Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
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: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Did you know

• 18 Oct 2024 – Tyromancy (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Jonathan Deamer (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

• 26 Oct 2024 – Picric acid (homeopathic remedy) (talk · edit · hist) →List of homeopathic preparations was RfDed by Trovatore (t · c); see discussion

Featured article candidates

• 02 Oct 2024 – Roswell incident (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 23 Aug 2024 – Epistemology (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); start discussion

Requests for comments

• 29 Oct 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 05 Oct 2024 – White lighter myth (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 27 Club by HadesTTW (t · c); see discussion
• 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion

Family Constellations

• Family Constellations (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Constellations jps (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger jps (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note that the article on the inventor is now soft deleted. Meanwhile, consensus seems to be pushing in the direction of having an article on Family Constellations. I honestly am not finding a lot of material on the Family Constellations therapy beyond what the inventors of it say and a lot of "laundry lists" that do little more than just identify it as one of any number of kinds of therapy. Critical evaluation is nearly entirely absent? Participants in the AfD seem to acknowledge that this is a problem, but no good solutions are apparent that I can see. jps (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If I could be arsed I might argue for merging it into transgenerational trauma. Bon courage (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Nauvoo Expositor's legal Analysis section

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

Motivated argumentation should be identified inasmuch as there are sources which identify it. Find a source which identifies it, if you can. Whenever there is a historical event involving the law, questions as to whether some action is "legal" or not is fairly irrelevant. The question is better framed as to what the arguments were that various sides made and what the outcomes were. The law is, of course, dependent on interpretation and application. Was Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland guilty of treason? Inasmuch as he was found guilty of treason, sure. But once the restoration occurred, the argument got flipped on its head. Not our job to decide who is right and who is wrong. jps (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The source clearly states that the analysis was performed by a ranking church member. There is no other analysis, because this is apologetics being passed as a legal review. Editors are opposed to explaining the analysis was performed on behalf of the church. 166.198.21.69 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The statement is pretty boring, I think. Even so, separating out this exposition into its own section strikes me as a bit WP:UNDUE. I've started a discussion with a proposed incorporation of this aside into another part of the article on the talkpage. jps (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@anon166 IP: is there a particular reason you opened this without noting so in the talk page Talk:Nauvoo Expositor or pinging the editors you are accusing of editing in bad faith? You are also mischaracterizing the source and text in question. The author was not a church leader or ranking church member when the analysis was published. At the time he was a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School and he is being cited as such. The analysis was not published in a sectarian or apologetic source, but in an academic, scholarly journal. It was not performed on behalf of the church. The source has multiple citations to it in academic sources. There might be other reasons to disagree on inclusion and presentation, but you've presented no evidence beyond your own assertions that this is a fringe legal analysis. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"The author was not a church leader or ranking church member when the analysis was published" are you sure? Dallin H. Oaks says that he became a church leader in 1959, was set apart in 1963, and we're talking about a paper published in 1965. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There are "General Authorities" and "Local Authorities" in the Mormon church. To be considered a "ranking church member" you'd need to at least be a "General Authority". Being in a Bishopric or even a Stake Presidency is far from being "a ranking church member". These are all volunteer position. When he wrote this, he was the second counselor in the Stake Presidency in Chicago. Epachamo (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe thats how it works if you're a part of the church but objectively he was a church leader and high ranking member. The second counselor in the Stake Presidency of a major US city is a church leader and high ranking member by any reasonable definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The difference between a Stake Presidency and First Presidency is IMMENSE. Maybe in the 1800s and early 1900s I would agree with you, but since the correlation department in the mid 1900s, the power of a Stake President has significantly diminished. They don't interpret doctrine. They don't control their buildings or even budget. The General Authorities do all that, deciding where buildings will be built, when to make a new branch, how much money a Stake needs to operate, what lessons should be taught, and on which Sunday's they should be taught. The fact that he was in a major US city is not relevant at all. There was and is a tiny Mormon presence in Chicago. Epachamo (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree on the difference between First Presidency and Stake Presidency. Also, Oaks was a second counselor, not the president, in the Chicago South Stake (it did not even cover the entire city of Chicago.) The term Mormon leader, which implies the entire church, seems an overreach in 1965. Bahooka (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

These are all leadership positions that you're describing. The term Mormon leader does not imply the entire Church, a leader in a local congregation is still a leader in that faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So now we're arguing about how powerful the leadership position was and how high the rank was? Because the statement was that they were not a leader and not a ranking member. If they're one of the most powerful leaders in a local congregation they are a ranking member, one of the top 1% of the religion. You can't turn around and argue that because the .01% has more power and prestige that the 1% aren't ranking members... That just doesn't make sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Its probably water under the bridge at this point, but FWIW, being a member of a presidency/director/high council at the local level puts you in the top 10% (no kidding). A member of the first presidency is literally in the top .0000001%. But that is just the statistical likelihood of being in that position. The difference in authority and power is several orders of magnitude greater than that. To argue that he was a ranking member gives the complete wrong impression. Epachamo (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there statistics on what portion of the membership is set aside we can refer to? From outside it seems like an important distinction, perhaps this is just my own lack of knowledge but what would be a comparable position in another hierarchical faith tradition like Roman Catholiscism? A lay brother of a religious order? A deacon maybe? From my understanding of LDS demographics 10% would be roughly half of all adult males (and only adult males are eligible to hold leadership postions) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps the right thing to say is that he was a "lay leader at the local level". I think that would give the right impression to both insiders and outsiders. Just off the top of my head, in any given ward (congregation), there are Bishopric, Elders Quorum, High Priest Group leaders, Deacons Quorum, Teachers Quorum, Relief Society, Young Mens, Primary, Young Womens, Ward Mission Leader. That's 27 people that are in a Presidency, just at the ward level, not the Stake level. From my experience, there are are around 150-250 active people in a ward, so around 10% are in some kind of presidency. These "callings" typically last between 3-5 years, but never more than 10 years, so virtually every male member is part of multiple presidencies during their life. The genius of Joseph Smith IMHO, was his ability to make everyone feel like they were super-special, literally children of God, and literally Gods' in embryo. This has carried in to the modern church in many ways. You get baptized, and the next week you get a calling. In two weeks if you are male, you are ordained to the Holy Priesthood. After a year you can go to the temple and receive an endowment of power to become a King and a Priest to the most high God. Epachamo (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Article def needs a lot of work. Feoffer (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Did a big POV-Cleanse on the article. Lots of POV language issues, but amazingly well-balanced for an article with so many POV issues. Language seemed quite partisan, but EQUALLY partisan. Assuming no pushback from either side, seems fixed. Also @ජපස, I'm not just UFOs -- any 'big' American NRM (broadly construed to include UFOs and even atheist Ayn Rand) from say 1780 to 2000 is something you can ping me on. Feoffer (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස, Bon courage, and Horse Eye's Back: Got some pushback after all. Article has scurbbed of all reference to the fact that Mormon scholars who denounce the destruction of the press have been subject to church discipline, while those who defend the the destruction have been elevated. Whatever one thinks of the events of the 1840s, this information is verifiable, but being deleted by proponents of FRINGE. Little help? Feoffer (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Lets avoid edit warring, the talk page discussion has been productive so far and it looks like this new editor is willing to participate in discussion (if from a particular POV). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Continued edit warring from editors who oppose readers knowing that Oaks was born to an important mormon family. NPOV violation to masquerade him as an impartial legal scholar. Feoffer (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Roger D. Nelson

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

Service: Roger D. Nelson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

--Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this guy notable in any way outside of some tiny woo circles? Don't see why it can't just be given the boot, though that's partially because I'm too lazy to re-write it. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I had trouble finding in-depth coverage from independent sources so I created an AFD. 0xchase (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Leaky guts

• Leaky gut syndrome (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is clearly the relevant guideline here. We don't cherry-pick primary sources to support a hypothesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• This episode is an interesting little example of how "due process" on Wikipedia is a mechanism to waste editors' time. A obviously bad editor making obviously bad edits; yet there needs to be the reversions, the warning, the Talkpage post, the noticeboard post, more reversions by multiple editors, and the miscreant keeps reverting with a giant FU. Bon courage (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And now an edmin has had to do a block and a notice, and then the IP reappears with a fresh address necessitating a RPP, which will need to be responded to (argued over). Amazing the amount of time Wikipedia allows one fucker to waste. Bon courage (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for some time too, but are there any admins left who specialize in medical or fringe topics? It seems like there's been attrition over the last 10+ years, so it's left to whoever is responding to the issue to do all the legwork you mention. KoA (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem runs deeper, and particularly affects FRINGE articles which aren't protected in some way. We're really long past the point where Wikipedia should require an account to edit, but that's long likely to change because "anyone can edit" is part of the brand, and quite a few people think it's a good thing! Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's not kid ourselves, any POV-pusher with the slightest bit of patience will just make a throwaway account and then you'd be back to square one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

While true, WP:SPI makes getting rid of the persistent ones easier. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt

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

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

Well he is not a Professional one, and he did do a lot of "archeology", well what he claimed was. And it seems to me that is his main area of notability, his spurious archeology. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I am mostly concerned that we are denigrating "amateur archaeology" with this identifier. There are legitimate and excellent amateurs active in archaeology. This is not one of them and the source being used to identify him as such isn't exactly one I would want deciding who is and is not doing legitimate work in the field. jps (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yet we have to say what he is primarily noted for, but in a way that dopes not imply expertise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoarchaeology is what he is known for. jps (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can find souces that call him a pseudo archeologist go for it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

• The sources on that article entirely fail to impress. Answers In Genesis (a canonically unreliable source, and even they think he was a nutter), "allthatsinteresting", which looks like a blog, etc. IMO the entire thing should be nuked from orbit. If we can't robustly source the thing he's known for (for certain, highly restricted values of known), then we should not have an article. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is some kind of reverse hierarchy of criticism going on here, where the farther out on the fringe you go the worse Wyatt makes you look by association. To the editors at BAR he is an amateur given little credence, Christianity Today calls him one of the most notorious of pseudoarchaeologists, but "positively reviled by creationists". It seems the more towards the fringe you are, the worse Wyatt makes you look by association. Can you use "these people make the other creationists look like pinko socialists"? fiveby(zero) 22:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Liz is requesting a source review of fiveby's list. Anyone up for it? jps (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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

No consensus close, so it looks like i've talked myself into doing some real work for a change. fiveby(zero) 00:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Time dilation creationism

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time dilation creationism.

New creationism "just" dropped.

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Humphreys

jps (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Elizabeth Loftus

• Elizabeth Loftus (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Weird stuff from "New Yorker (which I do not have access to) has been added to the article [2]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I deleted it. Loftus recalled something in court and the edit claimed that she recovered a repressed memory in court. Neither source says that. This should be watched in case it comes back. Zero^talk 11:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also see my talk page. Zero^talk 02:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)

• Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

Grail Movement

What do you think about [3]? tgeorgescu (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it outing to point out that an editor appears to be citing themselves? Asking for a friend. fiveby(zero) 02:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fiveby: Googling their username would amount at WP:OUTING. But whatever they posted themselves at Wikipedia is fair game. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Vojơšek also has Vojtísek, Z. (2013). "The Grail Movement" (PDF). Millennialism : expecting the end of the world in the past and present. Dingir. if you hadn't seen it. fiveby(zero) 03:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Purim

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

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

Did J Smith actually have golden plates?

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

Per Vogel, there's plenty of evidence -- even from his critics -- to support the claim that he DID have a set of plates that could be hefted and felt, but not seen. So far as I'm aware, only the faithful believe the plates were gold or provided by an angel. That said, we don't have to go around inserting the word "alleged" into narratives obviously based in faith or fancy. We can trust the reader to understand that "an angel gave him golden plates" is part of a story, not something we're asserting as fact. Feoffer (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here but if it wasn't seen what is the support to the claim that it was a set of plates? Heft and feel alone don't do that Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Lots of non-believers lifted the plates and ran their fingers over what felt and sounded like a set of metal plates. Vogel argues the plates were tin or sheet iron. Feoffer (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Lots of non-believers lifted the plates.... We absolutely cannot conclude that. We can only conclude that Mormons preserved the written claims of certain non-believers. jps (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Good luck arguing that. Mormonism-based articles are hard to edit here because there is a large contingent of faithful that monitor them and push their beliefs. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not gonna be a problem. We handle editors with all sorts of strong points of view, and the editors with seemingly-pro LDS views show a great willingness to play by the rules. I wont single any other group out, but this isn't always so: the project has handled far more intense POV-pushing from far more 'organized' and secretive groups. Assume good faith. It's a wiki -- the editing process is helped by a few rule-abiding partisans on both sides. Good changes will be defended -- but just inserting "allegedly" into a story about angels is not a good change. Feoffer (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add allegedly, I removed that he hid the plates under beans so nobody would find them. This is a tall tale/legend, and shouldn't be part of a biography. I also removed that he spent time transcribing them, but that was also reverted, as sourced (to Smith). 12.75.41.47 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

At least 11 contemporaries of Joseph Smith (and a few more) have stated that they saw, not just handled, the plates. More information is at the Book of Mormon witnesses article. Bahooka (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I rest my case. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

To add to what Bahooka said, witnesses weren't limited to Smith followers. Josiah Stowell saw a glimpse of 'greenish' metal plates, for example. The numerous 'hiding of the plates' stories are likely based in fact. Feoffer (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It's important to note that the Mormon reliance on these testimonies are culturally important but have no bearing on the question as to whether anything actually existed. Until there is a Joseph Smith seminar similar to the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we're going to have much more to say on the subject other than it's all based on eyewitness testimony claims. Such claims are notoriously unreliable. jps (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The beans story is discussed in enough histories that it is notable even if it is a tall tale/legend. Even if it never happened, the story itself has had enough of an impact that it merits some discussion. Literally EVERY biography of Joseph Smith includes the story. It just needs proper context and framing. That Joseph Smith spent time transcribing should be mentioned too, given we still have his 'transcription', and there is an entire Wikipedia article on his transcription. It does need a better source though. Epachamo (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Transcribed non-existant plates? Obvious hoax. Sit Stay Eat Drink (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't a hoax. That's completely missing the point. The point is he produced what he said was a transcription, and that said transcription has a notable history in and of itself. Notable enough to have it's own page. To just delete all mention of it is not scholarly. Epachamo (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Ann Taves and Sonia Hazard, both published in peer-reviewed academic venues (full citations below), state that the balance of documentary historical evidence supports Smith having possessed physical plates. Agreeing that Smith finding ancient magical plates in accordance with his account would be impossible, Taves and Hazard conclude that Smith had physical plates because he crafted them in order to 'materialize' the plates that he believed were 'supposed' to exist based on his dream (it was 19th-century New England, and people as religious and steeped in beliefs about magic as the Smith family were attributed a lot more significance to dreams than we do in the 21st century, when we're familiar with psychology). As a secondary hypothesis, Hazard argues that if Smith didn't craft a set of plates based on his dream, then he encountered a set of abandoned printing plates and, unfamiliar with that part of printing technology, interpreted them through his religious worldview and concluded they were the magical plates from his dream. In either case, he had a physical object.

• Ann Taves, "History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates", Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 61, no. 2/3 (Brill Publishers, 2014): 182-207, https://doi.org/10.1163/15685276-12341315
  • Ann Taves reiterates these findings in her university press-published book: Revelatory Events: Three Case Studies of the Emergence of New Spiritual Paths (Princeton University Press, 2016), esp. ch. 2, "Materialization"
• Sonia Hazard, "How Joseph Smith Encountered Printing Plates and Founded Mormonism", Religion and American Culture 31, no. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 2021): 137–192, https://doi.org/10.1017/rac.2021.11

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

These flights of fancy are interesting and certainly can be mentioned, but both authors admit that they are based on nothing more than textual interpretation. The problem, as Hazard puts it in one of the footnotes, is that a common technique of religion scholars is to fix protective brackets around religions and proceed according to the idea that everything occurring within those brackets belongs to a phenomenal reality that must be respected as wholly different from the scholar's world. To ask empirical questions of what lies in those brackets is taken as the move of a debunker and, thus, threatening to the whole project of the empathetic understanding of religions. This means that a preference to take religious believer's faith-based claims at their meaning is common in the literature. Even as these authors propose to argue over the plausibility of physical plates, they do not establish any evidence for them beyond eyewitness testimony. This is not anything close to serious evidence for actual physical plates beyond the faith in the testimonies provided and an attempt to provide context. jps (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You may consider peer-reviewed academic research by trained religious studies professionals who have been or are employed as professors at universities "flights of fancy" as a personal opinion. To write and verify article prose on Wikipedia, however, we defer to the findings of secondary sources rather than interpret primary sources for ourselves. If you disagree with the techniques and findings of the academically published literature on a topic, submitting your own research with your interpretations to academic venues is an option, though it's not something we do on Wikipedia itself.

In any case, you seem to have misunderstood Hazard's article anyway. She goes on to explain, starting in the very next sentence of the same footnote you cite, that she criticizes the limits of the bracketing technique: But religions are hardly the closed systems that scholarly bracketing makes them out to be. In so far as religions exist in the material world, phenomenal religious realities (including felt experiences of the supernatural) are relentlessly augmented by concrete material things and circumstances that everyone can see. This article seeks to show that, in the case of early Mormonism and, perhaps, other religions as well, scholars could benefit from a more expansive theoretical and methodological repertory than what is allowed by bracketing (187–188).

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps their views, along with Vogel's, would belong in Golden plates. There seems to be a very strong consensus among scholars that Smith did have a set of plates he could show (covered) to non-believers. Feoffer (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. The consensus of scholars is that there are explanations that comport with a physical artifact being shown off in various fashions, but there is no consensus that he had a "set of plates". jps (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is with the contention that there is a consensus that Joseph Smith had "plates". Putting aside the problem that those words "plates" can mean a wide variety of things, there is absolutely no consensus in the literature that Joseph Smith et al. weren't just lying about the subject. All of the sources we have admit that they cannot argue against this null hypothesis of lying, and, to the extent that they do think maybe he had plates, they make this argument from the perspective of plausibility and explanation rather than any argument that there is evidence that plates existed/exist. jps (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

(ec re Foeffer)Why would you say that? We often see claims of "consensus" in scholarship on WP and i often think the basis for this is extending Wikipedia editors silly ideas of what is consensus to real world scholarship. Good authors will almost always review the current state of the literature before beginning their arguments. It might be worthwhile to reread both Taves and Hazard in that light to test this "strong consensus". fiveby(zero) 13:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

there is absolutely no consensus in the literature that Joseph Smith et al. weren't just lying about the subject.:This contradicts Hazard's review of the literature. Hazard writes at the beginning of her piece that Most historians of religion have approached the story of the gold plates by wielding two powerful interpretative tools: religious imagination and cultural context. They explain the plates as part of the creative religious vision of Joseph Smith [and, Hazard adds, this majority of historians of religion] thread the needle between empathy and suspicion and regard Smith’s concept of the plates as more than a mere attempt to deceive, for good or ill. Rather, the concept was an expression of his religious vision, in ways consonant with his cultural and religious milieu (141, italics added). In other words, most historians of religion (the relevant experts for this topic in the history of religion) do not conclude that Smith was "just lying". Obviously, the scholarly consensus is not that there really were ancient magic plates, and saying as much in wikivoice would contravene WP:NPOV, but saying that no physical object (likely crafted by Smith) existed and/or that Smith and his followers were "just lying" is also not the consensus of scholarship. Personally disagreeing with the conclusions of secondary sources suggests that perhaps what you want to do is publish your own research rather than try to summarize existing current research (the latter is what we do on Wikipedia, per WP:NOR)

rather than any argument that there is evidence that plates existed/exist: I don't see how this reading squares with Hazard's assessment that the plates persist across early accounts as real objects. While only Smith and the eight witnesses claimed to have seen and handled the plates directly, a number of others—the devoted, the curious, the skeptical, and the hostile among them—touched, lifted, or saw them in a concealed state. If one takes a careful approach to these testimonies, accounting for their varying degrees of reliability, an image comes into view of a set of objects with specific qualities (144). Hazard, a tenure track university professor, in a peer reviewed university press-published periodical, states that a careful analysis indicates the existence of something physical, i. e. a set of 19th-century printing plates or facsimile thereof. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Good points all around from many here. Looks like Smith did have physical plates, and usually scholars do not makes statements that religious beliefs are true or false, but that the group believes xyz. They usually take a limited view of these matters. If they have explanations for the plates, then those are what can be mentioned in the article. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

On what basis are you arguing Smith did have physical plates? jps (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hydrangeans, i'm mostly in agreement, but you may be overstating or editors may be taking more from your words than intended. I don't think everyone is understanding Taves' "process of materialization" as you tried to explain above. And i'm sure Hazard knows the meaning of the word 'hypothesis' which she is careful to use. At issue here i think is the idea of 'evidence'. Hazard emphasizes: Taves argues that the plates were not materially real—at least not originally, when Smith said he recovered them in 1827—but later underwent a process of “materialization” among believers, owing to the stunning reality-producing powers of the human brain. The very same datum, testimony of the eight, taken mostly as evidence of real material objects, is for Taves evidence that, at that time, the plates were not real but visions. It's important that when we say 'evidence' we don't confuse the question being asked. fiveby(zero) 19:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

for Taves evidence that, at that time, the plates were not real but visions.: For clarity, Taves's reconstruction of the events involves both the existence of a physical object (whatever Smith and his coreligionists believed were "plates") as well as ecstatic "vision" experiences of people believing they were seeing "plates" that were magical sacred artifacts. In Taves's own article, she explains that believers materialized the plates in two steps. The first step involved the creation of one (or more) representation(s) of the plates that could be hefted in a box, touched through a cloth, and translated by means of "interpreters" [i. e. a physical object, as in Hazard's assessment] but not viewed directly. The second step involved the direct seeing of the plates in vision by those already deeply invested in the translation process and strongly disposed to believe. [i. e. "vision" experiences in which participants believed they were seeing an object] (page 203).

Whether the specific case of the "eight witnesses" (to use emic parlance) saw and handled physical object or not is up in the air in the secondary literature, as it is a point of difference between Taves's and Hazard's reconstructions/interpretations of the history. Taves thinks the "eight witnesses" did not encounter a physical object and that they rather "saw" it in a "vision" (Taves places significance on Lucy Mack Smith's retrospective autobiography, in which she reminisces that according to Smith angels secretly brought the plates to the location, from which Taves concludes that the object in that account was not materially real but was religiously/psychologically manifested [page 189]) whereas Hazard argues that they did see and handle a physical object, probably created by Smith (Hazard places significance on the difference between the "three witnesses" whose account describes a magical experience with an angel showing them "the plates" versus the "eight witnesses" whose account doesn't involve direct supernaturalism; in Hazard's words, This distinction would have been less imperative had there been no physical plates at all. While the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses" is not itself dispositive, it is significant in that it corroborates Smith’s account [page 143]). (By way of aside, this is a good example of why on Wikipedia we don't write articles based on interpreting primary sources for ourselves but instead defer to secondary sources. A primary source can seem to yield more than one interpretation, and we defer to the experts rather than do it ourselves.)

But where these secondary interpretations of the primary sources do agree (and also with Dan Vogel's, mentioned in this thread, published in the book Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet) is on the assessment that Smith at some point after 1827 had some physical object that his followers believed were "the plates" (probably created by himself, unless they were a discovered set of abandoned 19th-century printing plates as in Hazard's secondary hypothesis) and that when people reported physically touching and hefting what they believed were the "golden plates" (to use their emic term) while it was in a container or under a covering, it was these 19th-century "plates" (probably made by Smith, possibly modeled on printing plates) that they were encountering. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Point taken with secondary, but don't agree.

Vogel, Taves, and Hazard share the source material but it is each their own evidence, their own reasoning, and their own argument. What i object to is a conglomeration to make our own arguments. For where where these secondary interpretations of the primary sources do agree you might reread the paragraph in Hazard beginning The present study shares with Taves... Don't know that the agreement is as clear as you present it. fiveby(zero) 00:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reread the paragraph but I'm not sure what the problem you've gestured to is. I see Hazard and Taves disagreeing about when Smith had the idea for 'the plates' (Taves states he had it of himself, in his 'vision' experiences; Hazard states he got the idea from seeing printing plates, which prompted his "religious imagination" (etic term)/'visions' (emic term)), and this difference is important. But from reading both articles in total, it seems relatively apparent that both interpretations of the history take the position that Smith possessed at some point a physical thing that his followers believed were 'the plates' (and that he probably created it). As for the more specific claim to which OP objects about whether Smith hid that object under beans on such-and-such date, that's not something either Taves or Hazard weigh in on, and if the bean story is attested only in primary sources we would be better served not trying to interpret it ourselves and incorporate it into an article, since we don't know how a professional like Taves or Hazard would weigh and analyze it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

In other words, most historians of religion (the relevant experts for this topic in the history of religion) do not conclude that Smith was "just lying".... This is bloviation not relevant to the point at hand note that I am tabooing uses of the word "bloviation" and all its declensions in future interactions with Hydrangeans. There is no one in the literature who concludes that there is solid evidence Smith had any physical objects. jps (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

This is bloviation: And this—calling my participation empty and pompous—is an insulting personal attack. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you concede the point that no one in the literature concludes there is solid evidence Smith had any physical objects when it comes to claims about these plates? jps (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No, because your claim represents a misreading/misunderstanding of the literature.

Do you retract the personal attack? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you consider a claim representing "a misreading/misunderstanding of the literature" to be a personal attack? jps (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I consider you accusing me of "bloviating", i. e. speaking emptily and pompously (which is an insult to a person's character rather than an assessment of article content) to have been a personal attack. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I see it as an equivalent register to you saying things like your claim represents a misreading/misunderstanding of the literature That is just as much an insult in my book. I personally don't care, but I do care that you have not first cast out the beam in thy own eye. jps (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You've assured me you aren't insulted, but I still apologize for whatever harm it is to have hypothetically almost hurt your feelings. I've tried my best to talk about our mutual disagreement of what the secondary literature is saying—you think that I've misread it, and I think that you've misread it—without personalizing it.

Since I thought I I made it pretty clear that you calling me empty and pompous did hurt, and I did ask you to withdraw it, it's discouraging that you make no apology or retraction. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. While I do not think you have sufficiently explained how identifying a certain comment as "bloviation" is a kind of personalization while saying your interlocutor "misunderstood/misread" a passage is not a personalization, I recognize for my own personal definition of civility that offense in the eye of the beholder is important to recognize. Up until now, you had depersonalized your critique of my commentary in a way that read to me like score-settling in what struck me as a somewhat WP:POINTy aproach. This is the first time understanding that you are saying that my comment "hurt" you personally, and for that hurt, I apologize. I am happy to taboo "bloviation" and all its declensions in future interactions with you and will start with striking that word above. I hope you can understand that my concern is having my main point consistently ignored/unacknowledged/dismissed as "misunderstanding". See my response to Feoffer below. jps (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not consider it to be a personal attack, but I am curious. What exactly did I misread/misunderstand and how was that made evident in my statement that no one in the literature concludes there is solid evidence Smith had any physical objects when it comes to claims about these plates? jps (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've elaborated on the relevant sources and answered multiple questions about them pretty thoroughly in this thread already. I'm not interested in playing along with being asked to WP:FETCH some more perfect explanation while you claim to describe "the literature" without yourself actually citing/quoting it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I read all the sources. None of the make anything close to a statement that there is dispositive evidence of the existence of anything physical with relation to the claims about these plates. This has been my point all along. That you may wish to make different points is fine, but I don't appreciate the implication that I am incorrect in that statement or that I didn't read the sources when you can't be bothered to even dispute my basic statement. jps (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

To give just one example, Hazard signposts dedicating a subsection to material-bibliographical evidence in terms of eight physical qualities (color, dimensions, weight, orientation, characters, imagery, textual format, and binding) and then goes on for several pages analyzing and weighing available historical data and explaining what she finds convincing and why. You expressed your personal distrust of the primary sources and seemingly also of historians' ability to assess and interpret them (you claimed that what Taves, Hazard, and Vogel interpret and cite is not anything close to serious evidence, despite professional historians seriously using the material to develop their arguments; and you accused the authors of flights of fancy), and your thoughts are your own, but Wikipedia policy has us avoid publishing original interpretations of primary sources on Wikipedia; we summarize how secondary sources interpret primary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hazard nowhere says that this shows the existence of a physical object is the only possibility. None of the sources do. To argue otherwise is to argue apologetics. jps (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the null hypothesis, accepted by most, is that Smith never had any plates; A second line of well-argued but certainly unproven thinking suggests he may have used a sham prop of his own construction. And then finally, a third FRINGE claim suggest he had ancient golden plates. Golden Plates currently leans toward the FRINGE view, mentioning others only in passing and we probably should fix that at some point? Feoffer (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a good summary, as far as I'm concerned. jps (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

To say he had actual gold plates given by an angel is absolutely fringe. To say that it was "Accepted by most" that he didn't even have a prop? ... I'm not sure that is the case. [4] is an excellent overview by probably the most prominent naturalistic, critical historian on the subject. Can you find any historian that categorically says he never even had any plates or a prop to begin with? I would argue that this is the minority view from naturalistic historians. Epachamo (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like you are asking to prove a negative. All we have are testimonies that any physical object existed. To the extent that people accept or reject various testimonies as indicative of some kind of reality, that is the full extent to which there is any argument over whether something existed relevant to all this. But the entire conceit that there is anything more than stories is one that has to be adopted prior to considering the question of what objects Joseph Smith bandied about.

Contrast this state of affairs with something like the Joseph Smith Papyri for which there is overwhelming physical evidence. The material object existed! We can say that in WP voice.

jps (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

We can't say that the Golden Plates existed in WP voice. We do have critical testimony preserved not by Mormons who hefted a box with something inside them. We also still have the box that numerous persons said they hefted, or saw hefted, which is on display in a museum to this day. We have a chain of custody for the box that goes back to 1828. So, we do have physical evidence for a box that held ... something that "jangled" when it was moved, that Joseph Smith claimed was Golden Plates. I think this is why most historians, even the most critical, agree that some material object existed inside that box. Epachamo (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Testimony doesn't suddenly become solid evidence just because it is preserved not by Mormons. I agree we can say a box exists in a museum (can't say much more than that!). But the plates or the plate impostors, whatever they might be, are nowhere to be found. jps (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Did George Washington really cross the Delaware or just send his men? Were there really ancient Olympics in Greece? Virtually 99% of history is someone witnessing an event and writing it down. Historians are trained to interpret testimony and make a determination on its reliability. We are not historians. On Wikipedia we must reflect the mainstream opinion of historians. You are making a claim that the opinion of historians is that there was not even a prop that Joseph Smith used. Off the top of my head, I honestly can't think of a single scholar that would go that far, even the most critical. Epachamo (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you are trying to make this a broader principle here when really it is specific to this instance. The physical existence of the plates is an important aspect to the story by all accounts and, somewhat importantly, everyone admits that there are no physical objects to consider. Inasmuch as the existence of a physical object is a bone of contention (and it certainly is), we as Wikipedia need to tread lightly with respect to the claim especially in WPvoice. This has wider implications than my insistence that we not say anything about whether it is a fact that there was some sort of physical object with which people engaged long about the time these plates were said to be in the possession of Joseph Smith. I am not saying that Wikipedia should say, "There were no metal plates" for example. I am saying that we cannot say in WPVoice there was a physical object. We can only offer the reliably sourced conjectures that align with the assumptions that the author of the conjecture is making about the story. jps (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I mentioned this on ANI about the problems I saw with jps's approach [5]. As I said there, I have not looked at the scholarship, so I don't have much to add directly to this discussion but perhaps it's still helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you should look at the scholarship with careful eye towards whether they state in no uncertain terms that they are certain there were physical objects. I see, instead, a lot of arguments that it is plausible that physical objects were used at some point or other. jps (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It would really help your case if you could cite some of the scholarship you are referring to. It's a lot harder to argue against a source than it is against a wiki-editor. Epachamo (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to consider literally any of the sources presented above. Which one do you prefer? Vogel? I'm not sure if you want a close reading or whatever... jps (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I like Hazard's "not sufficiently examined" if i recall it correctly, as something to keep in minde. Taves is hard work with her starting assumption that Smith was not a fraud and also not delusional. On a sidenote, wow, what happened here? Didn't anyone see: interesting and certainly can be mentioned? fiveby(zero) 00:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This is what Vogel says on page 6 of Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet: "The most compelling evidence against unconscious fraud is the existence of the Book of Mormon plates themselves as an objective artifact which Joseph allowed his family and friends and even critics to handle while it was covered with a cloth or concealed in a box. The plates were either ancient or modern." That's pretty strong wording from Vogel, that the plates are an "objective artifact". Is there scholarly disagreement? Maybe, but I'm honestly not tracking any outside of a few polemic blogs. Epachamo (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You left off the most important two words at the beginning: "For me,...." This couches it entirely as Vogel's opinion. He is not arguing that this is established fact. jps (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No, "For me" frames "the most compelling" as opinion: Vogel is allowing the possibility that someone else might find some other piece of evidence more compelling, not allowing the possibility that the plates don't exist. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Nah. "For me," is a way to lead off an opinion and not a fact. I don't see any indication that there is a clear delineation that the predicate is necessarily true. Remember, what is at issue here is the question of whether we can say in WPvoice that there were objects, plates, what have you. I have no problem attributing to Vogel this opinion. jps (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Vogel is stating his opinion about what is the most compelling piece of evidence. "In my opinion, the best piece of evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life is ..." is a statement of opinion; but what follows the "..." is not part of the opinion, it is a piece of evidence. There is no reading of the sentence that does what you want while leaving it coherent. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

So you are claiming that Vogel is asserting a fact that plates existed? jps (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he is asserting as fact that the plates existed, and then offering his opinion that this is the best evidence against the idea that Smith was perpetrating an unconscious fraud. (One can't say, "The best evidence in favor of extraterrestrial life on earth is that in my opinion giraffes are funny-looking", it doesn't make sense. You can say "The best evidence in favor of extraterrestrial life on earth is the fact that giraffes are so funny-looking" and there are various ways this statement could be wrong or debatable; but in the Wikipedia context that would be you putting yourself against the source, instead of weighing sources.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If you read the paragraphs proceeding, it is abundantly clear that the 'for me' refers to his argument for Joseph committing conscious fraud. Vogel is pretty clear asserting a fact that plates existed. Check out this interview, from about time 33:45 minute to around minute 53. Epachamo (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The last couple days I've been doing a lot of looking around over this, and the closest I have come is Jerald and Sandra Tanner, who wrote in a non-scholarly work: "It is very possible that Joseph Smith did have some type of metal plates." I'm really not seeing the scholarly debate here over this point. It seems that it is generally accepted as true there is no serious dispute over this point. Again, there might be some dispute over it that I'm not aware of. Epachamo (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are saying that scholars don't really discuss this matter in any detail, I tend to agree. We are in the weeds. That's kinda my point. jps (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect and not my point. Forests of paper have been cut down to make paper to print the history of Joseph Smith. Every biography has a discussion about how Joseph Smith got the plates and what he did with them shortly thereafter. Every single one states as fact that Joseph Smith showed an artifact either wrapped in cloth or in a box. My point with the Jerald and Sandra Tanner quote, is that even they, the most severe critics of Smith, don't cast doubt on it. Epachamo (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we can agree that most of biographies of Joseph Smith are closer to hagiographies given that they were written by the devout. When we get down to an examination of the sources which try their best to eschew the supernatural claims, I do not see strong statements about the plates physically existing. Vogel gets the closest to saying that, for sure. But it is still couched in language that looks to me like opinion rather than fact. jps (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You complain of biographies written by the devout, but that applies to none of the sources cited in this discussion, unless you have secret knowledge that Ann Taves, Sonia Hazard, Dan Vogel, Jerald Tanner, or Sandra Tanner are 'devout' Mormons. Presumably to these you apply your sense that you do not see strong statements about the plates physically existing, but this depends on repeatedly insisting that Epachamo and the IP and Epachamo are misreading and misunderstanding the sources, despite their explanations. Can you share any other sources that support your sense of the consensus of the secondary literature (that Smith never had any physical prop plates)? If there are no sources that actually express what you say that consensus is, it's hard to see why we should accept it as an accurate interpretation of the secondary literature. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is that there is no consensus expressed on these topics. The issue has always been one of presenting certain claims as fact which are not identified clearly as fact. By implication, people are saying that Vogel must believe something is a fact. I don't see that and, further, think that even if Vogel does think it is a fact, this is too many degrees separated from plain reading for us to declare something in WP:ASF/WPVoice space about what actually is true. jps (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

To state something in wiki-voice we need to demonstrate that it is "information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute". You say there is no consensus expressed on these topics. Show a source that even remotely hints at non-consensus. I'm not finding it. Epachamo (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate a clear indication of consensus about this obscure point. I am not required to demonstrate "no consensus". That's ridiculous. jps (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That Joseph Smith showed a prop is scholarly consensus and not an obscure point. THAT is ridiculous. Epachamo (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no source to that effect. Do you understand how backwater this subject is? jps (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, remove all the biographies written by the devout. They still all agree that Smith showed an artifact wrapped in fabric or in a box. This just isn't something that is disputed. Epachamo (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that. I see them agreeing that the narrative is as such. jps (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The time has come for you to present a source to back up your claim. Epachamo (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

??? No... it's in the sources themselves. jps (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Present one of these sources. Epachamo (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat what's already said. jps (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not see this as "putting yourself against the source". I do not see an evaluation that explains how we are supposed to accept that plates which, as part of the narrative, were never located after being "returned" are explained to exist as a fact. This looks like plausibility arguments still. I contrast that to many other items which do exist and are not talked about it the contexts of statements that being with phrasing like For me. 10:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC) jps (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Watch the interview I posted of Vogel talking about it. This is not the only place he talks/writes about it either. Vogel absolutely, 100%, for sure takes as fact that Joseph Smith showed people an artifact either in a box or wrapped in a cloth what he said were the plates. Every other biography I have read does not dispute this point either, without qualifiers, presented as fact. Epachamo (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I would not expect a biography to dispute Vogel. jps (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The secondary, independent, scholarly literature does not dispute Vogel either. Epachamo (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Why should that matter? I am not asking us to dispute Vogel. I'm just asking that we don't adopt his opinions in WPVoice. jps (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

My point is, there is no dispute on this. Scholarly consensus matches Vogel, that there was a prop, which we can state in wiki-voice. Vogel hypothesizes that it was as tin prop, which we cannot state in wiki-voice. Epachamo (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no source which indicates "scholarly consensus". jps (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We might be closer to agreement than originally thought. I also don't think we should unequivocally state that there were plates for sure. I do think the evidence is strong enough that we can state in wiki-voice, that there was a box Joseph would show people, in which he said there were plates. Epachamo (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is fine. The thing I was objecting to above was when people were saying things like Smith did have a set of plates he could show (covered) to non-believers or Smith did have physical plates. So maybe we should be clear about what we want to say. You don't want it said that it is "accepted by most that he didn't have a prop." I can agree with that too. jps (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I really do think we are closer on this that would appear above and maybe we are talking past each other a bit. I propose this guideline of ways things could be phrased, which I hope would be palatable for just about everyone here.

Don't say in wiki-voice:

• "Smith had gold plates which he received from an angel"
• "The plates were from around 2000 years ago."
• "Smith allowed the gold plates to be inspected either wrapped in a cloth or a box"
• "11 other 'witnesses others saw the gold plates."

Do say in wiki-voice:

• "According to Smith, he received a set of gold plates from an angel"
• "Adherents believe the plates were created around 2000 years ago."
• "Some skeptics have since speculated that Smith had earlier fashioned a facsimile from scrap sheet metal or tin."
• "While Smith was unable to provide a set of plates for visual inspection, a tangible artifact could be handled through the pillow case, a cloth, or in a box."
• "Smith let people handle a bundle wrapped in a cloth in which according to Smith contained the plates."
• "Several reports indicate the bundle weighed between 40-60 pounds. Emma Smith stated that she could feel leaves of metal through the cloth." Epachamo (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Eh, these are all a few shades too apologetic for me.

Point 2 has issues unless we specifically say why the golden plates couldn't be ancient per comparison to ancient history.

Point 3 should be "scholars", not "skeptics". Loki (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"unable" doesn't seem supported to me at all. 64.26.99.248 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough on point 2, it obviously requires more context. The "Unable" is directly from Vogel: "While he was unable to provide a set of plates for visual inspection, a tangible artifact could be handled through the pillow case." Vogel, Dan. Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (A Biography) (p. 129). What would you say if instead of 'unable', we said, "Smith said he was forbidden by the angel to show the plates directly for visual inspection, but provided a tangible artifact that could be handled through a pillow case, a cloth, or in a box that which he said was the plates." Point 3 was the terminology used by Richard Van Wagoner in his book: "Some skeptics have since speculated that Joseph had earlier fashioned a facsimile from scrap sheet metal or tin" Van Wagoner, Richard S.. Natural Born Seer: Joseph Smith, American Prophet, 1805-1830 (p. 380). I don't think Van Wagoner's intent was to cast shade with the term "skeptic", given the tone of the rest of the book, however, I'd be ok with "scholar", I think that is supported. Epachamo (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just say it's a hoax directly then? 207.213.181.29 (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

We should reflect the scholarly literature which does not classify it as a hoax. A hoax is something more akin to the Kinderhook plates, which we can call a hoax. Epachamo (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The interpretation Dan Vogel puts forth calls Smith's behavior with the plates a case of "pious fraud", in which Smith tried to motivate piety in others by making up a miracle. In the sense that the prop was intended to dupe, it was a hoax (even if with much more Second Great Awakening motives than the word hoax usually evokes).

The interpretations that Ann Taves and Sonia Hazard present have it that while the plates were a prop and weren't ancient or divine at all, Smith as much as his followers believed they were real and that they had been religiously 'materialized', so Smith himself wasn't hoaxing or trying to dupe, as he was himself convinced.

How to characterize Smiths' behavior with his purported plates is a case where there really isn't a clear consensus in the scholarly literature—where it does seem to come down to opinion—so it would probably make sense to describe the relevant scholarly views: that scholars debate whether Smith deliberately tricked his followers or believed in the plates as much as they did. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This is also my read of Vogel (a prop existed, which is evidence of intentional deception). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, for those who care to keep track, the edit by 64.26… is mine, the edit by 207.223… is someone else. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hydrangeans, that i think is the correct approach to take here. All these authors it seems to me are examining the issue of plates to try to understand and evaluate the actions of Smith and his followers. In that we get a pretty diverse set of arguments and conclusions. Some editors here appear to be trying to use these works for their own arguments about "props" and what existed, while ignoring what is contradictory in the texts. Taves in my opinion does a very good job of presenting the problem and speaking to some of the issues present here. Editors should maybe carefully read her paper (i haven't checked her book yet). This thread seems awfully unproductive, maybe content should be focused on in on of the articles i listed below or their talk pages. fiveby(zero) 17:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What's contradictory in the literature is what Smith thought of his 'plates': whether he knew he was tricking people (Vogel) or whether he believed in them as much as his followers did (Taves and Hazard). What isn't contradicted is the having of the 'plates' (i. e. a prop that followers believed were plates), whether forged from scratch or cobbled from 19th-century printing plates. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

In terms of "isn't contradicted" -- it's really hard to talk about three people (do we have any other decent sources about this we're willing to put up against them?) arguing that Smith had the 'plates' in scare quotes. The scare quotes seem necessary. jps (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Taves can remove the scare quotes: Although some non-believing historians have chosen to bracket the contentious issue of the golden plates, others — both non-Mormon and ex-Mormon — forthrightly acknowledge their belief that there were no actual golden plates; indeed, this is so obvious to some historians that they are taken aback when they discover that many Mormon intellectuals believe there were. em. added. That's probably WP's first duty to the reader, before going into any of the rest. Did see one paper which cited both Taves and Hazard but didn't think it much use for here. Can look for more sources if you think it would be helpful, but don't think it likely to find anything better than Taves' review of the literature. fiveby(zero) 19:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course there is no consensus that there were actual golden plates, i. e. the ancient, divine plates of Smith's story. But that's different from what JPS pushes: the claim that there was not even a prop at all, contra Vogel, Taves, and Hazard. What JPS offers to support this is insisting that users like Epachamo are misreading. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, since "flights of fancy" this has been a "get jps" thread. You chose to ignore interesting and certainly can be mentioned. I'm sometimes more moderate in comments than others here at FTN, and almost always end up regretting it. In case it's not clear, if you feel there is some content here for the reader, then go work on a fucking article. fiveby(zero) 19:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobody here is arguing that there were actual golden plates. I think myself, Hydrangeans and jps are all in agreement on that. What jps is trying to claim is that Smith didn't even show a box, or cloth covered object to his followers, which is frankly well outside of the mainstream scholarship. Epachamo (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not claiming that, and the fact that you think I am claiming that shows you haven't understood my point. jps (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If I have misunderstood you, or misrepresented you, then my sincere apologies. Are you ok if we say in wiki-voice that "Smith showed people a box, and cloth covered object that he said were the golden plates."? Epachamo (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Oops, didn't fully read your comment. The footnote to the above is probably pertinent: Many believing historians, such as Bushman and Givens, in turn wonder how well-trained, non-believing historians can dismiss so much evidence, hence their critique. Is that what you were looking for? Which i think nicely illustrates why some editors are so focused on 'evidence' for 'something'. fiveby(zero) 19:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ive read along with a good chunk of this and again think this type of conversation belongs in the religion wikiproject. Time and time again people at FTN seem sort of gleeful to go full r/atheism on religious topics and handle them indelicately in an attempt to address what seems to come across as righting a great wrong of not treating (especially newer) religious movements with what is seen as appropriate contempt. There’s a difference between fringe history and archaeology in the name of a faith, which absolutely belongs here, and core religious claims of a faith.

The same editing eye that is tuned to sniff out water memory and UFO edits is not inherently qualified to handle topics of religion delicately, and more than once FTN discussions have been shut down and warnings handed out over very transparent desires to paint an ideological opponent as inherently fringe-y or adherents to a faith somehow stupid for going along with a given faith.

Religions are not inherently fringe and we need to serious reevaluate how much we’re just treating them as belonging here while sidestepping the actual wikiproject they belong in. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Err...is there some article i should be watchlisting and have not? Got:

• Joseph Smith
• Early life of Joseph Smith
• Book of Mormon
• Origin of the Book of Mormon
• Criticism of the Book of Mormon
• Golden plates
• Book of Mormon witnesses
• Three Witnesses
• Eight Witnesses

and don't see anything happening. fiveby(zero) 15:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

This doesn't seem to be a serious form of disruption at the moment.

Until just now, the most recent edit to that article was a two-month-old vandalism edit. (which I have just reverted.)

ApLundell (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It's an entirely reasonable question as to whether "stages of death" should cover the stages of death generally or specifically about those in humans. While NPOV and NOTCENSORED are a bit of a stretch, they're not totally inappropriate the way your accusations of FRINGE are. Especially since you're bringing up talk page comments from months ago that didn't lead anywhere. I suggest you drop this and move on to something more productive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Anthroposophy

What do you say about [6]? tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's just "punctuation", right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a series of edits. The edit about punctuation is just one of those. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There is now an AE case related to the subject and another editor. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo

• Luis Elizondo (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

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

[7]

I am worried that this is WP:POVPUSHing.

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

You haven't even started a discussion on the talk page. Isn't this a bit premature since you haven't even bothered to inquire as to why it is relevant to the article. Seems pretty rude to me that you just go to a noticeboard without even trying to start a discussion on the article talk page! Skyerise (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

And what of the substance of my concern? jps (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll discuss it on the article talk page if you start a conversation there. I'm not the only editor involved with that article. Skyerise (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Depends what the inclusion criteria is, I suppose. If you include Thelema, you might as well add full sections for Heaven's Gate, Russian cosmism, Order of the Solar Temple, the Aetherius Society, and so on. Pretty sure there are some quotes by Bjork over the years about worshipping the sun and the moon, so she's in, too. Drawing lines between "real" belief system and "silly" belief systems has never been something I've been good at, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your editorial judgment. So the question is, do we make an article that is an impenetrable synthesis of all possible heavenly body worship or do we pare it down to the anthropological/comparative religion discussion of the broader topic? jps (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the criteria should be that the worship of heavenly bodies be primary or central to the theology of the religion in question, and covered in multiple secondary sources. As I am sure you know perfectly well, synthesis isn't permitted. In any case, this isn't really a matter for this noticeboard, as it is a matter of religious belief, and doesn't involve pseudoscience at all. Skyerise (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

AfD about Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom

Original version was a racist dog whistle of an article, which triggered the AfD.

I've since reverted to an earlier version that discusses this as a moral scare. Would like some suggestions on whether this counts as a fringe theory/moral panic Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Did CESNUR defend Order of the Solar Temple?

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. [8] 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" [9] 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. " [10] (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:

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)

@Feoffer ping because I forgot PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• Introvigne, Massimo (1995). "Ordeal by Fire: The Tragedy of the Solar Temple". Religion.

later published as a chapter in The Order of the Solar Temple: The Temple of Death. fiveby(zero) 20:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Tukdam (Buddhist post-mortem meditation)

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)

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)

Possible template suggestion?

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)