024. WP:AGF Kowal2701 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am AGF. As I stated there, aside from the first source in that heading you opened, which only mentions intuition and holism in passing, all of these sources are quite old, which has been identified above as an issue in this research field. Per WP:MULTI, this should be discussed in one place, and here is better since there are more eyes and editors with experience with this. Crossroads -talk- 21:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Looking into one of the authors (Barrett), I also found out about #Intuitive Interspecies Communication (IIC), described in that heading below. Crossroads -talk- 03:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reposting here from Talk: Traditional knowledge#November 2024

    Hi @Crossroads, I agree that sentence isn't good and needs to be changed. The purpose of that sentence is to explain the epistemological methods rather than to give another definition. Sources comparing TK with modern science say it is intuitive and holistic, while modern science is reductionistic and analytical. I appreciate your concern over fringe implications, that was not what I was trying to do.

    • Modern science favors analytical and reductionist methods, whereas, the traditional knowledge is towards intuitive and holistic view. [2]
    • TEK has been accounted as intuitive and holistic as opposed to the pre dominantly analytical-reductionist character of Western science. [3]
    • From the brief examples given above, it appears that by the standards of the scientific approach, TEK more closely resembles science than lay-knowledge. However, some real differences exist between TEK and science in that non-test able phenomena such as intuition and beliefs, as well as inter-generational and personal observations, are components ofknowledge in TEK. [4]
    • TEK is holistic; Western science is reductionist. Western science deliberately breaks down data into smaller elements to understand whole and complex phenomena. For TEK, all elements of matter are viewed as interconnected and cannot be understood in isolation. • • • • TEK is intuitive in its mode of thinking; Western science is analytical. Intuitive thought emphasizes emotional involvement and subjective certainty of understanding. Analytical thought emphasizes abstract reasoning and the need to separate oneself from that being observed and to learn about it through various replicable measurements. [5]
    • Western science favours analytical and reductionist methods as opposed to the more intuitive and holistic view often found in traditional knowledge. [6]

    (@Crossroads you may want to move your comment under here) Kowal2701 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of looking for sources to justify certain terms, you should instead look at recent, reputable reviews and see how they describe the topic, like this one. This sort of essentialized dichotomy is not favored more recently. The sources you cite here are (after the first one) from 2008, 2002, 1992, and 2006 respectively, all over 15 years old. And the first one doesn't really justify these descriptors much, and in any case is just one paper in Futures, not a review. Fiveby, others, what do you think of these descriptors - should they be added? And also, why aren't they in the body? Even if they are used, it should be clearly delineated why the use of intuition and holism is academically justified; vague gestures towards colonialism or spirituality definitely don't explain why traditional knowledge should be used in environmental management, for example. Crossroads -talk- 21:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first researched this I wasn't looking for sources to justify certain terms. My impression is that there is academic consensus regarding this dating back to the 2000s, such that further research repeating the same points wasn't necessary. The 2023 source repeating this is evidence these terms haven't fallen out of favour for valid, substantial reasons. That source you've linked supports the holistic descriptor. I can't find more recent sources comparing TK with Western/modern science. The TK article is C-class and has practically no information directly on the epistemologies themselves. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "My impression is that there is academic consensus regarding this..." Absolutely not. Please read our best source here for organizing these (and as far as i am away the only source which has yet even attempted to do so) Faced with a vast and fragmented body of literature, scholars interested in the role of knowledge for sustainability must either limit themselves to a single facet of knowledge, or confront the difficult task of navigating a multi-disciplinary and often contradictory maze of concepts. These are encyclopedia articles, that "difficult task" is ours, we need to organize topics, define terms, and explain concepts for the reader.
    See the section: Knowledge-related concepts are often mentioned, but rarely in focus or rigorously addressed. We need to take content from those works which are in focus and rigorously address a concept. If you are just pulling quotes from a random selection of papers the articles will be a mishmash of concepts and explain nothing to the reader.
    Crossroads, have you had a chance to go through the review article's way of organizing the topics? We should probably go back to your idea of merging at some point, might help with setting scope for the articles. fiveby(zero) 15:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about whether the descriptors “intuitive” and “holistic” should be used in the article? There is consensus that TK/TEK is both intuitive and holistic.
    Are you referring to the use of TK, IK, TEK etc.? I agree it’s an issue, and not an easy one for us to solve. Note that that source is just on sustainability science, which is not the only discipline involved with TK, others include anthropology and archaeology. The article says most consider TEK a subset of TK/IK that specifically deals with ecological processes and humans’ roles in them. They should be separate articles. Whether we preclude articles nominally on TK from the TEK article, I don’t know. We could assess whether the author really means TEK based on their definition and focus/discipline? That is probably too much OR Kowal2701 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another source which discusses the terms IK, TK, and LK, as well as the various disciplines. Relying on and prioritising one source solely on sustainability science is incredibly problematic. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is consensus that TK/TEK is both intuitive and holistic. But there is no consensus on what "intuitive" and "holistic" mean. We can certainly document that these descriptors have been attached to these ideas by certain sources, but I think that's as far as it goes. jps (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but at the very least it gives a couple page links so readers can get a rough idea. I think the comparison to modern science is useful to the reader as it puts it in relation to something they’re likely more familiar with, and it also begs the question “how do these knowledge systems fit into contemporary society (if at all)” which is a focal point of discussion. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it has been demonstrated that there is an academic consensus that TK is intuitive or holistic. A smattering of 15+ year old sources and one recent one does not a consensus make, especially when more recent sources eschew them or note that science also involves these traits to some degree. (The review linked above did mention "holistic" for IK specifically, but even then it depends on the overall conclusions which I'd have to look at again.)
    Re Fiveby, I haven't had time yet to give the full review a detailed read. I'm not sure yet how best to organize it all but I think merges of some kind may be called for.
    Also noting here that another discussion has opened up on the talk page there: Talk:Traditional_knowledge#Science_and_education. I think the issues raised in Science are highly relevant. Crossroads -talk- 05:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There’s consensus among sources that compare TK to science, I’d only support its inclusion in that context. Where has it been said that science is intuitive and holistic to some degree? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been reading a lot of sources which are indicating that the sort of conflict thesis treatment of TK/IK and "science" may be problematic from the perspective of science being somehow different than the works and process of TK/IK. Claims that TK/IK are not science is an awkward and arguably fallacious form of demarcation. jps (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also seen those arguments but wasn't sure how to treat them. I think it's more helpful to look at these as general differences, it's why sources tend to say "modern science" and "Western science" (Western just means European-derived/Eurocentric, see this book pgs.1-2) rather than just "science". Something like:
    These knowledge systems tend to be intuitive and holistic, in contrast to modern/Western science which tends to be analytical and reductionistic. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But "Western", of course, is completely inaccurate these days. It's a truly globalized endeavor. "Modern science" seems also a misnomer. "Academic science" may be closer, but it's also a bit arbitrary. After all, it's not as though traditional practitioners are just not doing science when they, for example, use their knowledge to track changes in the forest, for example. The critics seem to be pointing out that this bifurcation between *science* and TK/IK is a kind of false dichotomy that may be losing its utility.
    In collaborations where TK/IK holders and academic scientists work together, I don't see that the main conflict is between these cultures but rather it seems like the collaborations work to advance the interests of both groups in a synergistic fashion.
    jps (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other issue, of course, is that the hegemony which the source you are citing is complaining about goes well beyond science. It is arguably the same hegemonic structure the book itself is laboring under (academic discourse) and it is mirrored here at this website what with its glorification of the written word, its preference for chain-of-custody arguments when it comes to knowledge, and its linguistic preferences. jps (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you to a certain extent. That book is written by a Norwegian Africanist, it's important to treat it as an African POV. Colonialism has had wide reaching, long lasting impacts which are still being felt. Consider the psychological impacts on both the individual and community. African states inherited and still use European and colonial states and institutions. Their education systems were largely designed by Europeans and inherited. The colonial and European/indigenous paradigm is viewed as a way to parse and remove European elements and reclaim a distinct identity. I agree that the hegemonic structure goes well beyond science. Regarding this website, see Pgallert's WP:Oral citations experiment. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sympathetic to the desire to add local cultural relevance in the post-colonial era, but something like remov[ing] European elements is deeply concerning. Europeans (among others, yes) have historically made major contributions to knowledge and science, and it would be reactionary and anti-scientific to erase that. European advances themselves built on earlier work from the Middle East and India. We should (and are making great progress on) bring in contributions from other cultures (both going forward and, where appropriate, from the past), but we cannot erase past advances. Nations like Japan and China that have become or are becoming wealthy, globally influential in science, and are as non- or post-colonial as can be, didn't get there by removing European advances in knowledge or through a total rejection of European-origin systems (e.g. universities, academic publishing, etc).
    To add to jps' comments, I think part of the problem with parallels between TK and "Western science" is that a more accurate parallel is between TK and Western/academic knowledge overall. A lot of what proponents of TK seem to like is really the traditional form of the arts or philosophy, not science. Crossroads -talk- 21:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are only my own poorly chosen words, and not necessarily reflective of the discourse. I haven't seen anyone rejecting science, and that will never be on the agenda. It's regarding the exclusion and deprecation of native worldviews and epistemologies (the secular/religious aspect of the debate is not easily settled). I have seen it said that proponents root their support in ethics rather than the merits (regardless I think learning about a different culture/language is immensely valuable). There are enough intelligent and well-meaning people on both sides of the debate, it'll come to a functional solution. It's very unlikely it'll be developed/ex-colonial countries world-leading in this. Western science really means Western epistemologies, but per WP:Truth and WP:NPOV we might just have to follow what the sources say. How about Western epistemologies/modern science? The book above would support that terminology. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know why we are not trying to follow the WP:BESTSOURCES here. This whole exercise is looking like a waste of time. Are you finished editing the articles or will you be continuing? fiveby(zero) 15:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What are the best sources here? Are you trying to say that that one source you found covering a single discipline is the best source? Or are you just operating on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and dismissing the sources you find unpalatable and don't identify/agree with? We follow WP:NPOV. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you consider the WP:Best sources? We can look at the most reputable journals, but we should aim to cover all disciplines. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some academic encyclopedia entries:
    Can we move this discussion to Talk:Traditional knowledge and notify Talk:Traditional ecological knowledge, as this has nothing to do with WP:Fringe really. I've made a section there. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you should have restored this. No one else above besides you supports it, nor have the issues with such a dichotomy been addressed.
    I figure that this discussion here is about that claim primarily, and it is a good place for it since FTN has experience with the demarcation of science and similar issues. Other stuff from other sources might be different and not problematic. Crossroads -talk- 23:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar diff here Leijurv (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If sources from five different academically published encyclopedias support the content, I'm not so sure Kowal2701's decision to edit Wikipedia articles to be in accord with the sources is all that unreasonable. On Wikipedia we try to summarize what academic sources say; it's not about what we personally believe to be true. Things have been said about what editors think that writers about TK believe or mean to say, but isn't that original research rather than the summarization of academically published encyclopedic content? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, the encyclopedias are to use as sources for the topic in general. It hasn't been claimed that they support the specific diff I just linked, which just cited the paper in Futures from earlier. Crossroads -talk- 06:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah the encyclopaedias are just for the topic in general, sorry should’ve made that clearer. Can you summarise the issues with it regarding policy? Sorry, I was under the impression there wasn’t firm opposition to it. I’ll self revert, but I do think it’s very useful to the reader to have the comparison. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the self-revert. I would summarize the issues above as relating to WP:UNDUE and WP:RSAGE. In general, it seems like a lot of sources that are more recent don't consider scientific or academic knowledge as necessarily categorically different from TK/IK. WP:FRINGE also comes into play if any WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims are being made that would contradict the scientific consensus on such things as extrasensory perception, as was the case with the source that kicked off this subsection. I don't think you mean to promote that to be clear, and the few of these recently posted sources that I've looked at don't seem to be like that, thankfully. Crossroads -talk- 21:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I'm happy to exclude it based on that. I think there is merit for including but attributing or contextualising claims of extrasensory perception, as this is often how intuition (whatever we think the "reality" is) is perceived as. For instance in African animism in various cases people believe it is their ancestors speaking to them.[a] I think it is more the issue of presenting these views as fact. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that first source I used was an incredibly poor one and I’ll be more careful and critical in future. Thank you for your patience Kowal2701 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Hama, Boubou; Ki-Zerbo, Joseph (1981). "The place of history in African society". General History of Africa: Volume 1. UNESCO Publishing.
    the encyclopaedias are just for the topic in general, sorry should’ve made that clearer: Yes, that wasn't entirely clear. I appreciate the clear up. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes

    1. ^ In these cases, time's duration is not as it affects the fate of the individual, but the pulse of the social group. It is not a river flowing in one direction from a known source to a known outlet. Generally, traditional African time involves eternity in both directions, unlike Christians who consider eternity to operate in one direction. In African animism, time is an arena where both the group and the individual struggle for their vitality. The goal is to improve their situation, thus being dynamic. Bygone generations remain contemporary, and as influential as they were during their lifetime, if not more so. In these circumstances causality operates in a forward direction from past to present and from present to future, however direct intervention can operate in any direction.[1]: 44, 49 

    Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure

    Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

    Also a question from Gronk Oz here about lists of articles for watch-listing. fiveby(zero) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a timeline of civilian and governmental efforts in investigating and disclosing the nature and presence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), also known as unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs). It includes important publications and public events and also institutional countermeasures against the UFO disclosure process. For starters, the lead pushes a conspiratorial viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The title is problematic, inviting editors to freely mix real-world things with fringelore. Timeline of UFOlogy might stand a chance of being notable. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for bringing this to our attention.Sgerbic (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the inclusion criteria for items on this list? Seems very arbitrary at present, e.g. whatever the article creator thinks is relevant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I WP:BOLDly moved it to Timeline of UFOs. We may need to think about how it might work with the already extant List of UFO sightings. jps (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The List of UFO sightings is a timeline. What is the case for needing both articles? Sgerbic (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh I see, the Timeline of UFO's includes whatever the editor who wrote this thinks is important to UFO history, heavy on the Elizondo mentions. I'm not so sure about this, but leave this to you as I have pizza to eat. Sgerbic (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is stopgap meant to address the WP:PROFRINGE implications of the previous title. I *might* be able to see a case for having a separate timeline given that there have been some remarkably interesting points of heady interest, lack of interest, alien autopsy videos promoted, and the like, but am not quite convinced yet. jps (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any day now Sgerbic (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You said it. There is room for a competent academic to write the definitive history on this subject, but it hasn't happened yet. Probably because the endeavor is so exhausting. jps (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The article arbitrarily combines non-notable books and films with content contained in List of reported UFO sightings, UFO conspiracy theories, and Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government. I'm not sure what this article accomplishes other than to be a WP:POVFORK of existing content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm done with my pizza and am taking another look as the editor keeps beefing up the article with more and more dates. What I'm concerned with is this arbitrary submission of non-notable events based on the unknown criteria of this specific editor. For example this one "2024 October - The first Global Disclosure Day event was launched by the New Paradigm Institute" what is notable about this? Global Disclosure Day isn't notable, the New Paradigm Institute isn't notable and the citation is leading to a website for this Paradigm Institute, which isn't notable. So who is responsible for including these dates? Okay, let me go look at the talk page for this article, we should be having this conversation there. Sgerbic (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no talk page - creating it now. Sgerbic (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted on that brand new talk page my concerns. I respectfully suggest that any future conversations about the article be taken to that talk page. Sgerbic (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could use somebody who's more experienced with identifying good sources vs bad within this topic. Paging @User:Feoffer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no not the Brit! They spell everything wrong! Sgerbic (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if this was based on that timeline that has been circulating for a while and Michael Shellenberger included as an annex in his "testimony" (page 36 onwards on the pdf) to the US Congress this wednesday. Maybe it's a coincidence. VdSV9•♫ 13:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not related, but that's an incredible timeline. Most of the entries may never make it to Wikipedia because of the policies here. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "incredible timeline" you mean, "halfwitted timeline". jps (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The congress will decide on that, I'm in no position.. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The congress will decode on that, .. Biting tongue. Donald Albury 14:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_UFOs - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry to see there is both off-wiki and on-wiki WP:CANVASSING [7], [[8]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you think they'll create another change.org petition against us? lol Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewish Indian theory

    An interesting edit - IP removed the word erroneous from the lead as the article doesn't suggest that. They seem to be correct in that the article is about support of the idea. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The word is back. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The secondary sources cited throughout the article are unambiguous about the theory having been dismissed by scholars after the 18th century. Some copyediting to make that clearer could perhaps be undertaken, although for the most part the article is pretty good about phrasing all claims in terms of the theory's popularity and history rather than its veracity. signed, Rosguill talk 21:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and added referenced content clarifying the theory's fall from grace, brief resurgence, and further confirmation of its implausibility based on DNA investigations. I suspect Fenton 2020 (the book) has additional relevant information in its final appendix, but I was unable to access that with a Google Books preview. Amusingly, I ended up finding multiple useful RS to fill in that gap that this in the context of Mormon studies. signed, Rosguill talk 22:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill Thanks. I did look at it again and realised the problem for me was the organisation. I've got at least one more source to use. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    James Mellaart and Çatalhöyük & Mount Hasan

    Anyone who knows the sordid history of James Mellaart? There are a number of sources that have weighed in on whether a particular mural in Çatalhöyük depicts an eruption of Mount Hasan, and are cited in the volcano's article. My question is not about them, but about whether the mural itself (rather than its interpretation) is genuine. This source says that Mellaart apparently faked some of his "findings", but I don't know if anyone has cast doubt on the particular map/volcano mural. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The problems with James Mellaart were quite real and serious. However, they should not have a significant impact on interpretations of the architecture, features, and artifacts that he excavated at Çatalhöyük. I'm an archaeologist, and to my knowledge Mellaart was never accused of faking murals. The mural that apparently depicts the volcano and also a settlement with structures resembling those of Çatalhöyük is quite well-known and I think can still be seen either at the site or in its museum (I'm not certain which). I have encountered interpretations of the mural as an eruption of the volcano in books by Mellaart and also in other reliable texts. Let me know if this would benefit from specific citations to literature other than that of Mellaart. I would recommend looking at sources by archaeologist Ian Hodder, who directed more recent excavations at the site. Hoopes (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I found out a while ago that this is the second time this issue has come up. I guess we can confidently say that the mural is real and not a fake, notwithstanding the question of what it shows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pseudoarchaeology on Rogan

    Joe Rogan posted a podcast episode today with Jimmy Corsetti and Dan Richards. Dan Richards has been very critical of Hoopes editing on Wikipedia, and used the podcast to attack him, starting here, and specifically mentioned the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, Graham Hancock and pseudoarchaeology. I didn't listen much past that (bits here and there) so I'm not sure if they also mentioned other articles.

    It probably wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on those, given Rogan's reach. Guettarda (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for mentioning this. A brief clip of the Joe Rogan podcast episode, but not the bit about Wikipedia, was tweeted by Elon Musk this morning. That has helped the podcast to go viral, with over a million views so far. I do not know whether this will have any effect on the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article, but what is not discussed in the podcast is that the principal complaints about "my" editing pertain to an issue in discussion in a note at the top of Talk:Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis about WP:COI editing by members of the Comet Research Group. I think this issue, in particular, will require some vigilance. Hoopes (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding claims unsupported by cited source in the YDIH article

    [9]

    [10]

    [11]

    [12]

    I have opened a talk topic, but no editor wishes to engage. I didn't think that arguing against adding things to the article that are not supported by the cited source would be controversial. If the editors wish to add something to the article based on WP:RS, then that WP:RS should support the claim. Or is that just crazy-talk in the postmodern world? 77.241.129.12 (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Does not wish, or has not had a chance? Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The change has been in dispute for a few days now. I assumed the onus to create a Talk page explaining the addition should be on the one making the addition. Why should I create a Talk page to prove a negative, that the source doesn't support the claim?
    We have a situation now where something has been added to the Wikipedia article without support in the WP:RS, and without explanation, yet to get it removed is an uphill battle.
    Hitchen's Razor applies here: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" 77.241.129.12 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No wp:brd is clear, it is down to those wanting to make a change to get consensus for it. And Hitchnes razor has no authority here, we go by our policies. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Viktor Schauberger

    Known crackpot. What he wrote about physics was pure gobbledigook because he defined physics terms in an idiosyncratic way and had no clue about how science really works. His ideas are spread by quacks and frauds selling "energized water" and similar things. There are few if any good sources about him, and the article is short after the bad stuff was deleted. The German Wikipedia article de:Viktor Schauberger is still longer with bad sources.

    The lead of the article says he was a pseudoscientist, which is true, but there are no sources in the article supporting that. And there have been complaints. I myself have routinely reverted deletions of that term in the past, but then got second thoughts. How should we handle that? Delete? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there is no reason to remove, and that "pseudoscientist" might actually be the most charitable way to describe him. The sourcing problem is real though. The German article is very extensive but relying on bad sources that are over used, The French article is short with somehow even worse sources, and it looks like no other one provides anything looking like a saving grace in terms of good sources. Honestly a few IPs occasionally complaining that the term is kinda mean in the last few years without any sort of argument is really not something that I think should influence our decision there too much. Choucas Bleutalkcontribs 10:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure "we can ignore rules such as WP:OR if only IPs are complaining about it" is valid reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated injection of fringe and censorship at Mami Wata

    Mami Wata is a goddess in the folklore of areas of west Africa who is held by scholars to have developed from encounters with depictions of European mermaids by west Africans when encountering Europeans. As a goddess, she historically has been depicted as a white woman who enjoys foreign objects at her shrines and later her depictions were in some areas influenced by posters from Europe and India. This is well-documented in numerous WP:RS.

    This widely-discussed fact hasn't set well with some editors, who have stripped this often-discussed and fascinating fact (including the obvious creole origins of the name Mama Wata) away to replaced with pseudoscientific nonsense like this by Savagexx (talk · contribs).

    Writing about related topics, I recently took the time to rewrite this article using only WP:RS. It resulted in the article going from this fringe nonsense to my rewrite and then, back in October when I was away, back to the fringe nonsense once more. In short, the article is not only injected with fringe but also is also being repeatedly censored.

    Can we get some more eyes on this article? In fact, African folklore on Wikipedia in general is at risk of major fringe injection (West African mythology needs a good look). We really need to do better than this. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given Savagexx a sharp warning. Semi of Mami Wata might also be an option, but the IP edits, while very bad, aren't actually very frequent. Maybe Pending Changes? Bishonen | tålk 12:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Talk:Larries#Requested_move_23_November_2024

    If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Sphinx water erosion hypothesis

    and it's talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Water fluoridation controversy

    RFK Jr. may belong in the article, but some people insist it has to be in a specific way, which results in lots of edit-warring recently. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this is the correct space for this. But why do we call it a "controversy"? There is no reasonable controversy to speak of when we're looking at water fluoridation. We don't call the antivaxxer movement part of a "vaccination controversy", or do we? The nicest terms I've seen used is "hesitancy", as in vaccine hesitancy. I think anti-fluoridation cranks deserve the same treatment as anti-vaxxers. Also, they're mostly the same people... I'm thinking the tone should be more in line with anti-vaccine movement or outright mention misinformation, like in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy. VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, deleting the "controversy" part would probably give a better article name. "Opposition to water fluoridation"? But that belongs on the talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a better name Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Race and genetics

    Race and genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    An IP wishes to change the POV of the article to include language about race being a "near perfect" indicator of ancestry despite a strong consensus among editors and the best sources that this is not the case. See this and this. Note that this IP was recently blocked for a week for Jew-tagging [13][14]. If anyone else cares to weigh in or just keep an eye on the article, that would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Begich (author)

    WP:FRINGEBLP recently de-merged from HAARP conspiracy theories. Citations don't seem adequate to meet WP:BIO beyond WP:ONEEVENT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bélmez faces

    This article essentially treats parapsychology as a serious field of study whose conclusions can be seriously considered to possibly be the truth, which does not align with scholarly consensus given it is considered to be a pseudoscience. At no point does it mention this. I’m not up to cleaning it up right now but I wanted to make draw attention to it (if there’s a good tag to use, tell me). Mrfoogles (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Service: Bélmez faces (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FRIND sources that are cited like Brian Dunning, Joe Nickell, and Skeptical Inquirer state the "faces" had been faked. Yet these sources are buried within a WP:GEVAL pile of fringe sources. Ironically, it looks like a number of the fringe sources agree that it is a fake. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe editor

    Special:Contributions/Realnaga User:Realnaga. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide evidence to substantiate your claim. Realnaga (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [15] Removed information identifying Van Sertima as a fringe scholar.
    [16] Same thing with Yosef Ben Jochannan.
    [17] This edit to Frances Cress Welsing is somewhat more marginal but still iffy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made edits to poorly written sentences and paragraphs. I did not remove any relevant information that wasn't already covered on the pages themselves or linked articles. Realnaga (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Realnaga, as you have already been informed on your own talkpage, the lead section is supposed to summarize the article, so it's appropriate that there is some repetition between them. Have you not looked at your page and seen this? It was posted some 12 hours before your post here. As for the material being already covered in "linked articles", that's irrelevant. An article, especially a biography, is supposed to be readable and informative by itself, without the need for the reader to jump elsewhere. To sum up: you're not doing yourself any favors by insisting here that your edits were appropriate. If you're really a new editor (?), it would be better to take onboard the advice you get from experienced users. Bishonen | tålk 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Fringe and Yasuke

    Check out WP:RS/N#Yasuke_book - the author at the center is a minor professor named Alaric Naudé who seems to have started a private business school registered in France to provide a level of artificial credence to a publishing house he is involved with that only publishes his books and possibly one other author who is also a professor at the same Korean college at which he teaches. The RS/N piece is all over but the crying but Naudé is cited on a few other articles - neither of which are for things within his specialty as a linguist (one is him criticizing Prostasia and the other is something to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls). This guy is pretty fringey and getting up to some stuff that smells funny with the private college / publishing house so I thought it would be wise to get this onto the Fringe noticeboard radar. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I only came across one cite right now (was the other removed?) Here he is cited for the statement that This manuscript shows the use of the tetragrammaton in the 1st century. It looks like he is the only cite in the entire paragraph that actually talks about the scroll in question (Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever), with the rest of it being a huge pile of WP:SYNTH to make an argument about what that means... but I haven't looked too closely to see if it could be fixed by finding better sources or something. The statements being made there don't pop off the page as "oh my god this is obviously fringe" (though it's so specific you'd have to be an expert to spot that at a glance), but it does look synth-y and should probably be removed or reworked based on that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, after reading that bit about the tetragrammaton that's possibly something within the area of study for which he has a degree. It's about the only use of this author to which I wouldn't immediately object. I suspect that quite a lot of the explanatory text that follows is likely sole-sourced from him though so I would worry about bit about WP:DUE and might put a WP:COPYVIO review to my eventual to-do list. Simonm223 (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An update - an attempt to start at a COPYVIO review led me down a bit of a rabbit hole and now I am not sure if the publisher is legitimate. Considering Naudé has falsified publishers before in other contexts I am throwing the question of the publisher's legitimacy to WP:RS/N. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Spooklight

    The Spooklight uses a photo of the Paulding Light. Some have said on the talk page that this is "at least misleading" and that "they are not the same thing." [18]. @Mastakos: Geogene (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I added that image to replace an older depiction of the Spooklight that I removed both for copyright reasons and because it seemed fantastical. I fail to see why one picture of a distant headlight against a dark background can't represent another distant headlight against a dark background elsewhere. Unless of course you believe this crap is actually something other than headlights, I just don't see the problem or how this is "misleading", since it says what it is right there in the caption. Geogene (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be as if you used the same photo of the sun in articles about many different cities with the caption "Sunset over the city". Sure, technically, it's the same hot gaseous star and one photo of the sun could theoretically be used to represent all photos of the sun in any city on earth. But shouldn't a serious encyclopedia strive for better? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The caption has always clearly identified where the photo was taken, so no, it wouldn't be like that. Sure, the encyclopedia could do better -- someone could go to that very specific country road in Missouri and take a public domain picture of car headlights there, just in case car headlights in Missouri are somehow different than elsewhere.
    By the way, Battle of the Milvian Bridge has a photo of a Sundog that wasn't taken at Milvian Bridge. Shouldn't that photo be removed on the same grounds? That would be like what is being argued here. Geogene (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the Paulding Light photo is placed at the top right of the Spooklight article and they are two different topics. This violates MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. If there was a significant mention of the Paulding Light in the article further down then possibly its inclusion would be warranted. It would be better to just have a link to the Paulding Light in the See also section and add Template:Photo_requested to encourage someone to provide a relevant image to the article. IMO. 5Q5|✉ 14:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE before, but it says, Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated. That is an exact match to the case in question. Geogene (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE begins with Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. The "topic's context" for The Spooklight is a light phenomenon on the border between Missouri and Oklahoma. The Paulding Light is in Michigan. Since there is currently no image of The Spooklight in the article, it is opinion that the Paulding Light is similar in appearance. Again, the issue here is primarily the prominent placement of the photo at top, not its exclusion from the article or placement further down. Can you find other articles on Wikipedia that provide a photo at top that is not a match for the topic of the article? 5Q5|✉ 14:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment: Some websites, such as a Google search, will take the photo, omit the caption, and display it as though it's the real thing. 5Q5|✉ 14:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is not decorative, and you have no basis for saying that it is. It is significant and relevant, and you haven't made any convincing argument that a picture of car headlights on a page about car headlights would somehow be irrelevant, unless of course you're pushing a POV that these are not car headlights. Your characterization of the subject as "light phenomena" is pro-Fringe. Your statement that "it is opinion that the Paulding Light is similar in appearance" is also pro-Fringe. Tthe non-fringe POV here is that these are all car headlights. And that is what the real problem seems to be, that some Wikipedia editors and IPs want to push a fringe narrative that the Spooklight in Missouri is somehow different and unexplained and not 100% certain to be car headlights. But sources like skeptic Brian Dunning do say that it is car headlights, and Dunning says it is the same as other locations where car lights are being misidentified as mysterious lights. [19]. Including the photo is consistent with the MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, and I don't see why it can't be at the top of the page. Nor do I care what Google does with the page when it appears in search results; address all complains about that to Google. Geogene (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPA please, and a little less WP:BLUDGEONING would be appreciated. Bear in mind that policy-based WP:CONSENSUS among editors is the preferred outcome rather than editor exhaustion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And additionally, The Joplin Toad [20] has posted non-free pictures of the Spooklight that are visually identical to the photo of the Paulding light that's in use in the article. There is also this non-free image [21] and this YouTube video [22] linked to from Dunning's page. So, no, it's not just some personal opinion of mine that they look the same. I'm amazed that this might require a formal RfC. Geogene (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RELNOT: Content must be directly about the subject of the article. MOS:LEADELEMENTS: As with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. MOS:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. The lead image on The Spooklight article should specifically show the Spooklight and if none is available, the Template:Photo_requested can be added to encourage someone to upload one. 5Q5|✉ 15:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: The lead image on The Spooklight article should specifically show the Spooklight There is no policy or guideline that requires that. We have already gone over MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, which explicitly doesn't require authenticity Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated.. According to that I could use a staged photo of any distant light against a dark background and it would be usable, as long as it "looks like" a genuine photo of the Spooklight (which let me remind you is not a paranormal phenomenon). I can use any generic picture of car headlights, as long as it looks like "authentic" Spooklight photos on the web. Now that I'm aware of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE (thank you for introducing me to that) I'm prepared to do an RfC to enforce the guideline if necessary. Geogene (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll kindly repeat my question, the answer to which will help support your argument: Can you find other articles on Wikipedia that provide a photo at top that is not a match for the topic of the article? In other words, that violate MOS:LEADIMAGE? The apparent consensus on Wikipedia is that lead photos should illustrate the topic specifically. Thanks. 5Q5|✉ 17:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already asked and answered above with the MOS. Suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My question has not been answered. In any event, this discussion has moved back to The Spooklight's talk page. 5Q5|✉ 13:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Plant perception (paranormal)

    I have proposed a deletion and redirect of this article as the content is mostly about Cleve Backster which is duplicated content from his own article. I also believe it is misleading to have an article on "paranormal" plant perception as this is not an independent or recognized field of study. We have Wikipedia articles on plant cognition (plant neurobiology) and Plant perception (physiology). Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a WP:BLAR and maybe a merge of some content if appropriate would be easier. Than prodding it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the best thing to do is to have an article called plant intelligence where all the plant perception paranormal content and the plant intelligence/plant neurobiology stuff is mentioned on one large article. The plant cognition article has an incorrect title as all the WP:RS refer to the field as "plant intelligence". I believe the article title needs to be renamed. These articles have been a mess for over a decade. It's important to keep content on plant physiology separate from any of this intelligence content which is WP:Fringe. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, surely the best course of action then is to move the plant cognition article to "plant intelligence" and then WP:BLAR Plant perception (paranormal) to it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping to do this but Wikipedia would not let me per technical reasons. A user had already created a plant intelligence redirect years ago. About a decade ago there was a very poorly written plant intelligence article [23]. There was an old decision to redirect that article into Plant perception (physiology) which was a mistake. I have requested a rename and move on the plant cognition talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is for. I don't think the request will be very controversial so I would just go ahead and write it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Science based medicine at RSN

    Those who follow this board will probably be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Science-Based_Medicine"_blog MrOllie (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that the RFC was closed and immediately restarted in a new section, so you might want to look a second time. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic

    Article has been turned around in October and November (it now says the stuff does work [24]) based on a paper from 2022. Is this legit? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading the article, I don't see it as it having been turned around and now saying "the stuff does work". The overall tone of the article, especially the lead, are still strongly supporting the consensus that it's ineffective and likely dangerous. I do agree that those two studies that were included recently are problematic. There are tons of meta analysis and RCTs, so, to me, it looks like choosing to include those two is a pro-fringe cherry-picking of the evidence. VdSV9•♫ 13:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my wording was not quite accurate. My main problems are the inclusion of that study and the subsequent deletion of the picture from the lede with the justification potentially misleading infographic, since recent research is showing WHO might have been misguided on HCL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deathbed phenomena

    Since summer 2022, has become rather Fenwick-heavy [25], weasely and fringey. "Some scientists", yeah right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it worth rolling back to prior to the SPA edits in 2022? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on Science-Based Medicine

    May be of interest to this noticeboard's participants. Bon courage (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now there is round 2 [26] Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Stonemounds

    A link to Discover Stone Mound App has been added to Karahan Tepe. The app offers virtual guided tours to a number of ancient sites. I haven't downloaded the site, but am hoping someone knows something about it, and whether it is appropriate for our articles to link to it. Donald Albury 15:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like advertising and shouldn't be on WP. VdSV9•♫ 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The app is free, and I don't see anything for sale on the website. It says that the audio is recorded by archaeologists who worked on the sites. My concern is whether the information presented is in line with reliable sources. I'm not familiar enough with the various sites covered to confirm that myself. Donald Albury 18:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    World Mission Society Church of God

    Much of this article, especially the Evangelism and Beliefs section, has been rewritten to be more friendly to the church whenever possible; a number of things that portray the church in a negative light have been deleted, and the Evangelism section has been rewritten multiple times to say "It has been criticized as <doing X>, but the police say it is a legitimate religion" in reference to a police statement calling it a "legitimate church" in response to allegations that it was doing human trafficking, which is not really a statement on evangelism or cult status. Large portions are cited to the church, significant parts of the history section included, and there the Hapimo section of the Controversy section is just someone saying "Protests against this calling it a cult were staged, the protesters were paid, and the evidence was faked" (which is somewhat a suspect claim with regards to a cult) with no evaluation of the validity of the claim whatsoever.

    Logging this here because the editors trying to make the article more friendly to the church are very persistent, and much of the article has been rewritten; it is difficult to fix. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems like it'd be more appropriate for WP:NPOV/N. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of the reliability of the Journal of Controversial ideas

    This discussion may be of interest to people on this noticeboard. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Journal_of_controversial_ideas_redux Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I found a couple items in the Chronicle of Higher Education that may be usable; the relevant parts are quoted in this edit. XOR'easter (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Krampus: False claims regarding scholarship & antisemitic imagery, misrepresentation of sources, and other explicit examples of WP:OR

    Today I checked in with our Krampus and found a bizarre section on depictions of Krampus as antisemitic rather than just typical Christian imagery.

    I took a closer look at the sources and found that a user there had put together a section that intentionally misrepresented several sources, most of which don't even mention Krampus at all (discussion from me here). This section has likely caused who knows what to circulate on the internet for around a year now.

    We need more eyes on this article in general but an admin should really step in and take action to keep this happening again from this editor: this kind of thing is quite black and white and is just unacceptable, actively harming the project. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good catch, Bloodofox. It is indeed a shame that this poorly sourced material was allowed to stand for a year. I've watchlisted the article. I thought about warning the user but they haven't edited since April. Generalrelative (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional edits by a reincarnation believer on Ian Stevenson

    O Govinda has been adding tonnes of promotional and WP:Fringe sources at Ian Stevenson and removing sources critical of Stevenson's work. This has been going on since September. I have been bold and reverted their edits. See talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for bringing this up. I read that article recently and did feel like the whole "dismissal without consideration" and some other things there had some pro-fringe sentiment behind them. VdSV9•♫ 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a perennial effort from one editor that has been ongoing for at least a decade or more. It begins with innocuous edits like formatting citations, cleaning dead links, improving grammar, etc. If there is no response, next very subtle POV shifts are introduced, slight watering down of criticism, etc. If there is still no response, then critical material is trimmed and credulous or supportive material is given primary weight. At this point, usually someone steps in, reverts all the edits, and the article goes dormant again for a few years, only to begin the same cycle again. I was about to do the revert when Psychologist Guy beat me to it.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It is a type of stealth editing to make some slow minor edits but over time keep adding until the biased POV gets more and more. In general I am not a deletionist, over at A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada I supported a user's re-write of the entire article which was at first controversial. If edits (even controversial) are supported by good sourcing then that I will back them but in this case the sourcing is badly cherry-picked and mostly irrelevant fringe sources from non-specialists, there was a serious UNDUE problem. It's also concerning that this user claims on the talk-page that information cited to a critical source is "not upheld by the source. At best this could be WP:synth, but its not even that". Yet when you click on the source [27] the text matched perfectly. The user removed the content without any consensus [28] claiming incorrectly in their edit summary "Verifications failed. Deleted OR". It's hard to come to any other conclusion that this was not done in good-faith because this material does not fail verification nor is WP:OR. This is a case of deleting sources they dislike and leaving false edit summaries. This isn't at the level of ANI yet but there has been a repeated pattern on and off regarding this type of behaviour on their account going back years from what I could see. If it continues into 2025 a topic ban may be appropriate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a similar cycle that happens on Talk:Parapsychology every year or so, a push to 'right the great wrong' of not recognizing parapsychology as a science, citing AAAS, Etzel Cardena, etc. It's currently in the ascendant phase now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    David Berlinski

    Article about a creationist and therefore a traditional playground of pseudoscience-deleting philosopher-of-science wannabes. Th last of them threw a fit after being reverted. It's OK now but both the article and the user merit watching. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what was going on there, the editor removed pseudoscientific twice [29], [30] then added it back in [31]. Looks like WP:Disruptive editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They go through articles replacing "which" by "that", and they did it in that article too. As they were at it, they also removed the "pseudoscientific" as an aside. I reverted that, and they got angry, said incomprehensible stuff and called me a fool for a reason known only to themselves. Then they seemed to have noticed that was a bad idea and reverted the "pseudoscientific" deletion to save face or something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Denis Noble

    Denis Noble has been editing the "The Third Way of Evolution" section of his article for a while. Parts of the this section now read as promotional. There is definitely some WP:COI editing here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    He appeared in a video online? Stop the presses!
    The Forbes story it mentions turns out to be a "contributor" piece. XOR'easter (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uzziah

    This is about Uzziah's name appears in two unprovenanced iconic stone seals discovered in 1858 and 1863. The first is inscribed l’byw ‘bd / ‘zyw, "[belonging] to ’Abiyah, minister of ‘Uziyah", and the second (rev.) lšbnyw ‘ / bd ‘zyw, "[belonging] to Shubnayah, minister of ‘Uziyah."[1][2] Despite being of unprovenanced origin, they are the first authentic contemporary attestations to the ancient king.

    Reason: mainstream archaeologists are not allowed to even comment upon Mykytiuk's claim. Unprovenanced objects are taboo: discussing them breaches professional ethics and maybe the law. Just to be sure: I'm not speaking about Wikipedia editors, but about professional archaeologists. Mykytiuk is a retiree and apparently not an archaeologist. And Avigad died in 1992. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Avigad, Nahman (1997). Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. ISBN 978-9-652-08138-4.
    2. ^ Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (2004). Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. pp. 153–159, 219. ISBN 978-1-589-83062-2.


    Shouldn't there be something like "According to jewish tradition," or another similar type of attribution, before the claim that "Uzziah was struck with tzaraath for disobeying God" in the second paragraph of the lead?VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Identifying fringe

    Imagine a world (unfortunately, the one we live in) in which there is a significant amount of unresolvable polarization. Editors are locked in a dispute:

    • A: We can't cite Source1 because they're PROFRINGE. We should cite the widely accepted Source2.
    • B: Source1 is widely accepted and not PROFRINGE. Source2 is the PROFRINGE one!

    and things get worse from there, until (if the rest of us are lucky) a passing admin declares a block on both your houses.

    Given:

    • The individual editors have firmly entrenched viewpoints. They are absolutely, invincibly convinced that they are right. (Also righteous.)
    • The individual editors declare a "he said/she said" approach to be a WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PROFRINGE promotion. Articles must only say what the True™ side says.
    • Editors cannot agree on what "the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" actually are.
      • For example, ____ is the prevailing view in my filter bubble but not in your filter bubble. Or maybe it is an interdisciplinary subject, and the prevailing views depend upon whether one is applying the lens of Department A ("This terrible disease must be eradicated to prevent suffering") or the lens of Department B ("Our greatest artists had this so-called disease, so curing it would diminish humanity"). Or maybe there is a cultural or national aspect, so that what's normal in my country is very strange in yours (e.g., gay marriage is an unremarkable, ordinary thing in California but not in places with capital punishment for homosexuality). This is not necessarily just due to POV pushing by editors, because there are real-world divisions.
    • The debated sources are more like 'authors' rather than 'documents'. They might be an informal group ("pro-rightness political scientists" or "that little clique that always cites each other's papers"), but editors are probably talking about it in terms of a specific organization ("Society for the Advancement of Political Rightness" or "the Paul administration").
      • Wikipedia editors seek to shun or ostracize the Wrong™ side: If the author has ever been associated with the Wrong™ people/groups/ideas, then nothing you've ever written is acceptable, unless you have undergone ritual purification and redemption by publicly renouncing your prior evil ways/associations.
    • In some cases, the debated sources directly address each other, each calling the other names like pseudoscientific or fringe.

    Given all this, how does one determine which groups really are FRINGE? Is there a checklist that says things like "See who's getting cited in centrist newspapers" or "If both of the supposedly FRINGE groups are getting their stuff published in decent scholarly journals, then you should assume that neither of them are FRINGE"?

    I have the feeling that we're going to need more of this during the next few years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What you say above applies to 1% of the disputes about fringe. For the rest 99% is a slam dunk.
    Like that judge who defined porn as "I know it when I see it". Meaning when ARBCOM sees it.
    Of course, if WMF were headquartered in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the definition of fringe would be wholly different from ours.
    Some editor has reverted my edits to WP:ABIAS, wherein I stated that acupuncture is not pseudoscience in China. They believe in the universality of science, while I have studied the sociology of science and have doubts about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    99% slam dunks but it seems like still a lot of effort required to get other editors to give it up. Should tban faster. Like the last point you make, hard problem. fiveby(zero) 13:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that it's 1% of the disputes but >50% of the effort. Simple cases are simple. We can solve the simple cases with an explanation or by waving at policy, and if necessary, with the regulars WP:PILINGON until the Wrong™ side retreats.
    I think that complicated situations would benefit from more of a procedural approach. Template:MEDRS evaluation gives me a format for explaining how I arrive at a conclusion about a medical source What's a similar list for allegedly PROFRINGE sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the complicated %1 i think editors do often become focused on source 1 and source 2 (or just a few sources), usually just snippets of text in each an not reading entire works. My understanding is that an encyclopedia article ideally should be an introduction and summary of the entire body of literature. Due to WP's policies it is really easy to just google and ctrl-f for particular phrasing or label and is sometimes an unfortunately effective argument on talk pages. Making a best sources argument seems much more difficult and often dismissed as OR. I really wish someone would expand the WP:BESTSOURCES policy. If it is really complicated in a well documented area then editors should step back and look to bibliographies and literature reviews, not for use as sources or content, but for selecting and organizing the sources themselves. Tertiary sources as examples of how to organize the content. fiveby(zero) 13:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We talked about re-writing BESTSOURCES recently. It's a bit of an Easter egg, in that it doesn't address any of the things that people would expect from that shortcut.
    For this, I'm more interested in the problem of authors being 'tainted' or 'untouchable'. Imagine one of those "Have you no sense of decency" moments: "We can't cite them. We can't cite them even if the paper is also co-authored by Einstein. We can't cite them even if it's published in the world's best peer-reviewed journal. They are/were part of The Evil Ones, and they and their views can only appear in Wikipedia for the purpose of calling them evil." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty rare isn't it. Andrew Wakefield and Marianne J Middelveen come to mind. They don't co-author with Einstein (who had some pretty fringe ideas, mind you, in his dotage). Bon courage (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's rare in politics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't know about that! Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll turn most questions into a best sources argument. Find the best source(s) for the topic, see if they include the view, how contextualized, and whether those sources call them evil. Really very WP:PROFRINGE myself tho so throw in all the views and cites to whatever, just write non-fiction and don't confuse the reader. fiveby(zero) 04:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the edit you are referring to, then, I would characterise it as saying a few more things than just that acupuncture is not pseudoscience in China. I'm also not really convinced that there's an academic consensus in favour of traditional Chinese medicine even in Chinese academia, even if MEDPOP and government sources tend to be more favourable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't live in a moral void. We live in the Free World, and we should be proud of it while it lasts. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not try to invent problems to solve before they arise. GMGtalk 18:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's too late for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then the burden is on you to provide specific examples of intractable conflicts that need resolved. GMGtalk 21:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Since I'm asking whether we have any existing general advice that would be widely applicable, then proof that specific examples exist does not seem really relevant to me. If you only choose to participate in discussions when you can deal with what's sometimes called the low-level details of an exact situation (Exactly which words were used to describe that Trump nominee, and exactly which publications, with what reputations, have used those exact words how many times?), then that's fine. Anyone who is interested in the general case is still welcome to share any advice with me or point to any essays they're aware of. Surely after all these years we have something. If not, maybe we should write it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've seen specific examples that fit the profile WAID is describing, do not believe that the problem doesn't arise in significant cases, and agree that discussion in the general case could be helpful. (We already see below how a general discussion can be derailed by what looks like a specific re-hashing of a previous talk discussion.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing Would I be remiss in assuming that this thread is an allusion to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM)? The ones the SPLC not only list as a hate group but describe as the "hub of the anti-LGBT pseudoscience movement", who are described by various RS explicitly as a "fringe group", called out by more for misinformation, who push unevidenced theories and work with people famous for conversion therapy (and are in fact famous for creating a new kind: gender exploratory therapy)? The ones referenced as a key example in nearly every peer-reviewed article on trans healthcare misinformation for the past 3 years? The ones who have been repeatedly called our for evading peer review by producing copious numbers of letters to editors? Or is there another group this is alluding to? I've seen you defending them recently so I'm applying occam's razor, but I'd like to be wrong. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to where SPLC sit on the MEDRS pyramid? Void if removed (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SEGM is, unfortunately, only one of several disputes that I see a similar theme in. The others are mostly WP:AP2 subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The general problem you point out is certainly on display in the SEGM article. Citing A.J. Eckert at Science Based Medicine to say they are mistaken. Picking and choosing the sources based on what they say to define fringe rather than looking to the best sources. The best might indeed say the same but i can't really trust that from a quick look at the article. fiveby(zero) 16:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From another quick look at Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, it seems that a deeper dive is needed on how there came to be what looks like a preponderance of unattributed or cherry-picked opinions in the lead. But again, by focusing this discussion on SEGM, diversion from the broader discussion has already resulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case neither source would be fringe since they have equal or similar support. EEpic (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support from whom? If it was a source you'd never heard of, what would you check first to find out more? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support from reliable sources. If there's no clear winner, the mainstream view, then nothing would be a clear fringe. If there is a clear winner or a clear group of views that are well supported in a variety of sources then the less supported ones can be called fringe. EEpic (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have said, if the majority of RS say it, it's not Fringe (though here we may well restrict this to "qualified RS"), if a minority of RS say it, it is harder, but here we then would go with what is the mainstream opinion. If only a very few RS support it, it's fringe, if no RS support it's fringe. So really the only time there should be any don't is when there is a (more or less) a 50 50 split between relevant RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So 'HIV causes AIDS' is the mainstream POV, and therefore the AIDS denialist views of Kary Mullis are fringe.
    But for any new claim, 'this new drug cures this cancer' or 'this policy will solve this problem', there might not be any FRINGE views under this approach, because there might not be enough RS to evaluate it.
    What's your approach to multidisciplinary subjects? Imagine that moral philosophers, feminists, and disability rights activists disagree over, e.g., something about abortion or embryo screening. Which field is the mainstream field? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be the fields in this example besides philosophy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Women's studies and Disability studies are academic disciplines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can sources even be WP:PROFRINGE? The way WP:PROFRINGE is written its editors who are PROFRINGE. How it talks about actual sources doesn't match what you're saying here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but the edit that introduced it can be. So then it boils down to issues like wp:rs and wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So both editor A and editor B are incompetent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No they may well just be misusing pro fringe as a shorthand for "this failed wp:fringe wp:undue and wp:rs, and maybe wp:or", it would depend on the edit (and the sources being objected to). This is the problem with hypotheticals. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Misuse is either a competence issue or a malicious one. In this sort of case (especially a hypothetical) we generally assume incompetence not malice per AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the wrong WP:UPPERCASE is exceedingly common, so I don't think we can even call it incompetence. Using precisely the correct word/link/advice page is important in a few instances (e.g., if you are writing a notability guideline, you should not write secondary when you mean independent), but it's usually just a vague wave meaning "policy says I win" or a honest mistake (the 'mistake' in question often being 'believing experienced editors who said this during prior discussions'). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you call it? If its wrong then it wasn't used in a competent manner. Precision is competence, someone making honest mistakes is lacking in competence (even if in a very minor way). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Precision is competence" is a viewpoint that I associate with autistic people, and the opposite (e.g., the tactful hint, the vague wave at the gist of the thing) is one I associate with neurotypical people. In the spirit of FRINGE, I'd say that neither of these viewpoints are FRINGE viewpoints, and also that neither of them are the sole True™ way of understanding what other people say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That "Everyone has a limited sphere of competence." seems to be consensus. Personally I find writing it off as autistic incredibly offensive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not dismissing it or "writing it off". I'm saying that in my own experience, these two viewpoints exist and are associated with two groups of people. If you are familiar with the Double empathy problem, then you already know why communication between these two particular groups of people is difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe give it another try without calling me Autistic (which is the clear implication of your association)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that many of our Autistic editors would be offended by anyone talking about their identity and their way of seeing the world as being anything other than a desirable thing, and certainly nothing to apologize for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You suspect that people in a given class would not be offended by you asserting that as a class of people they see the world in a specific way? "Autistic editors" don't have a unified identity or way of seeing the world, thats stereotyping and its offensive even when the stereotype is a positive one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be interested in reading about Autistic (identity), which is actually a thing, and it is based in part on seeing the world in a specific (i.e., non-allistic) way.
    It is true that some people with autism have internalized shame around this, but you will notice that I said "many of our Autistic editors" and not "every single human with autism". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like arguing that "Asian editors see wikipedia primarily in mathematical terms" its just offensive no matter how you want to justify it... And implying that any editor who approached wikipedia in mathematical terms was Asian would also be offensive, despite the stereotype being a stereotypical example of a positive stereotype. You're acting like I'm the one offending people here, you're the one making stereotypes and implying that I fit them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1262507328"