Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cosmic Serpent

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jeremy Narby. Per CT55555's last comment it appears as if no merge is needed, but the history is under the redirect if someone wants to add more. Star Mississippi 01:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosmic Serpent

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Cosmic Serpent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book seems to radically fail WP:BK. I think it was created during a flash in the pan interest in the film based on it. Neither seems to have a lasting impression. The author page Jeremy Narby may fail notability as well. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence in Nature. jps (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep. Clearly WP:BK as evidenced by:

  1. Academic paper: https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/45064/Cosmic%20Serpent%20Dspace%20Nov7-07.pdf?sequence=1
  2. Review: https://www.theguardian.com/society/1999/jul/07/guardiansocietysupplement4 CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge To help who ever is going to close this, and to try and help reach consensus, I'll open the door to merge, which is a reasonable outcome. I still prefer to keep, but merge is a good consensus/compromise. I've scored out my Speedy Keep above. CT55555 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure those are very good. The review is like two pages, and a lot of that isn't about the book, and what you call an academic paper firstly, isn't even published from what I can see, and secondly, goes off-topic basically immediately. It'd be hard to consider the "academic paper" a reliable source. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 22:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The paper was published in Spirituality and Health International journal in 2002. I'll cite it in full: (Wishart, Paul M. "Reflections on the cosmic serpent." Spirituality and Health International 3.4 (2002): 50-53.) It is precisely what an "academic paper" is.
      Two pages of review is a completely normal length of a book review in The Guardian. CT55555 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spirituality and Health International journal is not a reliable source because the editorial board does not have the relevant expertise to evaluate the claims being considered. It would be a reliable source for a subject such as "spiritual beliefs of medical practitioners", but this subject is making empirical claims about how people know about certain scientific facts. When people publish content that runs astray from the epistemic remit of the journal's editorial expertise, that's when we stop accepting those sources as being evidence of anything other than the base opinions of the authors. We've seen enough attempts to get WP:FRINGE content introduced into the encyclopedia through such fashions to know when this is what is going on. jps (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you are still stuck thinking this is an encyclopaedia article about the claims in the book, rather than an encyclopaedia article about the book. I recognise the difference is subtle. But that subtle difference is the key to our disagreement here.
        I also think we've reached an unproductive point in this debate and we'd serve the community better by leaving space for others to read our perspectives, add theirs, reach their own conclusions. I think that you and I are not going to reach consensus here, and that's OK. We've made our arguments, let's let others chime in.... CT55555 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jeremy Narby: As I argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence in Nature, a merge or redirection is much more warranted than deletion. This book appears to have has received more coverage than the former. I'm not saying the book yet deserves a stand-alone article, but here are some sources that can help in determining notability and due weight (see more sources at Talk:Jeremy Narby#Sources). --Animalparty! (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nonfiction Book Review: The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge by Jeremy Narby". Publishers Weekly. 1 April 1998.
    • Griffiths, Jay (7 July 1999). "Serpent's tale". The Guardian. (Review of The Cosmic Serpent)
    • "New in nonfiction". The Tampa Tribune. August 16, 1998. p. 5 – via NewsBank. (synopsis review of The Cosmic Serpent)
    • Das, Pranab (January 31, 1999). "Take Anthropologist's Conclusions With Grain of Salt". Winston-Salem Journal. p. 18 – via NewsBank. (critical review of The Cosmic Serpent from a physics teacher)
    • Wishart, Paul M. (December 2002). "Reflections on the cosmic serpent". Sacred Space. 3 (4): 50–53. doi:10.1002/shi.123. (this is the University of Calgary source above, in published form)
To quote WP:BK "This page in a nutshell: A book is presumed notable, and to generally merit an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself"
I think, based on sources provided by you, I and others, that this book clearly meets that criteria. CT55555 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because a subject passes the bare minimum of a threshold doesn't mean we are required to grant it a separate article, especially since the majority of Narby's notability seems to come from this book. As a comparison, the notable book A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians is intentionally discussed in the article of the author, under the premise that centralized comprehensive discussion in context is better than forcing readers to navigate a plethora of stubs. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done more work on it, to get it way out of the stub zone. In case that influences you. CT55555 (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. Only one potentially WP:INDEPENDENT source cited in this article to merge into author's article. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jeremy Narby. I have no idea what the commenter above means; this obviously does not fail WP:GNG, as CT55555 has clearly shown in the reply to Animalparty. Outright deletion is clearly not an option. If this article were significantly larger, or if it were being edited reasonably frequently or appeared otherwise "under construction", I would argue to keep it. However, I agree with Animalparty that forcing users to navigate a plethora of stubs is unhelpful. There is not so much here that writing two or three sentences on Jeremy Narby's article will unbalance that one - and it would significantly improve the Narby article (which, as a BLP, ought to be our priority, imo). If someone in the future desires to expand the discussion of this book in particular such that it no longer makes sense for it to be covered in the Jeremy Narby article, it can easily be spun back out into this one. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the view, but I'm always curious why these sources come out only during deletion discussions, rather than being used to expand and improve articles. My deletion vote is as much because the article is unmaintained, as nobody has taken the step to add any of these reliable sources in place of the WP:PRIMARY. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They come out in deletion discussions because there are people watching deletion discussions. There are thousands and thousands of poor-quality articles on Wikipedia and only so many editors looking at maintenance backlogs. Those of us willing to go looking for sources to improve articles we previously did not even know about are most motivated go search for sources for articles that have a deadline - AfDs. Remember, it's not the article that has to pass WP:GNG but its subject, and this one clearly does. But I agree with you that the article is both minimal and unmaintained, and that is my reasoning for my redirect vote. I don't have anything against book stubs, and I think even minimal book articles can be very useful to readers, but the sources that turned up in this AfD would be put to better use improving the author's article. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with User:asilvering. If you find that sources are only coming to light during deletion discussions, the question we must ask is why are they not coming out during the WP:BEFORE process that should occur before deletion is proposed? CT55555 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have worked on the article some more, added more content. CT55555 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I just want to state clearly next to my !vote that I've seen and appreciate the work that CT55555 has been putting into this article. I still think this would be relatively easy to rewrite to fit Jeremy Narby's article, and I believe that would be a better place for it, especially given the WP:FRINGE concerns. Between this and the Intelligence in Nature article also at AfD, there's enough to actually write a decent-sized BLP. -- asilvering (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added some material from The Guardian article. I then used the WP:RATER tool, which indicated the article was start-quality, so I've updated the assessment. CT55555 (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A credulous review from Jay Griffiths is really not something that should be used as a source. The review is terrible. Almost nothing in it can be taken at face-value per WP:REDFLAG. jps (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      1. The Guardian is a reliable source. You can see that here WP:RSPSOURCES
      2. For your statement about Jay Griffiths to have weight, I think you would need to point to something saying that The Guardian was reliable except when Jay Griffiths is writing in it, otherwise this seems like opinion or WP:OR.
      3. I think you are sharing an opinion on the review, and I think we should avoid introducing our own opinions, again, I think that original research, unless there has been some consensus.
      4. Regarding WP:REDFLAG I think you are mixing up what is said in the review (which is very credible) or the actual accuracy of what is in the book. As per WP:FORUM this is not a place to share our own views on the book, we are not book reviewers. Many books contain bold hypothesis, we're not here to prove or disprove them, we are here to say what reliable sources said about them.
      In summary, I think The Guardian is a reliable source and everything else you've said is opinion that we must disregard based on WP:OR and WP:FORUM. I think WP:REDFLAG is not relevant. CT55555 (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to say "The Guardian is a reliable source" as though it has magical imprimatur. That is manifestly not how WP:RS works. The fact of the matter is that Jay Griffiths wrote a credulous and absurd review of the book without so much as even mentioning the WP:FRINGE nature of the claims. jps (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do get to say "The Guardian is a reliable source": this is the exact place in wikipedia for me to share my analysis on this exact topic. I have made a non-controversial statement, completely consistent with wikipedia norms, and a consensus that is clearly documented here WP:RSPSOURCES. CT55555 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can say it as much as you want, but it doesn't make you correct here. What you are doing is promoting a shitty source. It makes you look like a subpar editor. But go ahead. jps (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sufficiently confident in my editing to not care about your opinion on it, but there is generally an expectation of civility required on Wikipedia and to not follow that can put off newer editors, so I'd discourage this sort of comment. Check out WP:CIVIL. CT55555 (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are under no obligation to care about my opinion of your editing, but editors who tend to skew the encyclopedia towards credulity have historically not lasted very long. Just be aware that I am not the only person who is critical of this position and if you think I am being uncivil, I think you might be surprised when you find out what others might say about the kind of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:Civil POV-pushing with which you are engaging. jps (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I am doing anything improper, I disagree, but WP:NPOVN would be the place for your to seek community support or resolution. CT55555 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it appropriate to identify it here for good measure. jps (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 Sure, the Guardian is a generally reliable source, but that does not make everything published in it a reliable source. You must know this by now. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you saw User:asilvering's comments below. And assuming you did, can you please just say if there is something in the article that is not accurate?
I see the chat that people are having over at Did you know shamans can speak bird language and I agree with User:Adam_Cuerden point that debunking a book "beyond Wikipedia's remit". I'd go further and say that to try to do so is somewhere close to, or in, WP:POV territory. But to those who don't like the contents of the book and wish to tackle that point of view as per wikipedia norms...just add in any critical review. I'd welcome that. What ever aspersion have been cast with this comment I can assure you that I don't have any investment in the content of this book, only a commitment to keep this encyclopaedic.
So point out what is incorrect. Or add in something correct. But please stop telling me the sourcing is not good, when it obviously is. CT55555 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that someone doesn't like a source or author doesn't mean it can't be used to help characterize and establish due weight to what Narby writes or claims in his book. Indeed, it's better than using the book itself (would we want Wikipedians alone summarizing what they think the main arguments or take home messages are?). Griffiths is of course not the only source to review this book or write about Narby. The view that basically only sources who shit on a controversial book or theory, or that only subject matter experts can be cited for straightforward comments such as "X claims Y in his book" strikes me as elitist, gatekeeping, and implicitly POV pushing. Mention of claims is not the same as endorsement of claims. My vote to merge hasn't changed, realizing of course that good editing means modifying the content accordingly post merge, not crudely shoe-horning one article inside another. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Better than using the book itself" is true. But it is still not good enough. jps (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think my edits are not good enough, the talk page of the article is a good venue to seek opinions from others. But I remain confident in using The Guardian's book review on a wikipedia article about the book. I'm so deeply within Wikipedia norms here that I don't know what else to say. CT55555 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may think you are, but just because a review is published in The Guardian doesn't mean that we have to let our brains fall out. It is undeniable that Jay Griffiths is a compromised source from the perspective of believing in pretty outlandish claims that are similar to Jeremy Narby's. The whole point of our WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG warnings is to avoid nonsense like this. jps (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you said, I think WP:REDFLAG is not relevant. seems to me to indicate that you don't think it is remarkable or extraordinary to support the outlandish claims that Narby and Griffiths are making about shamans having intuitive knowledge of the DNA's double helix. That's, to put it mildly, somewhat concerning. jps (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to critique the book. This is not a forum or a place for original research. I sense that we're not going to reach consensus here. We've both shared our different opinions. Let's leave space for others to do so and agree to disagree please. CT55555 (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research to demand a source that does not credulously accept at face value claims of a magic transference of scientific knowledge when someone takes a certain South American hallucinogen. jps (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please pause. Let me try to help you recalibrate here.
We're not reviewing the book. I have no opinions on the validity or silliness of the contents. We are editing an article about the book. We include what reliable sources say about it. If you have a reliable source that says the book is a heap of manure, you should add that in.
Again: we are not all collaboratively writing a book review. We're writing an encyclopaedia article about the book and what people said about the book, not our personal opinions on it. CT55555 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no opinions on the validity or silliness of the contents, then this may explain why you are accepting credulous reviews as evidence of notability. It's not about opinions at all. It's about identifying WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:FRINGE claims. Since you have abrogated any editorial responsibility in that regard, you refuse to apply WP:REDFLAG to the source on the sole basis that the review was published in a particular newspaper that often has high standards (which is one of the main reasons WP:SENSATION exists -- because even good publishing outfits can go bad). In any case, the problem here is that you cannot write an encyclopedia article about a book if it has not been noticed by WP:Independent sources. Griffiths, due to an acceptance of the premise of the fringe claim, is not an independent source of high caliber. jps (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article is not being used as a source for medical fact claims. CT55555 brought it up in this discussion as a notability claim, for which it is perfectly valid, answering the question: did a mainstream media publication review the book? (Answer: yes.) I've read CT55555's Guardian-sourced edits in the article itself. They are:
  • "The book argued that..." This seems to me uncontroversial. Whether the book is fringe or not, it argued something. Do you have reason to believe it did not argue what the Guardian said it did?
  • "The book documents numerous indigenous peoples who incorporate images of snakes in their documentation of human creation stories..." This is another basic fact claim: either the book did this or it did not. Fringe and opinion do not matter here.
  • "His own ayahuasca ingestion was followed by hallucination and visions of two snakes, which he associates with DNA." Out of an abundance of caution, I have edited this to begin, "Narby writes that..." We now have a third basic fact claim.
Every single one of these is a fact about what the book says, not whether any of those things are useful, believable, true, or scientific. CT55555's edits are perfectly reasonable; while we may have reason to believe that Griffiths is a credulous reader, we don't have any reason to believe Griffiths is lying about the contents of the book. -- asilvering (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proper context is vital to evaluate the notability of a fringe claim (I am glad we agree the book is promoting fringe claims). The relevant consideration is WP:NFRINGE and WP:FRIND which, in my estimation, make this review more than a little problematic. People who take the idea that ayahuasca hallucinations are indicating ancient knowledge of DNA at face value are necessarily WP:PROFRINGE. This is the problem. jps (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment jps you can find a link to a critical review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremy_Narby I can't access it to add it in, but I think this is what you are looking for to provide more criticism of the book and I would encourage anyone to add this in, if they can access it.
Full link Das, Pranab (January 31, 1999). "Take Anthropologist's Conclusions With Grain of Salt". Winston-Salem Journal. p. 18 – via NewsBank. CT55555 (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you can access it. I assume it exists, but cannot confirm and none of my usual techniques for finding this sort of source has worked yet. jps (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to access it, but I have since added several critical reviews. CT55555 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Cosmic_Serpent&oldid=1088960203"