Talk:Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis

Notability

I have not reviewed the 111 (!) cited sources but my own WP:BEFORE search finds evidence of notability: [1], [2], [3] ~Kvng (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: @Robert McClenon: it looks like Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis was WP:PRODDED and then merged into Mac Tonnies as WP:ATD. I would classify this as a WP:BOLD move. I think you're right that the history at Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis needs to be retained to support attribution of the content now in Mac Tonnies#Cryptoterrestrial hypothesis. I believe the topic is notable (see Draft_talk:Cryptoterrestrial_hypothesis#Notability) and passes WP:CV and WP:NPOV tests so is ready to be accepted but I'm not sure what to do next. ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The sourcing problems still need to be fixed. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This draft is for a title that was previously an article, but was then cut down to a redirect. If this draft is accepted, the history should be preserved. Do not tag the redirect for G6.
  Reviewers should check the history and verify whether there was a consensus to cut the article down to a redirect, or whether the action was taken boldly without discussion. If there was a consensus for the cutdown, do not accept this draft without verifying that the draft improves the article or that consensus has changed. If in doubt, please discuss.
  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Remove the external links on prose throughout the article and also, some sections paragraphs in some sections are not sourced at all. Please cite your sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Kvng - I didn't think it was important to check the references. The body of the article gives multiple examples of the hypothesis having been proposed at various times. I think that common sense is that the reports of authors having proposed the hypothesis are reliable. We aren't asking whether the hypothesis itself is reliable; reliable sources say that the hypothesis is pseudoscience. Anyway, there is more than a 50% chance that the article will survive AFD, if there is an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Robert McClenon, I agree and was prepared to accept but I didn't know how to deal with the history merge issue you raised on 7 December. ~Kvng (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Kvng - First, I wasn't calling for a history merge, but the preservation of the history. That requires moving the redirect with history to somewhere that is associated with the article. Second, did you notice the name of this talk page? Third, I have accepted the draft, and have moved the history into draft space with a redirect to the article. You may examine and review the result. Any reviewer who wants to accept a draft when there is history in a redirect and isn't sure what needs to be done is welcome to ask me to do it for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutral point of view for fictional topic.

This article appears to be entirely about content produced by individuals based on unverifiable reports and claims. As such the editorial descriptions of this content should not cover it with wording associated with verification. For example, using the words "disciple" or "ufology" creates the impression of analytic process where there is none. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The redirect was good. This does not even appear to be a real topic. I'm not sure why you're championing this? Bon courage (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The redirect was not discussed. The article passed creation discussion. If the topic is not notable, propose a WP:delete. (Unilateral censorship isn't a solution to conspiracy, it just makes feeds the troll). Johnjbarton (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It was raised at WP:FT/N by me. You are arguing process, Are you acting as an adminsistator? by reverting you take ownership of the content and signal your approval of it. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes process. Your action was improper. The notice was not posted here. The only response was merge. So I reverted your change. I'm sorry if that upsets you, that much I did not intend. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What "action" was improper? You would be well advised not to personalise disputes, especially when you're wrong. Bon courage (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion isn't required for a bold redirect, and undoing it simply because of that really isn't appropriate here (i.e., WP:NOTBURO), especially coupled with claims of censorship. That isn't proper process.

Looking at the AfC comments (that were tepid already) and the article, it does look like the idea cutting down the article and redirecting it somewhere was very valid. The target of Hollow Earth makes sense as this is a redundant topic, and I'm not seeing anything would have led me to revert the redirect if I had seen it prior. The lead at Hollow earth actually gives a good summary intro. It might not hurt to have a better anchor to redirect to over there someday, but that wouldn't preclude the redirect either. KoA (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Bold is fine. Revert is fine. We are now at discuss.

I cited the process to make it clear that I was not acting randomly or without grounds. The process makes sense. The create process had vetted this material. Unilateral action to redirect is not appropriate. I reverted so we can come to a reasonable and thoughtful result.

Propose the merge. I think it is a fine idea. A bunch of the content here needs to be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with KoA that this was a case where WP:DRNC would be good advice. Editors reverting content assume responsibility for the content they restore, and this was a very bad restore. Bon courage (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I gave you substantive reasons not to redirect. The topic is notable and passed AfC. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are not valid reasons. That's a processology argument that gives us damagingly poor content. I don't want bad content. Do you? Bon courage (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you get to decide what is bad content. I don't see any discussion of why you think this content is 'bad'. As far as I can tell you think the fact that the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis is nonsensical is sufficient to make it 'bad'. I think it should be on the editor who erases the work of other editors to justify their actions. I quoted all the process stuff in hopes that you would see its not just all about you. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

By my count, three editors here, some of us entirely uninvolved prior, have reviewed the content and the actual AfC comments to see that the redirect actually made a lot of sense. As for "process", please refer back to what I said previously. The revert was not "fine" since it's basically saying the bold redirect was undone because it was a bold redirect. There needs to be substantive reasons to undo an edit, and you've been given a lot of links policy, etc. discouraging how you are approaching this. Had there been a substantive reason stated to undo the redirect, then that should have been stated, which would have then been something to tackle here or at RfD. I'm not going to dwell on past "process" items here more since that's getting more into editor conduct than moving forward content-focused discussion.

The other problem going forward though is that your comments talking past people and not addressing the key issues brought up. No one is saying the topic isn't notable. It's just redundant with an already existing article notability-wise, and that's why others asked you those related questions at the Help Desk. Editors here so far are following what was mentioned at AfC (remember I mentioned the tepid support and caution earlier). Even your own comments at Help Desk indicate you should not be undoing the redirect again. You've already stated you agree two articles aren't needed and to merge with Hollow earth. The redirect part is done already, so the burden is on you or anyone else who feels strongly to do the merge portion. You have full access to all the content through the diffs, so undoing the redirect and insisting on RfD/AfD would squarely run afoul of WP:NOTBURO policy at this point. KoA (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@KoA In my opinion the issues here arise from this claim:

• "By my count, three editors here, some of us entirely uninvolved prior, have reviewed the content and the actual AfC comments to see that the redirect actually made a lot of sense. "

If you look through this Talk page you can see the AfC post and my posts. That is all. You claim you reviewed the content but there is no way for me to know that. All I saw was the AfC and the redirect.

I reverted the redirect and explained my actions. The article had been reviewed and passed. Any of the three editors could have participated in the AfC. The redirect is inappropriate.

My action in reverting was completely reasonable. The response I got was not. No explanation, no discussion of the merits of the article or sources, no analysis of the AfC. Just a series of reverts and accusations because I tried to make the right thing happen. I felt bullied.

The entire business was unnecessary. The redirect could have been discussed before it was added or after my revert. Problems with the article could have been posted. The secret communications between the three editors could have been public. You could have been nice. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable sources.

• Kutz, Anna (June 11, 2024). "Hidden UFO civilization could be on Earth: Harvard researchers". NewsNation. Retrieved June 13, 2024.

This article makes a claim about paper but the paper does not seem to exist.

• "The paper has been taken down from ResearchGate since Newsweek published this article, but is still accessible using Internet Archive."

A paper by the same authors and same title is listed on Google scholar:

• Lomas, T. The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis: A case for scientific openness to a subterranean earthly explanation for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. Philosophy and Cosmology.

However the first paragraph of the paper is:

• "NOTE: This paper is a speculative thought piece that reflects the authors’ own interests and ideas, and

is not associated with the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard. We would also like to emphasize that we believe this hypothesis to be in all likelihood false, but nevertheless believe it still merits scientific investigation."

On this basis I think that each of the news article sources here that discuss the article as "Harvard researchers" should be removed as misinformation. I also think that makes the article itself not notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes this content is terrible. So why do you keep adding it? Bon courage (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the references in this article? That is what matters, not your opinion on the topic. I agree that most of the references are not good, but simply deleting them all because you don't like the topic is not correct. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Again with the personalisation. Time to ignore. If there's anything good here I missed it. Bon courage (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect?

I think there is one person who objects to the redirect and three who support it. My best attempt to summarize the argument for not redirecting is "it passed AfC" (which is, to my knowledge, not a valid keep argument at WP:AfD where this would next head if there was ongoing conflict) and "the topic is notable" which, I think, hasn't been established.

If we could identify some WP:FRIND-level sources that use the term "cryptoterrestrial hypothesis" as something separate from the "hollow Earth" fandom, I'd be thrilled. Please feel free to provide them here!

jps (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It passed AfC is a circular keep argument. At AfC we accept drafts that are WP:LIKELY to survive an AfD which also means, in borderline cases like this, they would be WP:UNLIKELY to survive. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස @Kvng Can you suggest some valid arguments against redirecting? As I read your posts there would not be any. One cannot say "there was a previous consensus to have this topic so should establish a consensus to redirect" because you say the AfC was not valid. One cannot say "it is notable" because the person who redirected will just say "no it was not". What could I have said that would have provoked a discussion on the merits of the article rather than on the merits of my arguments? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You might want to just nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. AfDs tend to be more WP:FOC than talk page discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose in theory there is nothing to stop somebody turning the redirect back into an article if (big if) they can write something decent and WP:PAG-compliant. But restoring the pile of crap that was there before is a no. Bon courage (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This is what I have been trying to get across: the topic is notable, you just don't like the content. At least two editors have said that they would like to write on the topic, implying they think the topic is notable.

Rather than go around and erase every crappy Wikipedia article, dismissing the efforts of the contributors and reviewers, a better way to build a community encyclopedia is to challenge motivated editors to improve the content. I think more experienced editors like yourselves should be looking for opportunities to improve the community vs only the content. Over time better editors will result in less bad content.

You probably don't agree which is fine. Thank you for your replies. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

In case I've been misunderstood, I accepted this at AfC because I saw it as a notable topic and the content could be improved. My suggestion to take it to AfD was not because I want the article to be deleted but because AfD is a good place to learn what sort of material the community is willing to delete - IME WP:ATD is still respected and we still prefer to improve. Despite WP:NOTCLEANUP you will find people at AfD willing to do the work. ~Kvng (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"you just don't like the content" ← that's an odd way of putting it. The content fell afoul of all applicable standards this Project has, as it seems everybody agrees. No content is better than rubbish content. Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No content is better than rubbish content is where there's disagreement, see WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have a house being built evidenced in the non-redirect incarnation. See WP:TNT. As to the pinged question, all we need to establish a good discussion would be some WP:FRIND-compliant sourcing. I haven't really seen that yet. jps (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to agree. I was just pinpointing the area of disagreement. I think we should restore the article and then nominate it for deletion and have a more robust discussion at AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Why? Who wants to delete the article/redirect? Any editor restoring that previous article would be being disruptive to the point of being sanctionable (unless they were an extreme newbie), since it violates pretty much every Wikipedia expected standard. If the goal is to have good content then the way ahead is simple: write good content. Bon courage (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD is not only for deleting. Redirect and merge are also common outcomes of a deletion discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

AfD is for proposing deletion. Sometimes when the proposal fails there might be other outcomes. Merge proposals e.g. are via a WP:MERGEPROP. Bon courage (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's not process for process-sake. If you think we should merge/redirect, just suggest it. jps (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Recreated

For the record, article has been recreated, this time it making clear that the "hypothesis" is just a thought experiment hypothetical discussed in a journal of philosophy, NOT a work of Science. So far as I can tell, nobody modernly actually believes this hypothesis, and the last guy who did, back in the 1940s, was transparently suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. This context was not clear in the earlier incarnation of the article, which could have lead our readers to actually worry there were 'aliens among us'. Feoffer (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)