Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

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

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.

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

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

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

    Article alerts


    Today's featured articles

    Did you know

    Articles for deletion

    • 18 Sep 2024 – Steuart Campbell (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Namiba (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
    • 14 Sep 2024 – Rumpology (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion (0 participants)
    • 11 Sep 2024 – Cadborosaurus (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Piotrus (t · c) was closed as keep by Northamerica1000 (t · c) on 18 Sep 2024; see discussion (5 participants)

    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Good article reassessments

    Requests for comments

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Did CESNUR defend Order of the Solar Temple?

    [edit]

    CESNUR is a group founded by Massimo Introvigne, widely described as an advocacy group for controversial new religious movements, if not a group of "cult apologists". In 1995, CESNUR authors received funding from Aum Shinrikyo and delivered a report declaring the group innocent of the Sarin gas attack (which they were ultimately found to have committed).

    In 1995, Introvigne argued that Order of the Solar Temple members who died by mass suicide had acted on their own initiative as opposed to being victims of the leader's manipulations. [1] In 2001, French journalist Serge Garde [fr] accused CESNUR of "systematic interventions in favor of sects brought to justice", naming Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Order of the Solar Temple, the Unification Church and Aum Shinrikyo and opined that "all the sects know they can count on CESNUR" [2] Another source: "[Introvigne] then edits many anthologies, writes articles (mainly about Satanism) and defends sects such as Scientology, the Order of the Solar Temple and Heaven's Gate. " [3] (emphasis mine)

    Despite the sources, Order of the Solar Temple was removed from the list of groups that have been defended by CESNUR, citing BLP concerns. I'm inclined to think it should be reinstated, but wanted to get opinions here. Feoffer (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC) @PARAKANYAA:[reply]

    I do not know what Garde possibly could have meant by "intervention"; there was no intervention, everyone was dead, no one was brought to trial except Tabachnik - Tabachnik was not found guilty in any case, and Introvigne was not to my awareness involved in the trial. What could he have possibly intervened in?
    The media coverage of the OTS case was a mess, with otherwise reputable outlets printing garbage conspiracy theories such as high profile celebrities secretly being members, secret theories of US president involvement like Clinton and Jimmy Carter being peddled by otherwise respectable outlets, and high profile journalists like people cited above alleging that actually it wasn't a cult but a front for criminal politicians in France, or that they were all actually killed by the French government in a coverup - to me, this feels far more cult apologetic than any argument I have seen from Introvigne on this topic. The other source says he wrote works that apologized for the OTS, - what work is he specifically accusing of being sympathetic to the OTS? He does not say, I have no clue what this could possibly be referring to as he had never published a book or chapters in books on the OTS prior to the publication of this article.
    These are two vague passing newspaper mentions. You are accusing a BLP of defending mass homicide - the sourcing is not good enough to back this up, especially that to my knowledge there has not been a single extensive reliable source on the OTS published in the past thirty years that does not cite Introvigne (including works from more critical scholars like Kent or Lalich). I feel like someone would have brought it up. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Feoffer ping because I forgot PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I own almost every book about the OTS, and while there is a source that dedicates about a half page to complaining about him it doesn't accuse him of apologizing for them, which given this source's goals (aggressively attacking everyone who agrees with the official conclusions) it definitely would have done if it was able. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if we're talking about the "acted on their own initiative thing"... the leaders had been dead for a year, of course they had "acted on their own initiative" - as opposed to what, a Ouija board? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    as opposed to what, a Ouija board? Well, some people still act on others commanded them to do thousands of years ago...
    It's not that I know anything about the subject, this is just a minor nit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess? The article says this:
    "After the second suicide wave of Sun Temple members, in 1995 in Cheiry, Switzerland, Introvigne declared that they had acted of their own free will. The victims' act was said to have been motivated by desire for union with the departed leaders, who were already living in their new home on Sirius. He rejected the idea that psychological manipulation may also have been involved."
    Also this article contains a very blatant factual error - the second suicide wave was in a forest in France, not in Switzerland (Cheiry was the location of the initial wave), which further makes me doubt its accuracy. I think this may be in reference to this interview he did with L'Humanite, in which he says this:
    "It confirms that reductionist interpretations were not enough. When the first Cheiry, Salvan and Morin Heights tragedy was discovered, it was noted that this one was atypical in terms of the sociology of the people involved. Normally, in cult cases, we find mostly marginal people, this was not the case with the Solar Temple, where the people involved were cultured and functioned in a more than normal business manner. So the first interpretation was that these people didn't really believe in their religion, this is a front for money laundering. We also talked about the SAC, the secret services and so on. Although it was confirmed that there were links between the sect leaders and the SAC in France, which existed during the time of General de Gaulle, these relationships are not enough to explain the tragedy."
    This is in line with the sourcing. It is a point of discussion in many of the sources that the victims of the group were very rich and influential and not the typical cult victim profile, in which they were easily taken advantage of. That does not appear to be any more than that, which is said in most of the sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are your sources:
    • Velde, Koert van der (August 5, 1997). "Sekte-onderzoekers verblind door eigen inlevingsvermogen" [Cult researchers blinded by their own empathy]. Trouw.
    • Garde, Gerge (June 27, 2001). "Les liaisons dangereuses des universités lyonnaises". L'Humanité.
    • Louter, Michiel (August 13, 1997). "Kenners van het kwaad" [Knowers of Evil]. De Groene Amsterdammer.
    You might want to look again at the authors, publishers, and the "cult wars" dates of these opinion pieces and reevaluate if that is careful use. Introvigne could have and probably did make other statements, but here is:
    later published as a chapter in The Order of the Solar Temple: The Temple of Death. fiveby(zero) 20:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to this source, it mostly amounts to a theological background on the OTS with regard to "Neo-Templarism" (a group of esotericists who larp to this day as a continuation of the Knights Templar because some guy lied and said he found a secret document in 1805; you will find them on the talk pages of any Knights Templar page on this website complaining that no one believes them and that you can only listen to True Templar Historians). In any case it predates the 1995 deaths so is definitely not whatever alleged defense is mentioned above, since it does not discuss any psychological aspects in either a promotional or refutational manner. It is also one of the most cited individual works on the OTS (Mayer 1998 has it beat, and I think Hall & Schuyler 2000). Every work I've seen discussing that chapter/article seems to praise it, see:
    • "Religious movement scholar Massimo Introvigne has valiantly attempted to trace the lines of schism and fusion among these groups (1995). The task is not a simple one, for the history of concrete events has become mixed with imaginary history. Here, the wall of secrecy surrounding the enchanted inner Masonic world is also a mirror, reflecting anxieties of the everyday outer world. Thus, whenever the Masons surface in the news, fact and rumor and belief are quickly woven into contradictory conspiracy theories. [..] Tracing the arrows on Massimo Introvigne’s chart, one can easily imagine DiMambro rubbing shoulders with members of the Mafia, the Italian Masonic lodge P2, and the private Gaullist police organization, Service d’Action Civique. On the other hand, there is no proof for any of these connections." (Hall & Schuyler 2000)
    • "As Massimo Introvigne (1995) has shown in great detail, the origins of independent neo-Templarism can be traced to Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat (1773-1838), who in 1805 proclaimed himself Grand Master of the Templar Order. During the 1950s, French esotericist Jacques Breyer and later Raymond Bernard revived the Templar tradition, and by 1980 more than one hundred rival Templar orders existed across a wide spectrum, ranging from social clubs to organizations that indulge in sexual magic" (Bogdan 2011)
    • "Massimo Introvigne presents a masterly overview of the neo-Templar tradition and places the OST within it, explaining how its worldview offered both continuity and discontinuity with the predominant characteristics of the tradition. Introvigne’s treatment of the development of neo-Templarism, from the rise of Independent Neo-Templarism right up to the position of neo-Templarism after the 1970s is extremely useful and he manages to explain an enormously complicated process of evolution in a way which is a model of clarity. I would go so far as to say that Introvigne’s ‘setting’ of the OST and his step by step outline of the process of neo-Templar development is a ‘must read’ for anyone wishing to research this area or for anyone who wants to gain a better understanding as to why Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code was simply one other franchise of the business which is neo-Templarism. (Sean O'Callaghan's review of the 2006 book that reprints it, in Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review)."
    • "Massimo Introvigne (1995) provides a very detailed analysis of the relationship between the Solar Temple and various Templar organizations that have arisen since the late eighteenth century." (Chyrissides 1999)
    None of these indicate apologism, and I would be very surprised if anyone came away from reading this article with a view to the apologetic, given that it candidly discusses the mass murder they committed and their series of crimes committed prior. It criticizes the media for being "reductive" in making comparisons with Waco and Jonestown without noticing what made it different, however among the many criticisms of the media/response to this case this is probably one of the milder ones compared to Campiche or Wessinger for example. He classifies them as similar to a new religious movement but not a new religious movement (instead classing them more along esoteric lines, "new magical movement"), however as described in other sources, no one has really ever agreed as to what the OTS actually was, with pretty much every analyst saying something different. I don't think it's apologism or fringe, to say the least, but IMO reviewing this it further makes it seem implausible given that this work seems to be one of the most well regarded in the topic area. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    btw sorry for the words words words, it's just this is an extremely niche topic and I feel I should give context to those who aren't as interested in it as I am, haha. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with Parakanyaa that this material doesn't read as apologetics, and from the quotations in Parakanyaa's comment it seems like reliable sources don't think Introvigne's work on the topic is fringe or apologetic either. CESNUR and Introvigne get called cult advocates on Wikipedia and by some "cult war"-era journalism from more than 20 years ago, but academic religious studies (the relevant field for the topic) doesn't seem to regard CESNUR that way. The Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements (Scarecrow Press (an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield), 2012) says they promote a scholarly approach to the study of NRMs as a counter to inaccurate portrayals by the media and the anticult movement (76), and Introvigne personally has been published by Brill (publisher) (2016), Oxford University Press (2018, 2020), and Cambridge University Press (2021). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tukdam (Buddhist post-mortem meditation)

    [edit]

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

    I think the distinction being drawn here is that Tibetan Buddhism (and Buddhism more broadly) makes claims about consciousness independent of it being purely a function of brain activity, a hedge the papers seem like they're trying to recognize in the superimposition of a specific worldview onto a spiritual framework that exists independently of a Western academic tradition in light of the context of their field work. The edited in section seems to be alluding to, but I don't really think that people should be taking those hedges to make naturalistic arguments about theological worldviews. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia cannot claim that the corpses of certain Tibetan Buddhists that are good at meditating decompose more slowly than other corpses. That's pure balderdash. See WP:ECREE. Right now, it's not adequately couched as a belief. It's stated almost as fact in WPvoice. jps (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me rephrase the specific thing I'm reading in that: When researchers go in to work with minority communities around religious belief, it's generally considered extremely poor form to go "We measured it and the religion is fundamentally wrong". So what I'm reading in there is an acknowledgement that a lack of brain activity as the researchers see it does not necessarily carry weight as a theological argument, and shouldn't be treated or viewed as making such an argument to readers. This is extremely common language in religious studies.
    Right now, it's not adequately couched as a belief.
    Well, there is apparently enough evidence of a delayed onset of decay to justify some heavy-duty field work which could, of course, have a multitude of environmental factors behind it. But broadly I agree, I tried removing some of the links to Tricycle which is a Buddhist magazine. As a source Tricycle often points to academic secondary sources which'd have no problem with WP:RS but I don't think it should be the primary source for some more off-into-the-theological-weeds discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frontiers In? Seriously? We shouldn't use fringe journals to back up fringe claims. jps (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing about this topic properly is really challenging due to a lack of non-credulous non-Buddhist sources discussing the topic. I share jps concerns that Frontiers is a low quality journal publisher, particularly for medical-related claims like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m a rock guy more than anything else, so by all means edit away at that article, I’ve already removed a lot of the explicitly Buddhist sources being used to discuss the underlying data collection. I’m not defending the state of the article by any means. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible template suggestion?

    [edit]

    This is something that comes up a heck of a lot in both physics and linguistics articles, and I don't know if there's actually an avenue for something like this on Wikipedia, but I do feel there needs to be. I had a thought that either a mainspace or talk page template could be useful to help mitigate some slow-burn edit wars on topics which get too esoteric, and obviously anything declared in here would need some kind of talk page or wikiproject discussion to reference, rather than being just declared:


    I'm using the Altaic languages example here because it's a fantastic example of "there's a hell of a lot of sources simply claiming the wrong thing". Obviously this all runs up against WP:VERIFY, but when a topic gets esoteric enough it actually would be extremely helpful to be able to point to some past discussions on this. It would also potentially empower inexpert users to spot bad edits more consistently.

    It also could be the source of edit warring or fights in its own right, which could be a possible problem. Also, I tried minimizing where this template is picked up with noinclude tags but if someone sees that I've accidentally templated something in FTN please help me clean it up! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeals to consensus are a bit WPistic. I understand why consensus is appealed to (it's easy to verify), but it is ultimately invoked because we want Wikipedia to be accurate. It would be better if we said things that were less tied to "consensus" language and just said simple statements about divergence from the "popular understanding".
    BOILERPLATE ABOUT POPULAR UNDERSTANDING, VERIFIABILITY, ETC...The neutral way Wikipedia describes this topic is: "Altaic is a sprachbund rather than a language family."
    jps (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that almost works, and you're right in your objection that it does appear a bit odd to appeal to consensus. That said, for academic topics where it requires specialist knowledge to know that the general public's understanding is patently wrong, I worry that your description points to how Wikipedia handles it more than the actual understanding of the topic per WP:VERIFY. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I would say that your version speaks more to a Wikipedia "handling", but this is largely a matter of semantics. Maybe something simple like, It is a fact that Altaic is a sprachbund rather than a language family. Can't get more plain spoken than that :) jps (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be spicy but I do think there's value in something like that... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For a talk page notice, you might be looking for Template:FAQ. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen FAQs used that way before. Specifically on Talk:Intelligent design. jps (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a useful alternative, actually. Hadn't encountered this one before. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a dedicated FAQ piece will help us to avoid the platitudes that come ad nauseam with the popular discourse about Altaic. WP:RS/AC works good if we choose the right sources by the right people. In the case of Altaic, it's simple, just cite well-mannered mainstream critics of Altaic like Georg and Janhunen, and you'll get a simple proposition that only takes someone better that me in phrasing it stylistically well. It goes: everybody agrees that the Altaic languages form a sprachbund, and most mainstream historical linguistics agree that there is no compelling evidence to assume they're anything else, while a minority is still struggling to convince the majority that they have found evidence of a genealogical relationship buried in the signal of millenia of areal convergence. And NB this minority is not a bunch of linguistic flat-earthers engaging in mass comparison ala Greenberg (that's one of the piss-poor popular myths echoed in certain Reddit and YouTube bubbles). "It is a fact that Altaic is a sprachbund rather than a language family" doesn't capture that important nuance. –Austronesier (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New sources added to Gobekle Tepe

    [edit]

    This from the Daily Express just got added as a source to Göbekli Tepe. It is full of conspiracy theories. Coincidentally, those conspiracies were just raised on Talk:Göbekli Tepe. Donald Albury 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The article consists mostly of statements made by Lee Clare, one of the lead archaeologists of the site. To the extent that conspiracies are mentioned, they are rebutted in the article by him and other archaeologists.
    Summarizing it as being "full of conspiracy theories" is misleading. Hypnôs (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I scanned it too hastily. You're right. My apologies. Donald Albury 18:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    People in the Balkans

    [edit]

    Talk:Kuči (tribe)#RfC on origin of the tribe looks like it could use some uninvolved editors with a good grasp of how to evaluate sources for reliability (i.e., on some basis other than "gives the right answer"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I speak for everyone when I say "there's no way I'm touching that until WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT are enforced". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinese folk religion

    [edit]

    An IP user is ranting on the talkpage with some ridiculous claims, including that the Chinese invented agriculture 23,000 years ago. Could use some eyes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Cunning folk traditions" is euphemism for "folk magic" in early Mormonism

    [edit]

    I've proposed that Cunning folk traditions and the Latter Day Saint movement be renamed Folk magic and early Mormonism. "Cunning folk tradition" is an apologetic euphemism for folk magic. Feoffer (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, "cunning folk" is both the contemporaneous and current scholarly term used to refer to what were essentially folk magic practitioners in the era immediately following Christianity's writ-large declaration that magic was heretical. They also practiced folk medicine and other arts. There's a little bit of a crash course here and I'm not actually familiar with exactly how Mormonism approaches it but "cunning folk" is actually likely going to be the more general scholarly term as it applies to a Western magical tradition than just "folk magic", which imprecisely limits the cunning folk to only one of their arts. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Commented on talk, but I can also reply here. I should have been more precise in my initial comment. "Cunning folk" is not universally euphemistic, only in this context: the title of an article about early Mormonism. In this context and this context alone, "cunning folk" is a revisionist apologetic reply to mainstream scholarship about the magical worldview in early Mormonism. Feoffer (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Expect heavy opposition from true believers. Early Mormonism and the Occult may be a better name. Joseph Smith openly worked as a traveling witch who would help find missing items using a magic wand/rod. [4] may be a good reference. 166.205.97.2 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat on back

    [edit]

    Interesting source here:

    Money quote:

    Even on pseudoscientific topics, which invite controversy and strong emotions, the encyclopedia is surprisingly good. This is in part due to the work done by Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, ensuring that these pages fall on the side of the evidence and not wishful thinking. (In the interest of full disclosure, their off-Wikipedia organizing has been the subject of criticism.)

    This noticeboard comes in for some stick, but it is reassuring to have some external validation of the Project's approach to pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shame they don't really identify the real reasons why pseudoscience is kept at bay. GS is a part of it, but it's a small part of it. Wikiprojects (Medicine, Physics, etc...), WP:FTN, WP:RSN, efforts like WP:CITEWATCH and scripts like WP:UPSD or WP:CITEUNSEEN, WP:RCPATROL, WP:NPP, etc. all play a part. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Darryl Cooper

    [edit]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Cooper - Deletion discussion on a person known for promoting a number of crank theories regarding World War 2. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cargo cult

    [edit]

    The Cargo cult article has been subject to a lot of disputes over the last several months, due to popular (mis)conception of cargo cults being about building landing strips for airplanes to get material goods being worlds apart from the anthropological reality of a bunch of quite different Melanesian (largely doomsday) cults who often had little in common. Several people on the talkpage are insisitng that the popular conception/stereotype of cargo cults should stated as factual, contrary to recent academic literature on the topic. Given the limited participation on the talkpage so far, outside input would be appreciated. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside input would indeed be appreciated, but I don't think this summary here is quite right, see the talk page for more detail. Leijurv (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (In particular, per WP:CANVAS, your message is definitely non-neutral, and since forum is WP:FTN (why not WP:RSN?) the audience will probably lean critical (pro-debunking)) Leijurv (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RSN is about discussing the reliability of sources, but I don't thinkt that the reliability of any particular source is really the focus of the current dispute at the cargo cult talkpage. If you think that FTN is a canvassing board, then you should take it to WP:VPP, but given the failure to shut down pages like Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list I don't think it will be very effective. People are free to draw their own conclusions from the discussion. I asked an uninvolved person who is an expert in adjacent topics (Austronesier) and they seem to agree with my and Andy's perspective (see User_talk:Austronesier#Cargo_cults). I have also expressed conflicitng opinions about how exactly the issue of how the issue of "ritual action for material goods" issue should be framed, see Talk:Cargo_cult#The_"cargo"_in_"cargo_cult", and I agree that it is tricky. Many groups lumped into the "cargo cult" label by anthropologists don't necessarily fall under tha classic "ritual action for material goods" cargo cult framework, which makes writing about this topic enormously difficult. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply. You are correct that you and I have not disagreed on the reliability of sources, so I should have instead suggested WP:NPOVN over WP:RSN, my apologies. I see Austronesier's reply. I agree with their concern about not repeating as fact things that were later debunked. For instance, from my read, early reports were overly hasty in characterizing why these rituals were taking place. However, the issue I see is that it's not actually in dispute whether "ritual action in pursuit of cargo" actually happened. On Talk:Cargo cult I see a lot of dismissiveness - saying that the cargo cult story is a "pop culture myth" and such. I think this is painting with too broad a brush. Because when I actually look at the source that we agree is high quality, it clearly says in the abstract that cargo cults actually typically did do these things. What do you make of this? I would agree that the lede should avoid feeding racially charged stereotypes and such, but it also shouldn't hedge to the point of meaninglessness. I would love to find a compromise on this point. Leijurv (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I took it to NPOVN a few months ago when the dispute originally flared up, but there was little response as far as I could tell. I think part of the problem is that it's easy to see "cargo cults" as this abstract concept, but in reality "cargo cults" are an umbrella label used to lump together a variety of distinct religious movements who had their own particular beliefs and practices (Lindstrom says in the article that the term is used to label almost any sort of organised, village-based social movement with religious and political aspirations, which notably makes no mention of any sort of cargo, or even prophets or ritual action), and it's important not to lose sight of that. It's also important not to lose sight of the fact that Lindstrom notes that "cargo" in the anthropological literature meant more than mere manufactured goods and could also signify moral salvation, existential respect, or proto-nationalistic, anti-colonial desire for political autonomy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind, I'll go in on these specific quotes. The source says ‘Cargo cult’ quickly spread through Australian academia and beyond as anthropologists and journalists borrowed the term to label almost any sort of organised, village-based social movement with religious and political aspirations—movements that were increasingly on the colonialist and academic radar throughout Melanesia, as elsewhere. The problem I see, is that journalists borrowed the term. I don't think it's fair to take only the second part of the sentence, because when you read the whole sentence it says that the term was borrowed then used in an overly broad way. I would be okay with saying "Some Australian journalists and anthropologists borrowed the term to mean almost any sort of organized ...", but it's misleading to say quote only the second half of the sentence, and I definitely don't agree that this defines the term cargo cult in general. Rather than taking the second half of a sentence (whose first half undermines its utility as a definition), why not take the abstract of this article? It specifically talks about the modal cargo cult, here it is (emphasis mine): ... the modal cargo cult was an agitation or organised social movement of Melanesian villagers in pursuit of ‘cargo’ by means of renewed or invented ritual action that they hoped would induce ancestral spirits or other powerful beings to provide. Typically, an inspired prophet with messages from those spirits persuaded a community that social harmony and engagement in improvised ritual (dancing, marching, flag-raising) or revived cultural traditions would, for believers, bring them cargo. Ethnographers suggested that ‘cargo’ was often Western commercial goods and money, but it could also signify moral salvation, existential respect, or proto-nationalistic, anti-colonial desire for political autonomy. ... Secondly, yes, cargo can be more than mere manufactured goods, and it can signify those other more abstract concepts. The problem is that again you've cut off the first part of the sentence. (emphasis mine) Ethnographers suggested that ‘cargo’ was often Western commercial goods and money, but it could also signify moral salvation, existential respect, or proto-nationalistic, anti-colonial desire for political autonomy. The issue is that it's "often" Western goods. Or, look at the other source, Otto (2009), which says As far as Melanesia is concerned, the cargo cult concept highlights a range of millenarian ideas, cults, and movements that originated in the wake of Western colonization and, more often than not, involved a strong concern with the acquisition of Western goods—the cargo. So, yes, "cargo cult" (the term) has been used broadly, but that's a misleading quote and the abstract does actually give the typical characteristics of a cargo cult. And yes, cargo can mean other things, but "typically" or "often" it was actually Western goods.
    So I hope this makes clear the issue that I see, it's a matter of WP:DUE weight and WP:NPOV. It's undue weight to say that cargo cults sometimes foretold Western goods and sometimes didn't. No, cargo cults usually/typically/often foretold Western goods, according to the article's cited sources, and it wouldn't be neutral to imply otherwise. Leijurv (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TLDR summary: Since the sources say that the cargo in question was typically Western goods but could sometimes be a more abstract concept, we should convey precisely that. We should not editorialize that down and say that cargo was sometimes Western goods. Leijurv (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This dispute is based around a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be structured. Rather than accepting that the scope of an article should be based on that defined by academic sources (which for the 'cults', are essentially exclusively those of anthropology, since nobody outside anthropology has done any significant research), a handful of contributors, some at least apparently inspired by a social media post of some kind, have taken on themselves to attempt to redefine the article to only cover a small subset of the movements concerned, and to do so in a manner which promotes a misleading, frankly offensive and frequently objectively false popcult version of events. One which reduces complex behaviour in the realm of religion and politics to nothing beyond irrational imitation, and ignores almost everything that anthropology has had to say on the topic. And in doing so contributors have repeatedly misrepresented sources, concocted fallacious arguments as to why sources should be ignored, and refused to acknowledge that Wikipedia policy does not permit contributors to cherry-pick sources and redefine article topics to suit their own ill-informed agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly agree with Andy. If you take "Cargo cult" at its broadest, it is basically is equivalent to "new religious movement in Melanesia". I'm not saying that no "cargo cults" engaged in ritual action for material goods, but what has to be kept in mind is that many of the accounts of "cargo cults" reported by anthropologists were based accounts by colonial administrators and missionaries, who wished to present these movements (which were often opposed to the colonial administration) in the most unflattering light possible. I think Elfriede Hermann's account of the Yali movement in Cargo, Cult, and Culture Critique and Lindstrom's account of the John Frum movement provide adequate evidence of this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that if (big if) you take as definition the broadest pop culture overuse of "cargo cult", it becomes essentially equal to "new religious movement in Melanesia". I dispute that the lede of the article should center that definition. Rather, we should use a definition given in the highest quality academic WP:RS, such as Lindstrom (2018). I'm glad we agree that there were cargo cults engaged in ritual action in pursuit of goods, but the dispute remains as to whether that was typical, or rare. The aforementioned WP:RS says it was typical. I don't dispute that there have been biased accounts who wanted to paint cargo cults as a morality tale / fable in order to convey some lesson, or biased in the direction of simple racism. We should take care to avoid pushing such messages. But it would be WP:OR to jump from that to doubting basic claims about what happened, when these claims are supported in modern high quality academic sources. Leijurv (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To make a specific criticism, in your reference to Lindstrom (1993), on page 70, it says I avoid producing my own summary account of the John Frum movement. Readers will soon know enough of John as they scan the assorted stories of his movement. And, Otto (2009), on page 88 while discussing the Lindstrom (1993) source agrees, saying he states that his work deals only with texts and not with Melanesian realities. In other words, Lindstrom (1993) is about how Western accounts viewed and wrote about cargo cults, it doesn't actually describe "Melanesian realities". Therefore, I don't think we can cite it to cast doubt on Melanesian realities. We can and should still cite it of course to describe how cargo cults were misreported at the time, but it cannot cast doubt on modern day sources, that were not yet written (and, in fact, were written by the same person, Lindstrom!) Leijurv (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hello Andy, I don't believe I've done any of these things. I'm scoping using the article's existing academic sources (Lindstrom (2018), Otto (2009)), not "popcult" (see my last post ^). I don't recall seeing any recent social media posts about cargo cults. I apologize if I have said anything offensive, please let me know if/where I have. I think this is an overreaction to the question of whether cargo cults "typically" versus "sometimes" engaged in ritual action in pursuit of cargo, which involves a fairly straightforward look at the sources. I don't believe I have misrepresented sources, nor argued for ignoring any source. I have not cherry-picked, as these sources are already the two most cited sources on the page, and they're well-sourced summaries written by subject matter experts. You've called me ill-informed a few times, I would appreciate help in becoming more informed. Leijurv (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are 'scoping the article' by cherry-picking from sources to suit your own predetermined agenda. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the ethnographic literature makes it entirely clear that far from being focussed around attracting western goods through ritual, a significant proportion of the 'cults' either actively abandoned/destroyed such goods, or simply didn't concern themselves with them. There were real people, acting in reaction to complex outside forces - economic, religious, and political - in an an attempt to reassert some level of autonomy. In as much as 'cargo' was ever involved, it needs to be understood as a symbol for what the movements were motivated by - a desire to upturn the social order. Reducing this a a just-so story about people building mock airfields to attract aeroplanes is offensive. It is also mind-bogglingly wrong when describing events first documented in the latter part of the 19th century. Anthropology, in discussing the particulars of millennialist movements in Melanesia, chose to label these movements 'cargo cults'. All of them. Not just the few at the tail-end of the sequence that might have seen a C-47 landing on a grass strip. All of them. The ones that destroyed 'cargo' as well as the ones that engaged in ritual supposedly intended to 'attract' it (from their ancestors, and not from the USAAF, it should be noted). All of them. Because that is what 'cargo cults' mean to those that study them. If they mean something else to those who would rather not consider the complexities of real human behaviour, but instead reduce it to vacuous sound-bite myths about ignorant brown people, that is their problem not ours. Wikipedia is supposed to be promoting knowledge, not perpetuating ignorance based around a literalist popcult interpretation of a phrase that many within anthropology consider to have been ill-chosen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply. Going point by point. You've accused me of cherry-picking twice now, please substantiate this claim. I am reading the abstract of Lindstrom (2018), our highest quality academic summary WP:RS written by a subject matter expert, which is the most cited source in the article today. I also looked at Otto (2009), the second most cited source, and found more agreement. You have "pointed this out" repeatedly, and blustered that it's supported by the sources, but I have clearly explained (see on this page ^) that it isn't. Do I really need to paste in the abstract of Lindstrom (2018) again? According to the cited sources, actually cargo cults did typically engage in ritual actions in pursuit of cargo, which was typically Western goods. I have provided numerous quotes and analysis to support this, it's quite straightforward. Yes, I have no doubt many Melanesian religious movements had nothing to do with cargo of any kind, as you say, it's just that therefore those ones were not cargo cults, so we don't really need to talk about them, and certainly not in the lede of the 'Cargo cult' article. Yes, they were real people, and the article should absolutely paint a complete picture of what really happened, not the oversimplified morality fable. I don't agree that 'cargo' needs to be understood as a symbol for what the movements were motivated by, please provide a source for this. I've disputed this clearly in my previous post ^, Otto (2009) says that the movements more often than not, involved a strong concern with the acquisition of Western goods—the cargo, and Lindstrom (2018) says (emphasis mine) Ethnographers suggested that ‘cargo’ was often Western commercial goods and money, but it could also signify moral salvation, existential respect, or proto-nationalistic, anti-colonial desire for political autonomy. No one wants to reduce this to literally just fake airfields, however the cargo cult article already clearly states that building fake airfields/airplanes did happen. If that's WP:UNDUE to go in the lede, then sure that's easy for me to accept, as none of my proposed ledes mentioned airplanes or airfields, just WW2 logistics and cargo. So I don't believe I did what you call offensive. When discussing this, look what I said here: As I said, it's totally possible that I'm ill informed. Perhaps I should simply ask: in your reading of these sources, do you think that the "pop culture understanding" is something that didn't actually happen in real life? ... With respect to the pre-WW2 vs post-WW2 angle, you're treating this like a fatal flaw, but I have no problem accepting that Western colonization of Melanesia began before WW2, or accepting that the earliest cargo cults happened at that time, or accepting that the religions existed all along and merely adopted new beliefs (rather than being new religions). Then you reiterate that "cargo cults" as a term refers to all millennialist movements in Melanesia, not just those relating to cargo. The cited sources do not support your position here, as I covered earlier in this post. For the rest, my honest read is that this is verging on WP:ACTIVISM where you're trying to WP:RGW the common misconceptions about cargo cults... except for that the WP:RS are not actually on your side in the particular cases that I bring up, and they support some of the things that you call myth. Leijurv (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no point whatsoever in trying to discuss this further with you, given your absurd suggestion that I am engaging in 'activism'. Insistence that Wikipedia bases the scope of articles on that of the sources cited isn't activism, it is rooted at the very core of Wikipedia policy. Your repeated attempts, however, to shoehorn a facile narrow popcult definition of a complex topic into the article lede most definitely constitutes PoV pushing. Feel free to raise my alleged 'activism' elsewhere if you like, but I'd recommend a careful reading of WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, your response here is again doubling down on bluster without substance. My intent wasn't to offend by saying you sound like an activist, but, you really do, for example you suggested that I would rather not consider the complexities of real human behaviour, but instead reduce it to vacuous sound-bite myths about ignorant brown people. Yes, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. And so I've quoted high quality academic reliable sources written by subject matter experts like Lindstrom (2018) over a dozen times in this discussion, here are twelve diffs where I support my position with such quotes (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12), to no substantive reply from you (instead saying twice I "cherry picked", perhaps forgetting that Lindstrom (2018) is the existing most cited source on the article). Whereas you've quoted cited sources zero times, instead loudly insisting the sources are on your side. We are yet to see that, so why should we trust your personal POV over the reliable sources? Leijurv (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is disputing what about:

    A term originally from Melanesia that refers to a social movement during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries throughout the South Pacific in which native prophets promised the imminent arrival of ‘cargo’, or manufactured goods and money, if local people were to purify and harmonize themselves. During and after World War II, these movements gained a high international profile, and anthropologists explained them as a universal type of millenarian movement. By the 1970s and 1980s, anthropologists began to emphasize that they were grounded in the cultural creativity and assertiveness of local societies in response to social changes brought by modernization and globalization. Many cargo movements still exist, as political organizations or in churches.

    — Vivanco, Luis A. (2018). "cargo cult". A Dictionary of Cultural Anthropology. Oxford University Press.

    I see Lindstrom 1993 cited but not:

    • Lindstrom, Lamont (2019). "Cargo cult postmortem". The Melanesian World. Routledge.

    which he describes as Updated overview of the origins, anthropological uses, and afterlife of cargo cult—the term—and the social movements it once labeled. em. added. You can request at WP:RX. fiveby(zero) 03:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the reply. In your quote here (A term originally ... or in churches), I do not dispute any of that (except I'm not totally sure about if local people were to purify and harmonize, I might write more generically if local people engaged in certain rituals). The source that I've been referring to, also written by Lindstrom in 2018, is here, which is currently the most cited source on the Cargo cult page and I believe it's very high quality and written by a clear subject matter expert. I am promoting the abstract of Lindstrom (2018) as definition for "cargo cult". AndyTheGrump believes the definition is more broad, including all Melanesian religious movements regardless of if they had anything to do with cargo, and therefore he doesn't agree that we can say that cargo cults typically engaged in ritual in pursuit of cargo (despite Lindstrom (2018) saying so clearly). Leijurv (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone remotely familiar with the appropriate citation of academic sources will know that you don't 'cite abstracts'. You cite a document as a whole, and expect to have to justify what you say about the source according to what the entire document says. And any honest reading of Lindstrom will take note of what he has to say regarding the many ways anthropology has looked at the cults - absolutely none of which have reduced it down to the simplistic 'rituals to attract cargo' essence you are promoting. You are at least correct in stating that "AndyTheGrump believes the definition is more broad". I do, because that is what the sources say. Sources that see explanation - or at least a better understanding - of the events concerned coming about through looking at them as a whole, rather than at one arbitrary facet only found in some of them. Sources including Lindstrom, who you are cherry-picking isolated phrases from, while ignoring the broader discussion. We go by sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, you have to be kidding with this one. Please cite the relevant Wikipedia policy that suggests we shouldn't cite abstracts. We absolutely can, especially to determine how to summarize the topic in the lede of our article. I have supported my position with specific quotes from sources we agree are reliable over a dozen times (see this post), you have done this zero times. The abstract of Lindstrom (2018) clearly states that cargo cults typically engaged in ritual in pursuit of cargo, which was typically western goods. Where exactly in Lindstrom (2018) are you getting this overall "vibe" that that isn't actually true? If your definition requires reading between the lines, well, then that sounds like WP:SYNTH to me. The question of how to summarize cargo cults can be answered without WP:SYNTH by looking at the abstract of Lindstrom (2018), or at the definition given by User:fiveby in Vivanco (2018), which is actually a definition. Per WP:SYNTH I reject your proposal to engineer your own personal definition from your own personal reading and interpretation and summary of Lindstrom. Why exactly should we discard the abstract, which is Lindstrom's summary of Lindstrom, and instead use AndyTheGrump's summary of Lindstrom? Leijurv (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOABSTRACT would be pertinent, but more generally citing abstracts is like citing the backs of books. And if an editor has only read an abstract before citing a source, well – that's a red card. There is also the usual problem.[5] Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link! And lol at the image. I believe that's a higher standard as it's on the WP:MEDRS page though. And, if the thing we're looking for is a basic definition of a term, wouldn't an abstract be a good place to look? Especially since it's an encyclopedia entry, like the one that Fiveby linked. (specifically, the content that I'm trying to support with this abstract is that 'cargo cults typically engage in ritual actions in pursuit of cargo'). And I have read the source and several others, and pulled quotes all throughout. Leijurv (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been pointed out umpteen times already, the Wikipedia article is not 'defining a term'. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article ledes are supposed to summarise an article. Articles are supposed to be based on what the relevant sources have to say, in due proportion. And absolutely none of these sources engage in the sort of facile reductionism being promoted here. Instead, they are describing a whole slew of complex events occurring over many decades, only some of which involve 'pursuit of cargo', even metaphorically, and some of which actively rejected what little of it was already present. Wikipedia promotes itself as an encyclopaedia, not a source of popcult 'definitions' constructed to suit an ill-informed external narrative. The actual 'cults' (if the term is valid at all, which is currently the subject of anthropological debate) were much more complex, and more much interesting, and best understood by looking at the details, including the differences amongst them, Our readers are best served by learning about this complexity, and this debate, rather than having some TikTok soundbite version imposed on them. Wikipedia is not a platform for the perpetuation of ignorance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For your first four sentences As has ... due proportion, sure, that's the goal. However, there are complications to that ideal. First, and foremost, we don't get an exception to WP:SYNTH, that remains policy. If we have a lot of sources that say a lot of things about cargo cults, how can we know whether to summarize them in the lede as cargo cults sometimes engaged in ritual in pursuit of cargo vs cargo cults typically engaged in ritual in pursuit of cargo? Reality is complex and you and I are not experts. Can we do our own read of the sources and make a judgement call as to whether it sounds like a common thing or a rare thing? No, per WP:SYNTH, that would be WP:OR. So when you appeal to the complexity of the situation, such as by mentioning that some cults rejected cargo or ignored cargo, I am unmoved, beacuse we (you and I) are not actually tasked with reading all the complicated partially-contradicting sources and synthesizing a summary out of it, that would be WP:OR. The subject matter experts have already done this in high quality academic tertiary sources. You say that none of the sources engage in such reductionism, but, actually, they do. Lindstrom (2018) and Otto (2009), which I have quoted umpteen times, clearly say things like ... the modal cargo cult was an agitation or organised social movement of Melanesian villagers in pursuit of ‘cargo’ by means of renewed or invented ritual action that they hoped would induce ancestral spirits or other powerful beings to provide. Typically, an inspired prophet with messages from those spirits persuaded a community that social harmony and engagement in improvised ritual (dancing, marching, flag-raising) or revived cultural traditions would, for believers, bring them cargo. and As far as Melanesia is concerned, the cargo cult concept highlights a range of millenarian ideas, cults, and movements that originated in the wake of Western colonization and, more often than not, involved a strong concern with the acquisition of Western goods—the cargo. Given sources that clearly and plainly say "typically" and "more often than not", why should we trust your WP:OR over the reliable sources? Leijurv (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recommend you look up the word 'modal' in a dictionary, since you seem not to understand it. Beyond that, you clearly need to read WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Summarising the content of multiple sources is required by policy. Not that one even needs to do that to realise that ethnographic documentation of the 'cults' has never been based around the arbitrary distinction you are attempting to impose on the article. The source you insist on cherry-picking a phrase from goes into great detail regarding the differing perspectives and understandings that ethnography has offered regarding the 'cults'. What is synthesis however (if not outright 'making stuff up') is the sort of nonsense you were trying to force into the article only a couple of days ago: "Cargo cult is a term that refers to an oversimplified view of the cults and religious movements that sprung up around and reacted to World War II logistics and cargo colonizing and then abandoning Melanesia..." [6] Nobody who had actually made the slightest effort to research the topic before engaging in the discussion could possibly have come up with such drivel. It is completely, utterly, and hopelessly wrong. But having failed to get that ridiculous fairy tale into the article, you have apparently chosen to instead engage in 'research' by cherry-picking, in order to perpetuate your ill-informed perspective, rather than doing what Wikipedia requires: which is to put some effort into reading the god-damned sources, and only after you are familiar with the topic, as seen through multiple sources, then start looking for a way to summarise them. You don't start with the conclusion and cobble together dubious 'evidence' to back it up. Read first. Write second. And expect to take a few days over it (or a year or two maybe if you really want to gain any insight): it is a complex topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you're going for with "modal", do you mean to draw a distinction between majority and plurality? Even though it was just one word, I believe this is the first time you've responded to the actual content in a source, out of the 13 back-and-forths where I've presented quotes! That's great. With respect to WP:NPOV, I don't agree with your interpretation. Balancing viewpoints (okay) is different than doing our own calculations and judgements (not okay). In other words, sure, I can obviously see the tension between WP:NPOV saying to fairly represent viewpoints, while WP:SYNTH says we can't do our own synthesis. I don't think we're at that point yet though, since you are yet to cite a source. If we had multiple sources at hand that presented different viewpoints on the specific question of how often was it really for cargo cults to engage in ritual in pursuit of cargo, well, then we could have a discussion about WP:NPOV and how to be WP:DUE when weighing those viewpoints in the lede. But that's not the situation. You're instead asking for us to weigh AndyTheGrump's viewpoint, which comes from your judgement and summary of undisclosed passages from undisclosed sources, essentially asking us to trust your judgement without any citation, which goes against WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. To make my position crystal clear, if you have read a few sources, none of which explicitly said whether "engaging in ritual in pursuit of cargo" is "typical" versus "rare" versus whatever, and you want to, like, numerically summarize that as a "sometimes", in the face of multiple WP:RS that plainly say that this is actually "typical" or "more often than not", then that is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR and WP:RS. And I'm not cherry picking from a source, but rather citing three high quality academic sources, Lindstrom (2018), Otto (2009), and now Vivanco (2018). With respect to the first sentence that I proposed a few days ago, that's not my latest proposal, which you can find here. But, just to be clear, your indignation (such drivel. It is completely, utterly, and hopelessly wrong) is just because I was misleading about when this began? We don't dispute that cargo cults followed Western colonization (that's what the current lede sentence says), the problem is just that I suggested it was after WW2, and while WW2 was obviously a large cause of cargo cults, there were some that had happened due to prior colonization in the late 1800s? As I said in a previous post, With respect to the pre-WW2 vs post-WW2 angle, you're treating this like a fatal flaw, but I have no problem accepting that Western colonization of Melanesia began before WW2, or accepting that the earliest cargo cults happened at that time, or accepting that the religions existed all along and merely adopted new beliefs (rather than being new religions). I have no problem updating the lede to talk about Western colonization in general, and not mention WW2, which is a change I already made in my proposal. It is hilarious for you to demand that I put some effort into reading the god-damned sources when I have quoted cited sources in thirteen diffs (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13) whereas you have cited sources zero times. How about you put some effort into citing? I'm not being facetious, I am genuinely willing to find a compromise on the lede that's comprehensible and well-supported by a variety of high quality sources. Leijurv (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia cargo cult article currently cites 34 sources. I won't claim to have read them all, but I've certainly read a significant portion of them. Along with further material on the topic, not cited in the article. Lindstrom (2018) cites a considerable number of sources too. If you want to get an idea of why I'm insistent that your reductionist popcult definition doesn't accurately reflect academic understanding of the topic, you should start reading. If you can find a copy, Peter Worsley's The trumpet shall sound is as good a starting point as any, for someone not familiar with ethnographic writing: it is dated, and by modern standards some of the language used is likely to be considered questionable, but it has the merits of being an entertaining read, as well as being relatively accessible overview, including (in the second edition) a nice map detailing features noted for specific 'cults', and their location. A quick perusal of the map will indicate that 'Myth of the cargo' only features in around half of them. Beyond that, Kenelm Burridge (1960) is likewise relatively accessible, and at least some of the more modern material shouldn't tax the untrained reader too much, if said reader isn't overly concerned with understanding the minutiae of some of the academic points being made. You may find some at least of the more modern material a little harder going, fashions regarding appropriate academic style having changed somewhat, but some at least should be accessible to anyone looking for insight at a fairly basic level. Really though, beyond perhaps Worsley as an introduction, I'm not going to recommend a specific reading list, since my entire point is that there is a whole academic 'genre' out there, stretching back for many decades, all writing on the 'cults'. There is a lot to the field, with a whole swathe of ethnographers finding new things to say, and to debate about. If it was all as simple as your popcult version, what would they all have had to write about? Read some. Then read some more. And them come back and tell me that its nothing beyond imitative rituals for attracting western goods.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the pointers to "The Trumpet Shall Sound" (Worsley 1957) and "A Melanesian Millennium" (Burridge 1960), I'll look into those.
    It should not have taken thirteen back-and-forths for you to point to any source to back up your claims. Even still, you're pointing to books that are 389 pages and 296 pages respectively, and you're also saying that there's so much more to it that you can't point to a specific 'reading list'. Can you appreciate my concern, which is that you're pointing, very broadly, to the literature about cargo cults on a whole? That simply isn't verifiable. Imagine I were to say: AndyTheGrump, I've read all the sources, and my summary conclusion is that you're the ill-informed one, and ritual action in pursuit of cargo was, actually, typical of cargo cults, and I'll be updating the lede accordingly to say so. You would reasonably object on the basis of WP:V and WP:CITE, and you would reasonably ask me to back up my claims with specific references, page numbers, quotes, etc. Does that help convey why I think it's unreasonable that you won't give page numbers, quotes, or anything?
    Now, that being said, you have referred to a map in the second edition of "The Trumpet Shall Sound" (Worsley 1968), and you've said A quick perusal of the map will indicate that 'Myth of the cargo' only features in around half of them. First, I want to be absolutely clear that computing fractions for the cults labeled each way on this map is absolutely, 100%, textbook WP:SYNTH. We have WP:RS that clearly state that the myth of the cargo was present "more often than not" (Otto 2009) and that it was "modal" and "typical" (Lindstrom 2018) and that it was simply part of the definition of cargo cult (Vivanco 2018). That is my claim - exactly what these WP:RS say. If you want to dispute that, if you want to claim that "ritual in pursuit of cargo" was less frequent, it is not verifiable to wave your hands at the whole literature and say "my summary is that it just didn't feel like 'most', it was less than that". That's WP:OR, and it's totally insufficient at overruling the highest quality reliable sources. And them come back and tell me that its nothing beyond imitative rituals for attracting western goods.... This is not what I've said. It is not "nothing beyond". And my proposed lede paragraph makes that clear. Obviously there is so much more to it. So: The rituals mostly were in pursuit of cargo, but not always? Sure, no problem saying that, because it's supported by the sources. I do have a problem with saying The rituals sometimes were in pursuit of cargo and sometimes weren't because that is a WP:FALSEBALANCE slant that isn't supported by the sources.
    Regardless, I'm curious about this map so I'll play along. I'm looking at the map of New Guinea that's spread between pages 78 and 79 (it's hard to give a physical page number, but it's after "Theoretical Considerations" physical page LXIX and before "Preface to the First Edition" physical page 9). In this map, the legend says that the square indicates "Myth of the Cargo", and other symbols (circles, lines, arcs, triangles) indicate other beliefs/rituals/behaviors. It also appears that there isn't a single symbol per each group, but rather up to two (e.g. all seven of the groups plotted on page 78 have two symbols). I have counted the cults with "Myth of the Cargo" and without. On page 78, I see 5 with, and 2 without. On page 79, in order to keep count I labeled them with Y or N, I see 28 with, and 21 without. So New Guinea's total is 33 with, 23 without. Next, on page 80, the General Map has the zoomed out view showing 3 without, however, these are not in Melanesia, they're on the Gilbert Islands (Micronesia), Society Islands (Polynesia), and New Zealand. Finally, on page 81, the submaps have 7 with, and 10 without. The overall total is 40 with and 36 without, but if you only count Melanesia (i.e. exclude page 80), it's 40 with and 33 without. With the caveat that this whole endeavour is invalid WP:SYNTH, these numbers support my claim that the myth of the cargo was present "more often than not" (which is the exact phrase used by Otto (2009)). Leijurv (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote 'around half' intentionally. I certainly wasn't suggesting that we cite the map. Instead, I was indicating that Worsley's book (which more than anything else was responsible for bringing the term 'cargo cult' to popular attention) concerned itself with 'cults' as he defined them, regardless of whether they involved any 'Myth of the Cargo'. That was the scope of his book. The 'cults', not a subset of them that fits your preferred oversimplification. The Wikipedia article is about 'cargo cults' as a topic defined by the sources, not by you. The exact percentage of 'cults' that concerned themselves with 'cargo' in any way is neither hear nor there. This isn't an article about the two words 'cargo cult'. This isn't an article about what people think that phrase ought to mean. It is an article about a topic from Melanesian ethnography, which, rightly or wrongly, chose to apply a two-word phrase as shorthand to cover the topic as a whole. We write about topics as defined by the sources. We don't impose our own definitions to suit our preconceived notions.
    There is an element of absurdity in this whole debate. Relatively few people get to read the ethnography of Melanesia. Wikipedia has little to say on the subject as a whole. But due to nothing more than the questionable use of a shorthand phrase, and the subsequent just-plain-wrong popcult retelling, we are here arguing over one small aspect of the broader topic that had it been given a less catchy name, would almost certainly never have been the subject of an article at all. If the article had been named 'Millennialist movements in colonial and post-colonial Melanesia' there would be nothing to argue about. An external detail (the label applied by ethnographers) is being fought over, while the movements themselves are being reduced to nothing but data to be used as 'evidence' in this Wikibattle. This is absurd. It is also offensive. Real peoples' lives deserve better than to become nothing but 'data' in a facile argument over a catchy phrase being conducted half the world away. More so, when some in the debate think it legitimate to dive in feet first without bothering to actually engage with the literature for any purpose beyond perpetuating their own preconceptions. If Wikipedia can't do better than this, it should seriously consider not attempting to cover such topics at all. TikTok ethnography shouldn't be a thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we latch onto and lock in this one point of agreement? That every single source, all three of the sources I already cited, and now the map that you brought up, agree that "more often than not", cargo cults engaged in rituals in pursuit of cargo? Even if this map included cults more generally, not just cargo cults, that makes the percentage even higher not lower.
    The exact percentage ... is neither here nor there Whoa, hold on, how do you figure? Given that we've just spent days arguing about whether or not we should write in the lede "cargo cults typically engaged in rituals in pursuit of cargo", it seems actually extremely pertinent. My concern this entire time is that the current lede hedges, waffles, and fence-sits, to the point where it says virtually nothing of substance. One key issue is that it doesn't even say that cargo cults more often than not foretold cargo, and that's what the disagreement has spiraled out from. For instance, your direct response to my proposal was disagreeing that cargo cults typically engaged in pursuit of a coming bounty of Western goods or money. So, now can we agree that they actually did?
    The Wikipedia article is about 'cargo cults' as a topic defined by the sources, not by you. Can you appreciate that my response is: "right back at you"? I'm painstakingly trying to delineate what's a cargo cult, what attributes did cargo cults typically have, etc with specific quotes from Lindstrom (2018), Otto (2009), and Vivanco (2018). You and I have failed to agree on this point that I think is foundational, where is the disconnect here? You say that the topic is defined by the sources, I also say that the topic is defined by the sources. I say: the issue is that I'm actually quoting cited sources, while you're referencing your general recollection of the overall literature. The former passes WP:V, the latter doesn't. It's just not how Wikipedia works!
    If the article had been named 'Millennialist movements in colonial and post-colonial Melanesia' there would be nothing to argue about. This is another critical point that I agree with. Like I said early on, I agree with User:JPxG here: write about Melanesian religious movements at an article about Melanesian religious movements, rather than shoehorning them into a different article, under a name that apparently is not used by the field, and instead let that one be about the idea of a "cargo cult" at the article about the phrase "cargo cult" There is a fundamental tension between "this is an article about cargo cults" and "this is an article about Millenialist movements in Melanesia". Right now, that tension is unresolved, hence why I originally called it WP:COATRACKing.
    This isn't an article about the two words 'cargo cult'. This isn't an article about what people think that phrase ought to mean. It is an article about a topic from Melanesian ethnography, which, rightly or wrongly, chose to apply a two-word phrase as shorthand to cover the topic as a whole. This is, again, the same pattern. I've quoted multiple reliable encyclopedia definitions of "cargo cult". You've appealed to your general recollection of the literature without quoting anything. We write about topics as defined by the sources. We don't impose our own definitions to suit our preconceived notions. You have not cited any definitions, you are imposing your own broader definition.
    An external detail (the label applied by ethnographers) is being fought over, while the movements themselves are being reduced to nothing but data to be used as 'evidence' in this Wikibattle. This is absurd. It is also offensive. Real peoples' lives deserve better than to become nothing but 'data' in a facile argument over a catchy phrase being conducted half the world away. Dude, come on. You brought up this map, and you said A quick perusal of the map will indicate that 'Myth of the cargo' only features in around half of them. and now suddenly it's incredibly offensive that I looked at the map and put exact numbers to your claim? Leijurv (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles are based on sources. Come back when you've actually read some. Read them properly, not googled-mined them for isolated phrases to suit your pre-determined conclusions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AndyTheGrump, this is mostly just a fight over the first paragraph of the article correct? I've only read Lindstrom here, but his work is pretty hard to square with that content. Of course the second paragraph does go on to state term has largely fallen out of favour and is now seldom used and Lindstrom does point to some authors making arguments ~20 years ago but the general theme and scope of the article and Hemiauchenia's "anthropological reality" suggests that the presentation is towards a valid and current concept within anthropology. Taking Lindstrom in isolation that might the biggest fringe concern with the article, especially considering his most recent "Postmortem" chapter where he is very disapproving of the term and concept. If i recall the last time this came up Hemiauchenia said something about expanding the body content. Kind of hard to do tho when all the effort goes into arguing over the first paragraph. This discussion should probably move to the article talk page. fiveby(zero) 15:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My intent with making this FTN post was not for the talkpage conversation to move here, but an invitation for others to participate in the talkpage discussion. I agree that the back and forth here is not productive. There are currently only 4 people participating in the talkpage discussion, which is not enough to achieve any kind of consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My first comment probably unproductively extended this thread. Was going to suggest on the talk page a moratorium on arguing "cargo" in the lead while the body content is expanded, but i've used up all of my WP time today. fiveby(zero) 15:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are probably right. The purpose of a lede is to summarise the article body. Something I've been trying to get across. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good on moving back to the article's talk page. I've written in a summary to kick off seeing about updating the article body. To anyone else reading this, we'd love your input over at Talk:Cargo cult :) Leijurv (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FTN and religious topics at the Village Pump

    [edit]

    I've started a discussion about this relationship between FTN and religious topics, and it may be of interest to people here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Koko (gorilla)

    [edit]

    There's a public misconception that Penny's claims that Koko could communicate effectively with sign language was a real thing, rather than somewhere on a spectrum of "self-delusion" to "absolute bunk". I've tried doing a substantial rewrite of the introduction to the article to remove a lot of the popular press treating Koko's communicative abilities as fact, but now there's a disconnect between the first few paragraphs and the rest of the article. Some other eyes on this could be helpful, as this is definitely one of those topics that the public's perception of reality is wildly out of step with the academic one. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Immigrants eating pets hoax

    [edit]

    Just requesting folks watchlist Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax. It's going to get massive traffic in the next few days and it has almost no watchers. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes needed on Genesis creation narrative

    [edit]

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

    The allergy to describing these stories as "myths" is still quite pervasive. I wish we could get over that. Identifying the stories as "myths" is not an insult to the stories! jps (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That reminds me of the conversation between Leonard's father and Sheldon's mother in The Big Bang Theory, where the father says he studies creation myths and the mother replies "I don't have a myth, I have the unerring word of God". Schazjmd (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential Lost Cause of the Confederacy WP:WEASEL issues on Origins of the American Civil War

    [edit]

    The first sentence for Origins of the American Civil War is worded in a way that attributes the centrality of slavery, treating it as opinion rather than accepted fact; compare the treatment in the main article at American Civil War. When I tried to fix it (the sentence is also just incredibly awkward due to difficulty of shoehorning weasel-wording into the first sentence) it was reverted. This article could probably use more focused attention overall anyway; if it has degenerated to the point where the first sentence is this bad, I would expect similar issues throughout the body. --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It says that the myth tried to argue that slavery was not central to the reasons for the succession. Also can you link to your edit, as I can't find it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Aquillion may be referring to this revision and similar? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh I misunderstood as the link to the lost cause made me think that was included in this discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion: it looks like this vague language was copied over into American Civil War, and replaced a section that may be useful to "Origins". I'll try to follow up at both articles, but wanted to post while it was on my mind, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act

    [edit]

    New article devoted to a small part of the US Defense Authorization bill of interest to UFO enthusiasts, showcases the notion that the US accepts the existence of UFOs controlled/created by "non human intelligence". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Descriptions of fringe theories

    [edit]

    A good chunk of the discussion at Talk:Springfield,_Ohio,_cat-eating_hoax recently has been about whether or not 'hoax' is an appropriate thing to call it. Does anyone know of policies or conventions similar to WP:DEATHS for naming hoaxes; rumours; conspiracy theories; or other fringe nonsense and disinfo?

    If there isn't one we should seriously consider such a policy—blindlynx 21:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See: WP:Article titles and especially the section on WP:COMMONNAME. We follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While Blueboar is right, I also agree with blindlynx that we should try coming up with a standard formula for what's a "theory/hypothesis" (e.g. COVID-19 lab leak theory) vs a "conspiracy theory" (e.g. moon landing conspiracy theories) vs a "hoax" (e.g. litter boxes in schools hoax).
    I can definitely see a pattern in those examples but I don't know if I could articulate it clearly. Maybe something like:
    • Are there any serious academic advocates of the idea?
      • If yes: [X] hypothesis
      • If no: Did the originator of the idea know it was false?
        • If yes: [X] hoax
        • If no: [X] conspiracy theory
    Loki (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously when there is a common name we should use that, but often in these cases we end up groping around for a descriptive title and a policy would be helpful—blindlynx 02:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an obvious problem with concentrating only on the originator is we don't even always know who the originator is and in some cases it may not even be one person. (For certain stuff, it's easily possible multiple people independently spread the idea not having heard it from anyone else, especially when it's relating to an earlier idea or something real.) Also it's not even always possible to be sure if the person knew it was false even when we know the person. But perhaps most significantly, in some cases even if the originator actually believed the claim to be true, most of the people spreading and amplifying the message may know it's untrue. Is it really right to consider it a conspiracy theory instead of a hoax in that case? I do think Bon courage's suggestion of misinformation could be useful for the cat-eating thing Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We (as Wikipedians) need to be careful not to violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV by using terminology that is not used by sources. It doesn’t matter whether WE might think something qualifies as a “hoax”… we should avoid that term unless the sources use that term. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally speaking, you are absolutely right, but using synonyms is also absolutely within the scope of NOR and NPOV. If the preponderance of reliable sources use phrases like "false, racist rumors" [9] or "baseless assertion" [10] or "false claims" [11] or "debunked claims" [12][13] when discussing this topic, it is reasonable and well within policy IMHO for us as editors to summarize those in the article title. Whether "hoax" is the best way to do so is another question, but I'd argue that e.g. Debunked claims of cat-eating in Springfield, Ohio is not the way to go either. Generalrelative (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of the Springfield cats, I suspect that there will soon be plenty of sources that will explicitly call it a “hoax” (if they don’t do so already), so I am not really worried about that specific article.
    The important thing for me is that our policy and guideline pages support each other, and not conflict. Since multiple P&G pages say we should defer to sources, I am reluctant to have this page not say the same. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agreed on this point. Wherever there is doubt about what to call something, we always look to and follow the sources. I don't see anyone arguing that we should amend the guideline to say anything different. My point is simply that following the sources may involve summarizing or paraphrasing when the terms they use are too clunky for an article title. WP:CONCISE, after all, is policy too. Generalrelative (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be noted that some sources do use "hoax" explicitly, e.g. [14][15][16]. Generalrelative (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we can follow the sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With wisdom and restraint, not cherry-picking our favorite descriptors, of course. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the issue in this specific case is that the person who created the rumour, the writer of the Facebook post, apparently believed it to be true. Which I think means it misses the intentional deception part of a "hoax". Most RS call it a baseless/debunked/false rumour/claim, which is accurate, but all makes for an awful title. It does appear some RS call it a hoax, but IMO I think they're being a bit clumsy when they do that. All that aside though, "hoax" makes for a much better title than "debunked rumour", so I don't really have a solution. Endwise (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's why i'm asking if there is a specific policy right? or if we should make one—blindlynx 14:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, the existing policy WP:TITLE is clear that editor judgement on a case-by-case basis will need to play a role when the various principles are at odds:

    Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.

    It looks to me like we're having that conversation here (and at the RfC), which is the appropriate thing to do –– so it's good that you brought it here but I don't think resolving once and for all which principles to favor over others will be feasible or consistent with policy. I agree with Endwise that "hoax" is not 100% ideal (it's not the most common name, though some RS do use it), but I haven't seen a better alternative. Generalrelative (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, the RFC is more about that specific article's title though ... this was more about considering cases where we don't have a clear common name or there are other titling problems so we don't have to have the same discussions over and over—blindlynx 20:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024-09 Yuri Bezmenov

    [edit]

    Hello,

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

    2024-09 Postmodern Neo-Marxism

    [edit]

    Hello,

    Do you think that it would be useful to discuss again the target of Postmodern Neo-Marxism 3 years later? Also is it doxxing if i notice than some Wikipedia username is similar to some outside-Wikipedia username? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You should focus on content on this noticeboard, not contributors. This means that an editor's username is very unlikely to be relevant in any case. If you have behavioral concerns and there is a possibility of doxxing, you can privately email an admin about them. Wrt the first part of your question, I have no opinion. Generalrelative (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're free to notice anything you like, in the privacy of your own head, but you shouldn't publicly reveal that connection unless the editor has already done so:

    Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes […] profiles on external sites […]
    — Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information

    jlwoodwa (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Jlwoodwa, this is exactly what i asked for. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act, NPOV, FRINGE and UNDUE

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Have relevant experts commented on the law? If not, then it may not belong in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Have relevant experts commented on the law?"
    Relevant legal experts have been included as sources in the article on the law Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 118–31 (text) (PDF), yes! The Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act article seems to trivially meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, and as far as legal experts, as the article is about a law... we have extensive commentary from members of Congress who wrote, debated and passed the law. Then this from a major DC law firm advising government clients and related on full compliance; the authors of that piece are themselves notable legal experts including Stephanie Barna. Other sources from legal experts include this, then the same legal expert again.
    How do we resolve the template that says X must be included when X doesn't seem to exist for a notable law? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All kinds of strange laws exist, not all of them notable. I think that this particular law is borderline in its notability. One problem we have with fringe theories is that sometimes "News of the Weird" allows them to get undue attention in ways that don't quite align to what we would require for NPOV. Explicit experts on "biological material" or "non-human intelligence" are required when discussing such matters. It doesn't matter if the context is a law or anything else! jps (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are terms used in the law itself. I don't think it's reasonable to tag the article because no experts have opined yet that the law mentions stuff that doesn't exist. Schazjmd (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What? If you have a law that uses terms which are not properly defined, how is Wikipedia supposed to discuss them? jps (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't our job to report what seconday sources say? Why would 'we' discuss them in article space, which would be WP:OR? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't report on secondary sources which do not exist. jps (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the disconnect is here. What does is matter if a secondary source doesn't exist? We can only link and use sources that do exist. You said:
    If you have a law that uses terms which are not properly defined, how is Wikipedia supposed to discuss them?
    Do we have a policy requirement that impacts this, or is this your own personal preference? If the former, I need you to link the relevant policy so I can use it. Thank you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If secondary sources do not exist, then notability can be questioned per WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is extensively sourced; and I want to do the 'good faith' thing, but I am suspecting you are dragging things out here for some end that I cannot see? If you have concerns on the notability please nominate it for deletion. At present I begin to grow concerned at the unwillingness to explicitly say what parts of the article are "NPOV" problems--a complaint has no validity unless it has merit, correct? Provide something actionable or do we remove the template for having been adding incorrectly? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as written is a stalking horse for credulity about UFOs being evidence for aliens. It is, essentially, functioning as a WP:COATrack. It needs cleanup at least. We may decide to trash it, but I'm not quite convinced that this is the necessary remedy yet. jps (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment here, to be honest, makes no sense. It's an article about a factually existing law, with 40-50+ sources (I could have gotten more if I wanted to 'pad' it, which I had no need to), discussed in multiple mainstream sources. The entire article is about the law.
    Just because the law says something, do we have a policy-based reason to somehow or in some way 'challenge' the law? If so, I will need to see a direct URL to a specific section of a specific policy, because that seems... patently WP:OR as a concept? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cannot see how this article is serving as a legitimation of the hyperbolic and farcical claims of the UFO cult, I'm not sure that you are duly prepared to work in this area. jps (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article reports on a law passed by Congress covered to where it easily meets WP:GNG or someone would have immediately given the passions some people have on this topic would have sent it to WP:AFD immediately, which I still invite if you or others think the law is not notable. If it's not sent to AFD, then it is notable. If anyone is performing legitimation, it's the United States government, which is not our job to challenge as editors here? As citizens, sure. But our job is to make an encyclopedia. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everybody is a citizen of that specific country, and although it is not our job to challenge the government of that country, neither is it our job to uncritically propagate any bullshit that government generates. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but it is preposterous, being blunt, to equate Federal law to superstition. Especially a law that does not say there are aliens; the law says if such things exist and are found, they are now presumed public unless POTUS tells Congress why they cannot be, putting their existence still 'on the record', if they exist.
    So the law is quite literally as written, "if such things are true, the public is now legally required to be informed," and that's it. The simple existence/reporting of such a law as an article, that trivially passes WP:GNG, is in no way is "uncritically" propogating "bullshit". If that is how this "FRINGE" lesser hieararchal guideline that is below our other rules interprets things, then the FRINGE guideline is a bit off-kilter, putting it mildly. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "bullshit"
    Oh please.
    Stop that kind of unjustified language.
    That is your opinion;
    other perfectly reasonable people have a different opinion . KHarbaugh (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your opinion that those people are perfectly reasonable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The article as written
    is a stalking horse
    for credulity about UFOs being evidence for aliens."
    That is reading way too much into the article.
    The law is essentially an if-then proposition.
    It certainly does not state the hypothesis is actually valid. KHarbaugh (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please explain how Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act fails WP:GNG potentially given the sheer volume of coverage and reporting over time, detailed at UAPDA#References?
    "Explicit experts on "biological material" or "non-human intelligence" are required when discussing such matters. It doesn't matter if the context is a law or anything else!"
    The article isn't about "biological material" or "non-human intelligence". UAPDA is about a new President/Senate nominated committee that would review government records that may be excluded from declassification in violation of an Executive Order from President Obama in 2009, and what the law described as abuses of the USA classification/restricted data scheme under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to conceal data. What policy or guideline on Wikipedia requires inclusion of experts on topics on an otherwise notable article? I would need to read that in case I need to update my other articles on laws, Born secret and Invention Secrecy Act. Can you please link me? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG is not a fait accompli. We can delete, merge, or redirect pages if the topic is fraught. That is allowed. jps (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining. Can you explain further how Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act may qualify for deletion and under what policy/guideline?
    I would still need to know how to resolve the NPOV/FRINGE tag on the article and would like to request you like where I can read on that for what precise actions would be required. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please address your other statement, User:ජපස? You seem to have said that experts are required to be cited in an article where a given subject is discussed, such as if a law covers "non-human intelligence" or any other thing? Would I need to find nuclear experts to cite to weigh in on the legal issues around Born secret or inventors to cite on Invention Secrecy Act? I can't find a rule/policy that seems to say that? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the WP:FRINGE board. The relevant policy is WP:NFRINGE. And while, in your other examples, I'm not sure WP:FRINGE applies, the first few searches I did found inventors commenting on the Inventions Secrecy Act and nuclear scientists commenting on "born classified" matters. Were you concerned that such did not exist? jps (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you explicitly stated:
    Explicit experts on "biological material" or "non-human intelligence" are required when discussing such matters. It doesn't matter if the context is a law or anything else!
    I am asking what guideline or policy says this is required because I need to read it. Will you please provide something supporting this? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already told you that the guideline under discussion is WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is non-productive presently. Please speak directly, as I am. You will need to link the specific section of WP:FRINGE that says experts of a certain 'sort' are 'required', as you intimated. Please reply with that once you have it. Thank you! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NFRINGE jps (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What part requires experts? I am asking you to link the section. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need people who understand the claims to characterize the claim. Necessarily experts. If the only people commenting on a fringe theory are adherents and non-experts, then there is no way for us to characterize the claim properly. For example, when someone claims to have a perpetual motion machine, the relevant sources to determine whether it is worthy of inclusion here are those who can evaluate the particular physical laws being violated. jps (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about a law, it's inception, it's structure and passage, and reactions. I have cited legal experts and similar. There is no issue there. This is not a science article; it's a *legal* article. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal experts are not routinely called upon to define terms "non-human intelligence" and "biological evidence" for such. If you know of any instance where that has been done, by all means let us know! jps (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reference to biological now is a single quotation from the laws own verbiage. What policy says a derivative topic under the main topic of an article (a Federal law) has any need for exterpise to define that term? I know you linked "FRINGE" before, but be reasonable and cite the explicit "chapter and verse". I found, still, nothing like this. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this single quotation deserve inclusion? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, but if we have no sources which identify what the hell a law means by a particular phrase, what are we supposed to do?
    Take, for example, laws relating to Huldufólk. We have lots of sources which identify the obvious peculiarities of such. In this instance, it looks like there isn't much in terms of comments by WP:FRIND sources as to what we are supposed to assume the meaning behind certain phrases and words in this law are supposed to be.
    This is a very interesting edge case, indeed, so it may be worth thinking carefully how to thread the needle. jps (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it may not belong in Wikipedia I'm wondering the same thing. There doesn't seem to be much WP:FRIND attention, at least not yet, and so it isn't clear that WP:N is met. Should WP have an article on each of the hundreds of laws that are enacted by the US Congress every session? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we did, there would be a problem with many of the laws being poorly written as courts often determine after the fact. I have no real issue with identifying that a law exists. I have a much harder time when we go into details considering the way laws do or do not ultimately end up mattering. In this instance, we do have a few sources which have reported on the law, but none really have addressed certain fundamental points of fact with respect to the law itself. As it happens, I talked with Schumer's staff about the thing and the response was one of "no one really expects it to be strictly enforceable". Makes you wonder why they wasted their time with it, but I suppose lots of weirder stuff ends up becoming law, it's just not the subject of tabloid obsessions. jps (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am uncertain that a law's mere existence is sufficient to meet WP:N. Thousands of laws exist in hundreds of countries. So what? If there are any examples of this law actually being applied in an important/significant way (that is, if its application is reported by reliable, secondary sources), then fine, it might merit an article. But it sure looks like an example of WP:TOOSOON to me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "But it sure looks like an example of WP:TOOSOON to me."
    Can we possibly not communicate by acronym? It seems unhelpful. How is the article "too soon", when I even went to my own trouble of specifically dating every single reference I added, and I have there from 2023-06-27 to 2024-06-12? Are 34 references spanning an entire calendar year from 29 or so unique sources WP:TOOSOON? I'm feeling like I'm answering every single 'notability' acronym you all are raising here, to where I'm wondering what the fuss is. It's notable. If not... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the explanation given at the link WP:TOOSOON insufficient? The number of references doesn't matter when they still don't demonstrate significant independent coverage of the topic—as opposed to primary documents and references for secondary claims that don't specifically mention the article topic at all. Remsense ‥ 论 02:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:TOOSOON explanation makes sense, but is not applicable to my what I see in the sourcing and coverage of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act. Would it be helpful if went through each source and specifically itemized how they are referencing the law and to what detail? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would seem difficult, as most were published years or decades before the subject of the article existed. Remsense ‥ 论 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 34 references that span from June 2023 to June 2024. Have you clicked edit on UAPDA#References and looked? I took substantial care in even organizing them by date. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those seem to be almost exclusively, if not entirely primary. I wasn't clear in that I was only considering secondary sources, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 03:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my response here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are notability concerns, perhaps we should get to the point and nominate it for deletion? Are you both looking at the same article, which has a huge number of unique sources from unique mainstream notable venues all talking about the law? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been dreading this, but we do at some point need to cover the fact that some pretty important people in the US government have started spreading unsubstantiated claims about 'objects in the sky where we don't know exactly what they are' and 'can't explain how they move'. One possibility is that it's just another Qanon, where high level government officials just start spouting fiction. Alternatively, they might just be talking about something non-fringe, either novel technology or natural phenomenon, and it's getting washed a way in the oceans of fringe fandom. I honestly don't know, I try to stick to the 1940 and 50s. It's a topic we should cover, but what a difficult needle to thread! Feoffer (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There's been an analogous position with climate denial and medical science for ages. Wikipedia can cope. Bon courage (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am throroughly flummoxed as well. The UAPDA is law, it passed, it's on the books, and it is live. The National Archives and Records Administration is already complying substantially. As far as I can tell every provision except the UAP Review Board and it's subpoena powers and the eminent domain portion passed and is law effective January 1, 2024. This is not a controversial or divisive position, it's simply fact, like the Internal Revenue Code. The entire UAPDA was already re-introduced for the NDAA 2025 with the previously omitted portions, and it's not a valid article source, but digging around all over for assets for this article, I found plenty of remarks by involved politicians that this would be introduced repeatedly until all provisions were law, implying not just back to back years, but three in a row should it fail. Will we complain about the article when people are being nominated to the United States Senate for confirmation? I honestly and truly understand if the article needs adjusting--I've yanked out over 20k of material from my initial draft and another 14k and counting today. But I cannot find a single reasonable or logical way this fails to pass any notability metric we have. None! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we're on the path to a fine article. "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon" sounds very "X-Files" until you point out Chinese Spy Balloons are UAP, and then a light goes off and you realize it's not about Mulder and Scully, it's about Beijing. Feoffer (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds good, except isn't this just WP:OR? Do sources link this to Chinese Spay Balloons? It seems the politicians introducing it are framing it as being about aliens.[37] Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not OR that Pentagon UAP task force (which preceded the law) confirmed the spy balloons were classed UAPs and that led to a reporting delay. And then, in addition to that, we definitely have people talking decades old conspiracy theories. Feoffer (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But are sources saying this is the background? In my (admittedly non-exhaustive) look it seems they're all focussed on aliens too, just like the politicians. Bon courage (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edgar Cayce

    [edit]

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

    Sahaja Yoga again

    [edit]

    There is a new RfC on this article's Talk Page. See: Talk:Sahaja Yoga#Request for comment on adding context to existing statement. Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    American Chiropractic Association

    [edit]

    American Chiropractic Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The fact that chiropractic is pseudoscience is now outdated because the SBM source is expired or something. New user insists on that and does not believe in rules like WP:WAR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted and watchlisted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They just need to wait for Nature to start accepting vibes-based analyses… Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1246540196"