We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately andimpartially. Our purpose isnot 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 relevantWikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Sure, we can call an area which has a, to quote the HRP,small body of scholarship but that the rest of the field hasn't really studied in detail FRINGE/ALT. As the section header implies, those sections more typically and appropriately apply to specificformulations and theories, andPlurality (identity) seems like it may be broad enough to have multiple theories on it.Alpha3031 (t •c)10:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the basic center of this the proposal (medical or otherwise) that people so completely disassociate as to seeminglyactually comparmentalize their selves, to where they can interact (I guess?) as separate entities? And anything else then hangs off that central core topic? So basically, I suppose, how theHulk is depicted as an analogy? —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)17:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I’m happy with this statement in Otherkin: “ Because of the neurodivergence, transgender people who identify as otherkin are common.”. That only has one source.Doug Wellertalk18:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's not really a hard line between strongly held belief and religion is there? The lead of the plurality (identity) article explicitly mentionstulpas, which are an entirely religious concept.Hemiauchenia (talk)18:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Mobile, at nkd protest) Sources for plurality make Tulpamancy out to be all intentionally/unintentionally non disorded created system.s
there's not really a hard line between strongly held belief and religion is there?
The way I see it, one can have a strong belief about anything, while a religion is usually organised, has canonical texts and a community of believers.TurboSuperA+[talk]19:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This VICE article is cited 8 times in the article. It is written by Tori Telfer, a freelance writer, who doesn't seem to have any relevant credentials in psychology/psychiatry and hasn't been published in the discipline. She writes true crime/non fiction novels. I think the use of that source should be evaluated, as I don't think it passes the BESTRS (MEDRS?) muster.TurboSuperA+[talk]19:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a split. One issue I can see is that the glossary consists of terms that are sourced to peer-reviewed scientific journals and the aforementioned VICE article, resulting in false equivalence. I also wonder if other editors think there areWP:FALSEBALANCE issues with the article.TurboSuperA+[talk]20:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching the article for a month or so now and yeah, I would say my main concern with it is related toWP:FALSEBALANCE. The problem with this topic is kind of the classicWP:FRINGE problem where it just doesn't get much attention from mainstream figures in the relevant field, even if it's notable enough for an article. There's also the fact that analyzed through one lens it's medical but there are other frameworks for analysis that definitely aren't--there's the subcultural/internet phenomenon aspect, there's philosophical claims about personality, and those can and should be covered without using MEDRS sourcing. I think the internet subculture aspect is being reasonably well-covered in the article, but I think some of the existing sourcing could be used to make it more clear that the claims about non-disordered plurality are controversial (and controversial in a way that's distinct from the "doesDID even exist" conversation).CarringtonMist (talk)15:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
essentially "But since tulpagenic plurals do not meet the diagnostic criterion for DID (nor perhaps for any mental disorder), they may show that being multiple, and even having a plural identity, is not in and of itself unhealthy.⁹" -Flower (she/her;Accounts))15:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know a handful of people who identify this way, and while I'm not suggesting citing my anecdotal claims for any article use, I can say with absolute certainty that not one of them identifies this as a mental illness.
As it was explained to me by the first person I met who identified this way (who got pestered with questions because I'm a giant, curious nerd), "It's more a matter of different moods having different identities, and sometimes, there's not a lot of communication between them."
My experiences may be an outlier, but I would say that, absent any reliable sources which show that most people who identify this way claim to have DID, the claim that they're 'pretending' to have a mental illness isn't worth the pixels it displays on.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's theWP:COMMONNAME at the moment. As I said, I want to split to Multiplicity (phenomenon) and Plurality (identity) when the article has enough content to warrent a split. Previous attempts to split the article failed as they where merged back into it. -Flower (she/her;Accounts)15:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. There is no real reason we need to declare whether a topic is one type of fringe or another. It is fine for us to pay attention to the fringe guideline and work to put our best foot forward in terms of the principles of encyclopedia writing, but falling into categorical traps as though this is goingright great wrongs in the world is a mistake. Talkpage notes are best used to put a stop to perpetual arguing, and, right now, there is little conflict that I see about article writing even among those who have differing opinions on the topics discussed in the article. This article is very much about adeveloping topic. As of a decade ago, there was basically zero literature talking about those who self-identified as as plural (this is partially why so much is inherited from theVice article. For better or worse, they were one of the first outfits to notice this community). We are fortunate that we have a handful of sources from various publications documenting the community existence. As long as the trend continues where more usable sources are created about this, I think we'll be fine and we don't need to try to paste labels on talkpages.jps (talk)20:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion about source quality and whetherEarthquake light should have a Skepticism section taking place, and whether it's justified considering scientific skeptics' lack of credentials. Also, concerns about sourcing quality in the article overall.Geogene (talk)16:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comment contained a factual error which I have corrected, and the current version no longer contains the phrase you seemingly took exception to. You may consider it struck. I do however agree with Very Polite Person about their reliability for obvious reasons. —Rutebega (talk)19:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunning's credibility was previously challenged on those grounds at RSNB[2], the outcome was that the editor making that argument was topic banned from UFOs[3].Geogene (talk)19:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was the outcome of an ANI thread, not the RSN discussion, which was never closed with a clear consensus. I assume you were not intending to threaten me with similar sanctions. —Rutebega (talk)20:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most discussions aren't closed, that doesn't mean no consensus is apparent. You could start a new thread there, if you really think that Dunning is unreliable. His bog is widely cited in other articles.Geogene (talk)Geogene (talk)20:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear about the proposal here - I do not assert that the page shouldn't include the delusional presentation front and center, I merely suggest asserting it as fact is beyond what is suggested by the most up to date resources on the topic.
Indeed it's my opinion that we should still be primarily presenting it as delusional, given that the majority of perspectives on the belief system treat it as such (including in Johnston, 2024), but that there -are- significant perspectives in reliable sources that do not treat it as delusional and argue against that presentation (for instance, viewing the belief-system as "delusion-like" instead of "delusional") that should be able to be presented on that page, given that they are significant views. The current page structure does not really allow for it though, which appears to be a violation of WP:NPOV.
A separate proposal points out that the current sourcing standards are inadequate for presenting the belief system as factually delusional under MEDRS, given that presenting a belief system as "persecutory delusions" is biomedical information. That doesn't mean we can't keep the presentation, just that we can't be asserting it as fact with current sources.Amranu (talk)17:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But, is that "Gang Stalking"? You had to use a piped link because that phrase isn't actually used in that context. I don't think anyone is disputing the obvious fact that it's possible for a group of two or more people to stalk someone.ApLundell (talk)19:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what relevance this has. We are discussing the research on TIs, not whether or not gangstalking is a real experience. You're not going to convince anyone here that gangstalking is actually happening (including me), and doing so won't change Wikipedia as it must reflect what the reliable sources state. The issue above is that the gang-stalking page isn't allowing perspectives from reliable sources other than those stating it as "delusional", and that sourcing is inadequate to support the current assertion of gangstalking as factually delusional, but no one is going to claim gangstalking is actually happening.Amranu (talk)19:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to the NPOV, I want to share several paragraphs of what Dr. Joseph Pierre wrote about the diagnostic paradox I reference in the proposal. In Ch. 3 on the book, he goes into detail of an attempted resolution of the paradox by essentially splitting gangstalking beliefs into two components: delusion-like beliefs that are shared subculturally, and delusion proper beliefs that are self-referential beliefs in gangstalking.
Is my talk page fine for sharing this material temporarily so people can get a better sense of the perspective that I think should be acknowledged on the gangstalking page, but isn't? It should be clear from the material that 1) This is clearly a significant perspective, given the weight it is given by Pierre (as well as the fact that it has existed for nearly 20 years) 2) This is a statement on the beliefs themselves, not on how to treat TIs 3) Pierre acknowledges some aspects of gangstalking beliefs are delusion-like instead of delusional, while other aspects clearly meet the threshold of delusionality.
We can argue about whether this perspective necessitates changes to the POV ofGang stalking on the talk page, but I think it should be clear from the treatment given that it's a perspective that should be acknowledged on the page, and I think sharing the material should help clear things up for folks. It's about 4-5 paragraphs in length.Amranu (talk)07:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watchingTwin Flames Universe for awhile now mostly taking care of IP edits trying to claim it's not a cult (mostly originating from the group's location) and other COI or promotional edits. It probably could use more eyes from folks familiar with fringe topics after some recent edits though.
The recent issue that brought me here is that editors have recently been trying to remove the term cult and call it a "new religious movement" rather than acult. At least for me, that flags as aMOS:EUPHEMISM issue, especially if it happens in articles of groups that are known for coercion, etc. That's as opposed to a more milquetoast "new religious movement" that's just different and would maybe only be called a cult by religious groups that call anything different a "cult" (where we'd ignore a cult name in sources in terms ofWP:DUE). Anyone else run into this?
The other question is onWP:LABEL where cult is mentioned. The gist when I've read through relevant talk archives is that cult is a little different than some of the other terms listed, to be careful about its use, and use attribution when in doubt. Generally we include the term cult though when it is widely used by sources and it's a more clear cut case where the negative label is more in line withWP:NPOV. I'm seeing comments at the article saying it ismandatory to only say "cult" with direct attribution. I'm not sure if that's pushing the MOS guideline too far given the nuance on navigating the cult topic discussed in the archives there (and maybe there's meta-discussions elsewhere I'm not aware of). Has there ever been any centralized discussion here on how we handle cults in terms of naming?KoA (talk)16:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice canvassing attempt. NothingWP:FRINGE about this. I should be familiar to regulars here. I have no interest in whitewashing "cults", just enforcing the manual of style regardingMOS:LABEL. I am in no way suggesting downplaying the apparent abusive behaviour of this group, just asking that the attribution of "cult" be made to others rather than be in wikivoice.Hemiauchenia (talk)18:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a FRINGE issue? Cult as a word is entirely opinion based; "new religious movement" is not a euphemism but the most commonly used academic term. This is whatMOS:LABEL says: "[contentious labels] may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject,in which caseuse in-text attribution".
So, don't use words like cult to describe groups, unless they are really commonly used to describe them, but even so, you have to attribute them. We now say that experts have called them a cult, but do not say in wikivoice that they are one. We cannot call people meaningless value terms in wikivoice no matter how widespread they, are, e.g. every biography source onAdolf Hitler calls him evil but we cannot say "Hitler is evil" in wikivoice on his article", or ISIS a terrorist group in their first sentence - rather, we say they are a militant group and they have been designated a terrorist group by some governments.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article for the villageYuzurihara currently has a section about how hyaluronic acid has kept the villagers young. My suspicion is that it needs to be trimmed or removed, but I wanted to know if anyone here had thoughts on it.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸17:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing used definitely doesn't seem reliable, so I'd remove it on those grounds alone. If it had used proper references, even if was just the news coverage mentioned, then I'd say we should just make sure that the wording of the section is neutral and doesn't purport that the claims are true or accurate. But, in this case with bad sourcing, bin it.SilverserenC17:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's from a real ABC documentary[4]. There is some decent sourcing I found here[5]. Needs to be made clear that there is no dispositive evidence that Given that longevity is what the village is commonly known for (even in Japan apparently[6]), it should be reworked, rather than removed.Katzrockso (talk)17:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A statement like "the village is colloquially known for having enhanced longevity" is not really a statement ofWP:BMI, it's a statement about how a village is perceived/understood by the larger populace, irrespective of whether or not that is a true statement.
Regardless, there isWP:MEDRS on this topic, such as this book[7], published by [Shueisha], the largest publishing company in Japan. Apparently there has been a decline in the longevity of this village over time.
I agree with the other editors that the speculations about hyaluronic acid should be removed, but not the observation of increased longevity in the town, which is a demographic observation. But I don't care particularly strongly about this issue, so if there is consensus for total removal I will not object.Katzrockso (talk)18:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Search the village on google scholar and the first thing that comes up is 長寿村の短命化の現況: 棡原村の 50 年間の観察, published in 東京医科大学雑誌, Journal of Tokyo Medical University. It's a report that states (roughly) "Later, after becoming a physician, I conducted a field survey of Kirihara with Professor Emeritus Shoji Kondo of Tohoku University in 1968, and as a result, the village was recognized as one of Japan's leading villages for longevity." The report later goes on to state that "in the past 20 years there has been a sharp increase in deaths among the middle-aged population". other papers literally put "Longevity Village Ihara" in the title ([8]). It is in fact quite interesting that the village has this description as being a longevity village but that the longevity has subsequently declined. That some people have used this observation to promote their pet theories on increased longevity is a separate question.Katzrockso (talk)18:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just cited good sources on this matter that I found quickly, there are multiple other ones I found on Google Scholar. Here is another 2012 paper[9] (warning this will download the pdf to your computer) that summarizes the research on the village and the decline in longevity (apparently called 逆さ仏 by locals). Obstinate refusal to recognize that maybe this isn't a baseless observation and has been discussed in reliable sources seems unreasonable.Katzrockso (talk)20:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is undeniable that the village has areputation for once being the residence of people who were claimed to live longer than others. However, I see no verification that this reputation is anything more than supposition. I see absolutely no data that would support the contention that the town's lifespans were statistically notable.jps (talk)21:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think the section should be nuked as promoting pseudoscience. First it talks aboutdietary Hyaluronic acid (The citations are notWP:RS so we haven't actually established that the villagers of Yuzurihara have high levels of hyaluronic acid in their diet), then jumps without explanation intotopical Hyaluronic acid, making unsourced claims about its effects.Injected Hyaluronic acid has medical uses, but most of the claims about topical and dietary Hyaluronic acid are snake oil.
MMM (OR Altert) so just around the time it starts getting attention, the population stops living so long? So was this just "anecdotal longevity" ?Slatersteven (talk)18:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or possibly our old friendRegression toward the mean. If you look at all of the villages in Japan and pick the one with the highest longevity, a later look at the same village will almost always result in a longevity closer to the mean longevity of all villages. --Guy Macon (talk)19:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a shock! Someone searches all of Japan and picks the one village that has the most super-old people in it. They come back 20 years later and find that most of them have died and the average age is now much closer to the mean. Who could have predicted such an outcome? Most 100-year-olds are still alive at age 120, right? --Guy Macon (talk)23:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ning Li was a physicist purportedly researching "anti-gravity" who died a few years ago. Unfortunately—like the tragic case of the suicidal Amy Eskridge—her death of natural causes has been reimagined as part of a sprawling conspiracy to suppress proof of the imminent takeover of Earth by a Draco Army being bred in catacombs beneath the Appalachian Mountains. This reimagining presumably has caused her family much distress (I assume; I only know it did in the case of Eskridge). My cursory search of the usual places finds her WP biography appearing as a focal point of these theories and this may be a case where they can be terminated by simply deleting it ...assuming, of course, it is eligible for deletion.
I haveAfDed it here and those who would like to !vote Keep or Delete can do so.
For awareness, as usual, this has become a spotlight for off-WP canvassing on Reddit, however, (also as usual) those being canvassed are struggling to figure out how to actually !vote in the discussion so there's probably no particular risk of contamination.Chetsford (talk)23:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BACKGROUND: Journal Article:On the nature of apparent transient sources on the National Geographic Society–Palomar Observatory Sky Survey glass copy plates N C Hambly, A Blair RAS Techniques and Instruments, Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2024, Pages 73–79[10]
"We find that (i) the image profiles of the transients are significantly sharper than typical stellar images on the plates; (ii) that an ML decision-tree classifier badges the images as spurious with high probability; (iii) that similar examples of apparent transients are present on the copy plate of the adjacent field; and finally (iv) that there are many hundreds of similar images on both plates in the overlap region between the two fields.
We suggest one likely mechanism for the origin of at least some of these apparent transients as being emulsion holes on the intermediate positive plates used during reproduction of the copy sets. We therefore caution that digitized all-sky survey catalogues derived from the POSSI glass copies are likely peppered with these isolated false detections and that great care must be exercised when interpreting the publicly available digitized images or when making samples of unpaired catalogue records derived from them."
An IP user (Do we still call them IP's now?} has been removing criticism and claims of spreading pseudoscience fromGaia, Inc. I sadly am not in the position to do full research on the veracity of these edits, however they seem like whitewashing of conspiratorial anti-establisment medical claims. I thought it better to leave it here for someone to look at than to just ignore it. If this isn't the place, feel free to just remove it, sorry if I waste anyones time.
Talking about someone whitewashing a fringe topic is never a waste of time. We will have to keep dealing with this problem as long as there is money to be made from stopping those mean old Wikipedia editors from saying bad things about someone's Snake Oil business.
Re-evaluation counseling andCo-counselling are both currently in a rather poor state and have been for probably a decade or more now. While there was some attention given to both by fairly experienced editors (and thank both of them for the attempt honestly), I'm considering a more drastic stubification or possibly even noming an AFD. Some other opinions on what could be excised and what might be salvageable would be welcome though.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think AfD is right. There's coverage in reliable sources, but much is old and not readily accessible online. I'd favour mergingRe-evaluation counseling intoCo-counselling, and further merging inHarvey Jackins andTim Jackins, while trimming away the primary and self-published sources.
There is an ongoing RfC atNPOVN on whether gender exploratory therapy should be described as a form of conversion therapy. Editors interested in the issue are welcome to comment.TarnishedPathtalk05:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really baffling comment! There is actually nothing wrong with discussing political groups who aspouse pseudoscience here, as can be seen going back 18 years in the archives.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk12:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mouse's comment has confused me. My takeaway fromGuy Macon's comment was not that the political groups who espouse pseudoscience should not be discussed here. The groups themselves, to the extent that we are discussing their promotion of pseudoscience are fair game, and always have been. Right, Guy?VdSV9•♫12:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. Talk about the pseudoscience. Name the politicians and political groups that promote it. Stay away from all theother things you dislike or like about those politicians or political groups. --Guy Macon (talk)13:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zulfiqar (the sword ofAli) has been repeatedly edited to insert fantastic claims using unreliable sources. For example, one citation claims that: the one true sword of Ali from the 7th century has been found. According to the CIA, the Shah of Iran sent a "sacred artifact" (ie. the sword) to Kuwait. Thereal reason that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait was to retrieve the holy relic. (The sword is claimed to be worth 27X more than the Mona Lisa. But, they are taking offers for 4.3 billion Swiss Francs.)[12] This reference was used to support the authenticity of the claim that this sword was possessed by Ali.
See contributions from:
User:Меч Пророка (Google translate from Russian: "Sword of the Prophet")
User:Sword Nr.1 (myself and another editor left messages on the talk page)
This has been going on since April. Project Sword just reinserted the section two days after I removed it and left a note on the talk page. --mikeutalk15:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate some oversight from experienced contributors regardingDraft:Allatra, recently "draftified" article about a pseudo-scientific Ukrainian cult.
The article was created in early November 2025 and expanded substantially by a small number of editors. A brief summary of key edits:8 November 2025 – The article was created in mainspace byUser:Noospherix, with a substantial initial draft.9 November 2025 – Major expansions were added byUser:Time4Tinfoil, including new sections and additional sourcing.16–18 November 2025 – Further refinements, cleanup, and additional content byUser:Noospherix andUser:Federhalter.19 November 2025 –User:Deriannt applied several serious maintenance tags: undue weight, unreliable sources, undisclosed paid, submitted the page for speedy deletion (A7/G10), and then moved the article from mainspace to draftspace with the edit summary:
“Move to draftspace (WP:DRAFTIFY): Possible UPE and socking concerns; vet through AfC for proper review.”
These are significant actions, but when asked on the talk page to identify specific issues in the article text that justify SD, tagging or draftification, only broad or general concerns have been raised (e.g., alleging UPE, LLM-generation, or coordinated editing). Concrete examples—such as specific claims lacking citations, demonstrably unreliable sources, or points of undue weight—have not yet been provided.
To be clear, I am not suggesting the article is perfect; there is room for improvement in sourcing and balance. However, based on reviewing the content, the issues do not appear to rise to the level that would normally justify draftification, and the related concerns have not been substantiated with diffs or policy-grounded examples.
Before considering whether the article should be restored to mainspace, I would appreciate input from editors experienced with fringe-adjacent topics, Eastern European sources, and contentious-topic vetting. Guidance on whether the article warrants remaining in draftspace, or whether normal mainspace editing would be more appropriate, would be very helpful.Salimfadhley (talk)20:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I did not create the article. I became aware of it after it had been created and made several relatively minor edits. Thank you very much for your attention to this.Noospherix (talk)20:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
God the lede is too long and the article appears incredibly unfocused.
Be more specific. One challenge is that the group itself is operating a sprawling web of influence on multiple continents, which doesn't lend itself to simplicity.Noospherix (talk)21:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the updates. I fixed a couple of typos and we can move some of the information that had been in the lede into other sections later.Noospherix (talk)22:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SalimfadhleyThese are significant actions, but when asked on the talk page to identify specific issues in the article text that justify SD, tagging or draftification, only broad or general concerns have been raised (e.g., alleging UPE, LLM-generation, or coordinated editing) – I didn’t expect such a loose comment, because any experienced editor can clearly see that the article is problematic. I hope you’ve seen this:[14]. I also marked a few unreliable sources onMark Burns (pastor)’s page:[15]. The whole article functions as an attack page in its current form and would require a full rewrite.Deriannt (talk)04:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From reviewing the earlier non-NPOV version of the article[16], it appears that the draft may have been structured in a way that uses Wikipedia to advance an anti-Allatra narrative, potentially involving coordinated editing by narrowly focused accounts. The inclusion of sections such asDraft talk:Allatra#Potential for future vandalism by Allatra also appears pre-emptively framed in a manner that could deflect scrutiny or accountability.Deriannt (talk)15:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no coordination between the people editing this. The flurry of activity is because there is interest in this topic. The burden is on you to prove coordination. You asserted UPE and use of sock puppets, which is a clear sign of bad faith engagement.Noospherix (talk)15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coordination is evident and easily verifiable; there is nothing further to prove here. If you have any other accounts, please disclose them.Deriannt (talk)15:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you are definitely operating in bad faith: I do not know any of the other people editing this account. I do not have any other accounts. You assert coordination is 'easily verifiable.' Verify it, then. I'll wait. In the meantime, I hope other editors observe your baseless accusations.Noospherix (talk)15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know for certain you are making a baseless accusation against me, at least. And, yes, I will pursue the appropriate remedies if that doesn't stop. Thanks.Noospherix (talk)15:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Salimfadhley The evidence of coordination has already been sent to a CheckUser administrator. I am currently gathering additional information related to potential UPE, which will also be provided by email. You may request the relevant details from the appropriate Wikipedia functionaries if needed.Deriannt (talk)08:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Please let me know where you are posting all this so I can finally meet the people I'm colluding with. The reason I can assert that you are acting in bad faith (at least with regards to any charges you are making about me) is that I have first hand knowledge that I am not connected to any other editor. It is unusual that you are making such an extensive effort to pursue something I know to be spurious, which only raises more questions.
@Salimfadhley I am ready to move forward with either gutting this article to a barebones skeleton, or starting a new one. We can perhaps continue that discussion on the Talk page. Thanks.Noospherix (talk)15:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful ofWP:NPA and ensure that comments remain focused on content rather than contributors. Given the previous policy issues raised regarding your edits on theMark Burns (pastor) article, it would be advisable to review the relevant policies again to avoid repeating similar violations[17][18].Deriannt (talk)15:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a list, but I don't see some of those in the draft. Where does it talk about medical misinformation or hoax technologies? --Guy Macon (talk)01:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the article does not yet coverall of these cases, but the referenced sources certainly do. If it would make sense to break each of those out into their own sections, that's something to consider doing.Noospherix (talk)02:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon There are many instances of misinformation in the article, especially where LLM-provided references([19],[20],[21] etc.) were inserted and now require manual verification. I’m relieved that experienced editors are reviewing it, and once the issues are properly addressed, I’ll be happy to move it to mainspace myself.Deriannt (talk)04:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However one wants to frame it, it is indisputable that Allatra has made multiple claims of Mark Burns' involvement. It is also undisputed that he has traveled with and been photographed with AllatRa leader Ovytsnova. This is something that Burns himself haspublicized.Noospherix (talk)01:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes, I understand the concern. We are likely ahead of such coverage, despite the obvious facts of the situation. I will report back with links to any such coverage. I understand also the desire to avoid primary sources, but when two primary sources each independently confirm their involvement with each other, that seems like something that should be taken more seriously than if one source claimed it unilaterally.Noospherix (talk)01:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I advise that you start with reading the following pages.WP:PRIMARY,WP:RS. Print them out and study them. If there is anything you don't understand, ask a question atWP:HELPDESK, quoting the exact wording you are having trouble with. Note that the policy does not say that you can't use a primary source, but rather explains when you can and can not us one. --Guy Macon (talk)02:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a trained historian, I am familiar with such concerns. I think this section applies to the interlock between these two explicit primary sources. "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Noted.Noospherix (talk)03:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is clear. However, if two primary sources are both making reciprocal endorsements about the other, then those claims should be able to be cited factually without significant concern. Any issue would come from excess interpretation of those primary source assertions.Noospherix (talk)04:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was a clear violation ofWP:BLP, so it was removed entirely. I’d like to request again that primary sources not be used to support synthesis or serious allegations. Also, please keep in mind the guidance atWP:NOTNEWS.Deriannt (talk)08:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used look fine and it's OK to present fringe views so long as they're not in wikivoice. Some more of the scientific response reported in those sources might be included.Fences&Windows19:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Came here from the Reform Uk page to comment hope that is allowed).It's not propaganda it is including the views of a deputy of Reform.Some opposing views have been included but I would support more being included.GothicGolem29(Talk)18:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A non-ECR editor added some content criticizing Haidt's viewpoints. I moved it to the talk page and found an additional reference that might be used. Any help would be appreciated, but especially editors that are familiar with the general consensus around race and intelligence content. --Hipal (talk)22:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for genetic differences in intelligence between "races" and indeed only evidence against it. This was determined at a 2021 RfC[23] that reaffirmed a 2020 RfC that "the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory", but there have been more sources each year since then that go to establish this.Katzrockso (talk)22:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question there is really one ofdue weight. It's clear that Haidt has parroted uninformed, fringe positions on race and intelligence as part of a largerJeremiad against "woke" or whatever. But this aspect of his argument appears to be rather minor, given that only two glancing mentions in mainstream news sources have been provided. I'd say unless someone can find more substantial coverage, the R&I stuff is probably not encyclopedic content for a BLP.Generalrelative (talk)01:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't comment on the substance of including the content in the article, just clarifying the consensus. I don't think Haidt really directly professes an opinion on race & IQ, I think he's criticizing what he perceives as politicization of the subject, see e.g.[24] (on page 6 of this pdf or 60 of the original source).Katzrockso (talk)02:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone clarify what what we are meant to put under a section about "political views"? Like under most biographies in wikipedia, the written under "political views"are just a list of their political views with an independent reliable source confirming it.Maxandruby123 (talk)03:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised to see such a fawning bio for a figure who has proposed sketchy/fringe or at least fringe-adjacent views. Also surprised to see the Nature review[25] of his social media book is not included.Bon courage (talk)03:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From a scholarly source: "claims that genes play a role in producing differences in cognitive traits that bring success in the modern world—such as intelligence and impulse control—are often greeted with embarrassed silence or harsh denunciation, independent of their scientific merit (Haidt 2009). ... Jonathan Haidt recounts that after the publication of E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology, which proposed among other things that gene–culture co-evolution might explain some behavioural differences between groups, Wilson was harassed and excoriated, in print and in public. He was called a fascist, which justified (for some) the charge that he was a racist, which justified (for some) the attempt to stop him from speaking in public (2012, 38)."[26]Fences&Windows14:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fyi the "rightly" there is confusing - He is saying that Haidt is correct in saying that the idea is offensive - but not that Haidt personally is morally opposed to it.Maxandruby123 (talk)15:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y alright.Flower (she/her;User talk:IPOfAFlower)18:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added a{{Unreferenced}} tag to this article.Flower (she/her;User talk:IPOfAFlower)20:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
