Jump to content

Talk:Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Welsh and Irish are Semitic?

From the fact that two thirds of the article is devoted to crackpot theories I infer that accuracy isn't a high priority, but surely listing the Welsh and Irish accounts under the Semitic heading is wrong. Qemist (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

fixed, but yes this is a crackpot parade.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

New evidence comes to light (European contact 20,000 years ago)

Washington Post story: "Radical theory of first Americans places Stone Age Europeans in Delmarva 20,000 years ago"

Surprised that this has not been mentioned here yet. John DiFool2 (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say because this article doesn't cover that time period. The media hype on this is a bit misleading, by the way. Eg, just because you find a mastadon tusk and a stone artefact in the same net doesn't mean that they are the same date. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I think perhaps the Solutrean hypothesis should be covered.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
As long as it's been proposed and discussed in the peer-reviewed literature. Otherwise, the situation is essentially the same as for the Penon Woman discussed above- an over-enthusiastic scientist running to the popular press to gain support for their unconfirmed research. Articles in the popular or popular scientific press are not sufficient evidence that a theory exists, and cannot be used to determine how much attention it has received in the relevant scientific community unless they are based on peer-reviewed studies. Reports like this in the popular press are dime a dozen, and practically always turn out to be flashes in the pan. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
W have an article on the Solutrean hypothesis, it seems reasonable to mention it here. Its not like this article isn't already a crackpot parade.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead says "theories that propose interaction between indigenous peoples of the Americas who settled the Americas before 10,000 BC, and peoples of other continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), which occurred before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492." The Solutrean hypothesis is about the origin of at least some of the indigenous population before 10000 BC. That's why it's covered in Settlement of the Americas and not here. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at this:[1].Thanos5150 (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Like Dougweller said, this has to do with setlement, not contact, as is therefore not within the scope of this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. And Thanos5150, that's based on a press release and has problems, but they shouldn't be discussed here. Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
No s$!t. All I said was you might want to take a look at it.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Basques

This thesis (citing Gad 67:196 & Dalgaard 62:index 447, "Biskayen"), inter alia, mention the legend that Basque whalers landed or at least sighted Newfoundland around 1371. If someone can find something more thorough and critical, it bears inclusion at least in the fringe theory section. — LlywelynII 04:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Tradition" = no evidence at all for claim. It's a dumb claim made centuries after the fact. If it should be included, it should be wholeheartedly condemned. And the whole Basque ships being sighted off Iceland in 1412 is another dumb claim that's already been confirmed to be false (see Fagan, Fish on Friday, page 203). It merely referred to "twenty foreign [my italics] ships fishing off Iceland". As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the Basques reaching the New World before the early 16th century, when we know they actually began whaling there. And the whole "following whales" across the North Atlantic is ludicrous -- it just shows you how little the authors repeating this dumb claim know about whaling (Selma Barkham, in her 1984 paper on Basque whaling in Labrador stated: "Contrary to the spurious claims of writers on the history of whaling who have based their findings on secondary evidence, the Basques never, at any paint, chased whales further and further out into the Atlantic until they collided with North America. This ridiculous legend must be laid to rest once and for all."). Baily'sMacomb (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Move Topa Inca Yupanqui theory to fringe

The Topa Inca Yupanqui theory seems to have very little support beyond Incan oral tradition as "recorded" by Spaniards. Anyway if Yupanqui sailed west he is most likely to have arrived to Galapagos (much closer than Easter Island and easy to access due to the equatorial current and easterlies) an unhabited archipalgo which is far from counting as a trans-oceanic contact. Chiton magnificus (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Menzies Minoan theory

This article is not called "List of fringe theories regarding Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" - it is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of theories proposed by cranks and crackpots, but an article about the topic. It should go without saying that Menzies theories in general, and his Minoan theory in particular is not considered a mention worthy theory by scholars working on this topic. Consequently it does not deserve a section in the article, and probably not even a single sentence. I will remove it again per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE untill someone can provide a source that shows that it is seriously considered as a part of the scholarship on the topic of this article rather than simply a random pop-culture meme.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why should it "go without saying"? Just because a couple of authoritative wikipedians have that opinion, everyone else is forced to agree with it? Come on, be logical. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No one has argued from authority. Arguments for removal are based in policy - specifically lack of sources showing any serious engagement with the theory. Your argument for inclusion is not based in policy since wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. You can add Menzies theory to the article about him where it will be relevant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This is what the policy WP:FRINGE says: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Maunus, I respectfully disagree. I think that Menzies' Minoan theory is notable enough to briefly mention because a best-selling author on pre-columbian trans-oceanic contact has embraced it in a book that has been reviewed by a reliable source.--Other Choices (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It has been reviewed as a work of art not as a theory about the history of the pre-columbian contact. It does not have a connection to the topic of this article. It may be notable for the inclusion in his own article but there is no way that it qualifies here based on the kirkus review alone. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Maunus, I'm talking about your opinion, your P.O.V. that this author's views are not notable and throwing your imaginary weight around requiring extra documentation to show that it is notable. You could probably delete everything on wikipedia if you are going to hold that high standard and keep raising the bar, as if you are afraid for people to be exposed to this theory on the relevant article. There is no real reason to differentiate this theory from any of the other theories on this page that have likewise been ridiculed as "unnotable fringe". Submit the reference to the reliable sources noticeboard if you want to make an issue; they will surely explain to you what for what purposes sources may be considered reliable. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I have not expressed a POV, I have evaluated the inclusion of the material in relation to policy. WP:FRINGE clearly and unequivocally states that not all published fringe theories are mention worthy in articles about the main topic. It may be notable for mention in his article, but not in the article about the general topic. Showing that would require prominent and serious coverage in relation to this topic which you have not even attempted to show, and could never attempt to show through a literary review, but only by showing scholarly engagement with the theory.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well it appears your 'evaluation' is in dispute... Like I said, if you raised the bar this high on every article, demanding more and more sources to prove something is notable, you could do away with most of wikipedia. But the point is we have plenty of room for published claims such as this in an article about such claims, and if the claims are as ridiculous as you seem to think they shouldn't be any kind of a threat to you to give them space. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Non-sequitur argument. By lowering the bar to the level you suggest this article would be a list of fringe theories and not a treatment of a topic and wikipedia would be an indescriminate collection of information. You have not addressed either the substance of the argument from policy (supported with a quote from WP:FRINGE) or the substance of the argument about the fact that this article is not about fringe theories, and so is not "an article about such claims.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The substance of your argument as I read, it was that you, User:Maunus, have singlehandedly conducted an "evaluation" of the notability of this author's claims with regard to the article topic. My response is that your "evaluation" was challenged by other editors. Now that you have called an RFC, we can get some evaluations from other voices, and abide by a consensus evaluation, if one emerges. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Pure obfuscation. You haven't adressed a single of my points but falsely alleged that I am arguing based on a personal dislike for Menzies. There is no policy grounds for including this fringe work and I suspect you know it or you would have produced a valid argument by now instead of simply dismissing them. Misrepresenting the views and statements of others like that is insulting and a form of incivility in itself - notwithstanding your bogus warning for participating in an editwar that you had self been constituting half of. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You are going over my response with a find tooth comb to find evidence of my "incivility" and "hypocrisy", but once again, you are pointing at a speck in my eye, when in yours, you wrote in an edit summary to me "Sod off wanker". I won't take lectures in civility from you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Which was a response to your own uncivil act of hypocrisy. So also don't take civilty lessons from yourself. The reason I responded to your that wy was because you were behaving in a way that was consistent with the response. You have kept doing so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Yet it seems you are holding me to a higher standard than you yourself choose to be able to meet for your own part, since I don't make edit summaries telling other editors things such as "sod off wanker"... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I will have to agree with Maunus on this and his interpretation of our policy. Why? I am a fan of Menzies having read a few of his books. Anyone that knows his work will agree he is a great pseudohistory writer but in no way scientifically credible. His work is entertaining and perhaps viable to some but its not based on current peer review scientific method.Moxy (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
In fact I have never read anything written by Menzies, am not familiar with him, and I doubt I will find time to read it any time soon. That's why, as a wikipedia reader who has never read the book in question, I much appreciate having had the chance to read a brief summary paragraph here, informing me of what his basic argument is, with regard to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories. But now, I resent that it has been deemed "not notable enough" for me even to read anything at all about in the first place. I feel it is an insult to, not only my intelligence, but that of our entire readership, and our ability to think for ourselves, that there would be a clique of users who "hand pick" what we get to hear about, and what we don't get to hear about. In short - use a different website if you want a more COMPLETE picture. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You are perfectly free to read about entertaining fringe theories if you so wish, but there is no reason whatsoever why you should be reading about them in this article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Any theory, fringe or not, can be included if and only if notability is established through coverage in independent, reliable sources. That's basic policy. The fact that a theory exists doesn't mean it it's notable enough to include here.Cúchullain t/c 14:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I have removed this fiction section again.. as per this talk there is no consensus to add fiction to this page.Moxy (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe added to Arabic contact

The Vérendrye Runestone was described as being written in "Tatarian" writing. The Tatarian was known to be written in Arabic alphabet. Also the Jesuit missionaries would be familiar with this alphabet.--Ashashyou (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Tartarian" script referred to in the article is a script that was used before the adoption of the Arabic alphabet. Even so, the relevence to this article would be extremely remote. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC: What are the inclusion criteria for Fringe theories in this article?

  • Comment Since the article is not titled "list of fringe theories about Pre-columbian transoceanic contact" this article should only include those fringe theories that are notable enough that they have received coverage in general treatments of the topic of transoceanic pre-columbian exchange. If an editor wishes to build an article with that title or titled "alternative speculations about precolumbian trans-oceanic contact" then that would be the place to include a coatrack of fringe theories, even though presumably that article would also reuiqre inclusion criteria. In this article WP:FRINGE does not leave the option of including theories that are not the subject of discussion in seriours scholarly work about the topic of precolumbian transoceanic travel.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Only theories that have entered the scholarly arena of debate should be included ...meaning those that have some sort of academic publishing and rebuttal. Not simply a book that anyone can publish and contains no review process be the outcome positive or negative.Moxy (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Material to be included should be relevant, noteworthy and well-sourced. If it isn't seriously discussed in high-level academic or scientific sources, it doesn't belong at all in a article of this nature. In the Menzies case, for example, none of these criteria are met. As for relevance, the topic is scholarly and scientific, while Menzies' work is entertainment with zero scholarly or scientific merit or value. As for noteworthiness, mainstream sources seriously discussing the topic rarely if ever seriously include mention of Menzies' work. As for well-sourced, Menzies has a reliability rating of diddly-squat as far as scholarly and scientific topics are concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to limit inclusion to peer-reviewed discussion if a work is by an author who is sufficiently notable. For example, Gavin Menzies is notable precisely because of his best-selling books on pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. There are very few (if any) other writers in this category. WP:FRINGE states that "a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia." At the moment, Menzies' latest book is so new that there haven't been any peer reviews yet, but his earlier books were extensively dissected (as shown in the footnotes to the current version of the article), clearly showing that in general Menzies receives serious scholarly attention, even if they all disagree with him.--Other Choices (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean that we should include Ray Bradbury's science fiction writings in the article on cold fusion? Or Erich von Däniken in the article on the peopling of the Americas? Menzies is notable as an author of speculative fiction, not as a scholar or historian. His notability has no relation to this topic. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE clearly states that inclusion of an idea is based on the notability of the idea within the scholarly community, not the identity of the author. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
agree: There aren't any exclusion criteria for fringe-theories, since they are specifically excluded in the lede paragraph. The comment about notability is irrelevant, since Menzies is covered in his own topic. TEDickey (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The standard inclusion criteria is pretty clear on this stuff: a theory may be included if its notablity is established by coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources exist we can discuss including it, taking into account weight. If they don't, we don't include the material.Cúchullain t/c 14:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That is not quite correct. For example Mickey Mouse is a very notable mouse should he be discussed in the article on mice? The "Da Vinci Code" is a very notable book should it be mentioned in article on the life of Jesus Christ? The question that determines inclusion here is whether the material to be included is sufficiently notable in relation to this topic not whether it is sufficiently notable in itself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It goes without saying that material must be notable and relevant to the topic.Cúchullain t/c 19:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hence the question, "what are the criterion for determining whether a fringe theory is too fringe for inclusion in this article?" You just restated the general policy with no comment on what you think that means in the specific case of this rFc. How do you propose we judge whether a fringe theory is notable in relation to this topic. I don't mean to badger you here, I am just interested in hearing how you propose to solve the issue of the article turning into a list of fringe theories.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Maunus, your concern about this issue seems to be directly related to your derisive opinion that Gavin Menzies "is notable as an author of speculative fiction." That statement distorts this discussion and suggests a rather extreme POV and a personal agenda. If you used "pseudohistory" rather than "speculative fiction," you would appear to be more objective, showing that your opinion is more than just a personal rant. (That Mickey Mouse example was a bit over-the-top, too.)
It just so happens that I have been actively engaged in trimming the fringe theories on this article recently. Perhaps you or other editors could suggest other examples for deletion, discussing the reasons.
For example, how about the section on amphorae? That appeared once in the New York Times, but hasn't received any scholarly treatment. Personally, I'd favor removal of that sub-section, but I'm not going to fight over it. Maybe I'll just delete it and see if anybody puts it back.
On the other hand, how about the Sinclair/Rosslyn stuff? There aren't any academic citations there, but this is clearly a notable "theory" that many people have heard about, so it deserves mention. I trimmed that one considerably, but I favor keeping some sort of reference to it in the article, based on notability. The same goes for the current brief statement about Menzies' theory of Chinese pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Regarding his new book about the Minoans, perhaps other editors will feel that Menzies' notability as an author on the subject of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is by itself insufficient to include reference to his new Minoan theory until there has either been some scholarly discussion or evidence that the book has widespread popular appeal. If that becomes the consensus, I won't have any problem with it.
But to look at other examples, how about the reference to Mormon archeology? Is that notable? The single citation is from almost 60 years ago, so I'd be inclined to remove that one.
And there's the reference to one scholar's belief that an Indian temple depicts corn from America. There is no theory of how or when contact may have taken place, just a vague supposition that contact took place at one time. Does that qualify? Once again, my personal inclination would be to remove that one because it's not notable.
A similar debate took place over at the Newport Tower article a couple years ago. That topic had also attracted an unwieldy accumulation of fringe theories. The end result, in my opinion, was an article that was greatly improved. Dougweller took part in that earlier discussion, so I would be interested to get his views on the current crop of fringe.--Other Choices (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I would limit the finge theories listed to those which CURRENTLY receive serious consideration within the scholaraly/scientific community, with references exclusively from serious academic or peer-reviewed scientific publications. Pop-lit and pop-science sources just don't cut it. I was involved in deleting mention of the Jomon pottery theory and Penon woman theory (see sections above). Both had received ample coverage in news pop-science publications. In the first case, I traced the "theory" back to a journalistic error. In the second, the scientist involved jumped the gun a la Pons and Fleischmann and reported her preliminary findings in the pop-science literature. The theory never panned out though and she never published anything in the peer-reviewed literature.
I would support deleting all of the "theories" you mentioned for the same reason- questions of science and history are not settled by journalists in non-specialist publications. The amphorae have been explained as a mistake, and shouldn't be mentioned at all here. The Sinclair/Roslynn stuff is just plain blither. It doesn't even qualify as fringe. Minus serious consideration in academic or scientific sources, it should go. I don't think it is noteworthy just because it has been discussed elsewhere. Menzie's Chinese work is also not taken seriosuly within any of the relevant scholarly communities, and should go. I have to agree with Maunus that Menzies is closer to fiction than to a serious attempt at scholarship, on the order of von Daniken. Popular appeal doesn't really count for much, in my opinion.
I've gone ahead and removed the Medieval, Indian and Mormon sections. No one in the scholarly community takes them seriously. Legends have no place in this article unless they currently recieive treatment in academic sources, especially if they have been rejected. I've also removed the section on Icelandic genes, at it was sourced to a newspaper article.
We also have the problem of unconfirmed primary scientific reports, like the mummies, the Easter Island genetics and the capsicum peppers sections. In science, unconfirmed and undiscussed primary reports don't count for very much. That's why we prefer secondary sources. Unless there is evidence that these theories are actually being actively considered within the scientific community, I think they should go, too. Mentioning them here borders on synthesis.
Lastly, a lot of the stuff based on legends or old documents should go as well, again, unless they receive serious consideration in real scolarly sources. This article should not be a catalog of every fringe and beyond-the-fringe "theory" that has ever been proposed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It's obvious that many editors have worked hard on those sections, for you to offhandedly brush them all under the carpet without waiting for broader input is a bold move indeed Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Those are invalid argumets for restoring the material. If you have any valid and pertinent arguments to make, do so here on the talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but Dominus has unilaterally deleted it entirely down the memory hole. He must have an awfully high opinion of himself. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
You should comment more on substance and less on other persons. You are completely free to go back in the article history and copy the "deleted" information and past it into the link I've conveniently provided you above.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been busy editing. The material is still available and we are still talking, but why not start the new article now rather than edit war? We don't seem a million miles apart on the criteria issue. But I just woke up and want to deal with my watch list, exercise, shower, breakfast, you know. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have lost another valuable editor. It appears that Maunus has left - I think because of various attacks on him recently (this is not aimed at you, Til, it seems more to do with Dale Chock (see ANI), an IP whose edits have been rev/del'd, and a particularly nasty puppetmaster, Mikemikev. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Given that, I'm not sure it matters any more, but as Maunus directed the question at me I'll respond. One thing we should do is track down whatever sources exist that are actually on this subject - that is, sources that provide an overview of pre-Columbian contact claims and theories. This book by Michael Shermer has an article on it; it might be a useful gauge as to which individual theories are actually notable to the topic of supposed pre-Columbian contact.--Cúchullain t/c 13:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Due is clear on more extreme fringe stuff: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: More generally, the editors have to make a decision whether this page should become a dumpster site for about any hypothesis ever voiced, even the wildest fringe stuff, or whether we should establish a minimum inclusion criteria which upholds the quality and integrity of the list by being selective. I am all for the latter. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule I'm the first person to advocate the removal of content that doesn't pass empirical muster (especially if the sourcing is shaky), but I can't help but notice that the lead section (appropriately) goes to a lot of trouble of noting that many of the theories on the page are of dubious scientific value. To an extent this seems to condition the reader with the impression that this is a page as much (or more) about the popular mythology of pre-Columbian contact as it is about serious research and findings. I'd say this gives some leeway in what can be added, though clearly anything that is included should still pass notability standards on its own merits. The Mormon example that was removed, for example, I think should have remained - silly as it might seem to genuine researchers, this one is exceptionally old, is well known and documented, and even serves as a significant element of a major religion. Again, if this article were concerned wholly with critically examined research, I'd say it has no place, but the opening wording of the article clearly establishes otherwise. Personally I favor a solution similar to the dual-page approach that has already been suggested, only I don't think we need to go that far. The separate section for empirically discredited theories which nonetheless have historical or popular culture value in and of themselves ought to stay, but I find the title of that section at present ("Fringe"), inappropriate to the delineation we're trying to establish. Snow (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Snow's general approach. I deleted the Mormon paragraph because the Mormon view makes no claim about contact, but rather one-way settlement. My impression was that there is a strong general consensus to trim the "Fringe" department, and that seemed to be a prime candidate for removal because the Mormon theory is outside the scope of this article. If other editors want to keep it, I won't argue.--Other Choices (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, there's some tough calls, plenty of grey area. I can see how it got RfC. After reading through the "Fringe theories" section more thoroughly and giving the issue some more thought, I realized that there's another distinction that can be drawn between the various "fringe" entries that is relevant and can simplify things a bit. There's really two types of entry in that section. The first group are the traditional/historical tales, often found most vocally advocated by the region, or even religion, which most closely associates itself with the unsung explorer(s). Then there's a second class of modern or near-modern theories which have been discredited, have been dismissed as simply speculative, or have not been given any attention by serious scholarship or other institutions that could provide good sources.
Both categorizes are largely unsubstantiated in terms of modern empirical evidence that would influence, but entries in the first group mostly seem like fair game to me; by and large these traditional tales are going to meet the constraints of WP:Notability simply through virtue of their longevity, enduring influence on culture (regional or otherwise), and as historical facts in and of themselves. The second category is where things get complicated. Discredited reports should be included (or integrated into other parts of the article) if at one time they generated a substantial amount of support or debate in scholarship or interest in popular culture (and requiring good sourcing, needless to say). Unsubstantiated theories should only be included if they have generated a lot of debate amongst scholarship or attention in popular culture. Random theories that valid sources do not even both to address, I think it goes without saying, should not be included. I guess what I'm saying boils down to this: follow the sources. Some are clearly from dated sources and others are outright irrelevant (a flickr photo of a piece of pottery and the link isn't even valid anymore?). The hardest to spot are the examples of a source being provided for a theory where said source only mentions the theory in the context of disapproving of it, of which there are a few examples on the ref list. Sometimes these may still then be viable entries, as per the notability criteria mentioned above, and other times not so much. I suggest this debate will may not be solved so much by trying to find a blanket policy as by checking on each of those references, as best we can and debating their value as valid sources. At the very least it will cut the fat significantly and leave only a few that are well sourced but which people might still debate the noteworthiness of. It's not an easy solution, as it will actually involve a bit of work, but it may still be the most practical approach. Regardless, I think the title "Fringe theories" should be renamed something along the lines of "Unsubstantiated claims and historical reports". Not not only will this clarify the kind of content we want to include moving foreward, I'd argue that the current title for the section is not quite appropriate to the article -- if the information is really so distant from reputable sources as to be called "fringe", then it probably is not appropriate to most Wikipedia articles. That's just my semantic impression though, others may disagree. Snow (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion from Uninvolved editor responding to RfC. Two helpful perspectives come to my mind (using a couple of examples seen above):
1) What would the Encyclopedia Britannica have done? It probably would have mentioned Mormon archeology, in passing, and referred the reader to the Mormon article. It would never so much as acknowledge von Däniken. So there we have the dilemma. Therefore, a second perspective helps.
2) A Jungian approach. Jung would tie the religious Mormon view and the von Däniken fringe in the same bundle and refer to them as, perhaps, "cultural myths"-- giving each equal standing, and discounting the validity of neither. Since "myth" is as much a weasel word as "fringe" is a POV violation, perhaps we can include just about anything under a section entitled, "Cultural variations" and thereby allow what needs to be allowed, neither discounting nor validating?
--cregil (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think one of the problems about the fringe theories is that they are called fringe because they received popular (non-scholarly) write ups in recent times. For example, just because Gavin Menzies wrote a book about Chinese reaching the Americas doesn't mean there is no scholarly approaches predating his book. Personally I think that "less is more" in general, but when it comes to listing alternative viewpoints, labeling them as fringe when they are simply not majority views is over-reacting and verges on promoting the current "consensus" view as fact, when there is still much more work to be done in this field. --— robbie page talk 12:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
"the current consensus view" is the closest thing to a fact that exists in science.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. "What is fact?" is apparently being determined by a consensus (scientifically of course!). But, I thought that often there were differing -schools of thought- in play, with differing consensi on many matters - not a unified Board of Thought, or Central Presidium, or whatever, that passes judgment on which schools of thought are mentuionable. The existence of multiple schools of thought with differing consensi, just makes our job more interesting in faithfully recording all of their positions, which is what makes the difference between a good, comprehensive wikipedia article, and one that is blatantly skewed toward a particular pov. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes it is the case that there is no clear consensus in which case we must report different views with equal balance. This is not one of those cases. The views that disagree with the consensus (especially the one's not based on scientific methods or the one's operating outside of the scholarly discourse) are fringe views in the real sense of that word.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pre-Columbian_transoceanic_contact_theories/Archive_6&oldid=1148545013"